Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035

Becoming a 21st-Century Force

VOLUME 9 Modeling and Simulation

Panel on Modeling and Simulation

Committee on Technology for Future Naval Forces

Naval Studies Board

Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications

National Research Council

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C.
1997



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035 Becoming a 21st-Century Force VOLUME 9 Modeling and Simulation Panel on Modeling and Simulation Committee on Technology for Future Naval Forces Naval Studies Board Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1997

OCR for page R1
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council. This work was performed under Department of the Navy Contract N00014-96-D-0169/0001 issued by the Office of Naval Research under contract authority NR 201-124. However, the content does not necessarily reflect the position or the policy of the Department of the Navy or the government, and no official endorsement should be inferred. The United States Government has at least a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license throughout the world for government purposes to publish, translate, reproduce, deliver, perform, and dispose of all or any of this work, and to authorize others so to do. Copyright 1997 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Copies available from: Naval Studies Board National Research Council 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418 Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force PANEL ON MODELING AND SIMULATION GEORGE F. CARRIER, Harvard University, Chair PAUL K. DAVIS, RAND and the RAND Graduate School, Vice Chair DONALD K. BLUMENTHAL, Gualala, California RICHARD BRONOWITZ, Center for Naval Analyses JOHN C. DOYLE, California Institute of Technology DONALD P. GAVER, Naval Postgraduate School DON E. HIHN, Charleston, South Carolina RICHARD J. IVANETICH, Institute for Defense Analyses JOHN P. LEHOCZKY, Carnegie Mellon University DAVID L. McDOWELL, Georgia Institute of Technology DUNCAN C. MILLER, Massachusetts Institute of Technology DAVID R. OLIVER, Northrop Grumman Corporation GABRIEL ROBINS, University of Virginia BERNARD P. ZEIGLER, University of Arizona Invited Participant BEN P. WISE, Science Applications International Corporation Navy Liaison Representatives CDR THOMAS COSGROVE, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N858D CAPT JAY KISTLER, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N6M Consultants LEE M. HUNT SIDNEY G. REED, JR. JAMES G. WILSON Staff RONALD D. TAYLOR, Director, Naval Studies Board PETER W. ROONEY, Program Officer SUSAN G. CAMPBELL, Administrative Assistant MARY G. GORDON, Information Officer CHRISTOPHER A. HANNA, Project Assistant

OCR for page R1
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force COMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY FOR FUTURE NAVAL FORCES DAVID R. HEEBNER, Science Applications International Corporation (retired), Study Director ALBERT J. BACIOCCO, JR., The Baciocco Group, Inc. ALAN BERMAN, Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University NORMAN E. BETAQUE, Logistics Management Institute GERALD A. CANN, Raytheon Company GEORGE F. CARRIER, Harvard University SEYMOUR J. DEITCHMAN, Institute for Defense Analyses (retired) ALEXANDER FLAX, Potomac, Maryland WILLIAM J. MORAN, Redwood City, California ROBERT J. MURRAY, Center for Naval Analyses ROBERT B. OAKLEY, National Defense University JOSEPH B. REAGAN, Saratoga, California VINCENT VITTO, Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Navy Liaison Representatives RADM JOHN W. CRAINE, JR., USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N81 (as of July 4, 1996) VADM THOMAS B. FARGO, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N81 (through July 3, 1996) RADM RICHARD A. RIDDELL, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N91 CDR DOUGLASS BIESEL, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N812C1 PAUL G. BLATCH, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N911E Marine Corps Liaison Representative LtGen PAUL K. VAN RIPER, USMC, Marine Corps Combat Development Command Consultants LEE M. HUNT SIDNEY G. REED, JR. JAMES G. WILSON Staff RONALD D. TAYLOR, Director, Naval Studies Board PETER W. ROONEY, Program Officer SUSAN G. CAMPBELL, Administrative Assistant MARY G. GORDON, Information Officer CHRISTOPHER A. HANNA, Project Assistant

OCR for page R1
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force NAVAL STUDIES BOARD DAVID R. HEEBNER, Science Applications International Corporation (retired), Chair GEORGE M. WHITESIDES, Harvard University, Vice Chair ALBERT J. BACIOCCO, JR., The Baciocco Group, Inc. ALAN BERMAN, Center for Naval Analyses NORMAN E. BETAQUE, Logistics Management Institute NORVAL L. BROOME, Mitre Corporation GERALD A. CANN, Raytheon Company SEYMOUR J. DEITCHMAN, Institute for Defense Analyses (retired), Special Advisor ANTHONY J. DeMARIA, DeMaria ElectroOptics Systems, Inc. JOHN F. EGAN, Lockheed Martin Corporation ROBERT HUMMEL, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York University DAVID W. McCALL, Far Hills, New Jersey ROBERT J. MURRAY, Center for Naval Analyses ROBERT B. OAKLEY, National Defense University WILLIAM J. PHILLIPS, Northstar Associates, Inc. MARA G. PRENTISS, Jefferson Laboratory, Harvard University HERBERT RABIN, University of Maryland JULIE JCH RYAN, Booz, Allen and Hamilton HARRISON SHULL, Monterey, California KEITH A. SMITH, Vienna, Virginia ROBERT C. SPINDEL, Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington DAVID L. STANFORD, Science Applications International Corporation H. GREGORY TORNATORE, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University J. PACE VanDEVENDER, Prosperity Institute VINCENT VITTO, Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology BRUCE WALD, Arlington Education Consultants Navy Liaison Representatives RADM JOHN W. CRAINE, JR., USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N81 (as of July 4, 1996) VADM THOMAS B. FARGO, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N81 (through July 3, 1996) RADM RICHARD A. RIDDELL, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N91 RONALD N. KOSTOFF, Office of Naval Research

OCR for page R1
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force Marine Corps Liaison Representative LtGen PAUL K. VAN RIPER, USMC, Marine Corps Combat Development Command RONALD D. TAYLOR, Director PETER W. ROONEY, Program Officer SUSAN G. CAMPBELL, Administrative Assistant MARY G. GORDON, Information Officer CHRISTOPHER A. HANNA, Project Assistant

OCR for page R1
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force COMMISSION ON PHYSICAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICS, AND APPLICATIONS ROBERT J. HERMANN, United Technologies Corporation, Co-Chair W. CARL LINEBERGER, University of Colorado, Co-Chair PETER M. BANKS, Environmental Research Institute of Michigan LAWRENCE D. BROWN, University of Pennsylvania RONALD G. DOUGLAS, Texas A&M University JOHN E. ESTES, University of California at Santa Barbara L. LOUIS HEGEDUS, Elf Atochem North America, Inc. JOHN E. HOPCROFT, Cornell University RHONDA J. HUGHES, Bryn Mawr College SHIRLEY A. JACKSON, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission KENNETH H. KELLER, University of Minnesota KENNETH I. KELLERMANN, National Radio Astronomy Observatory MARGARET G. KIVELSON, University of California at Los Angeles DANIEL KLEPPNER, Massachusetts Institute of Technology JOHN KREICK, Sanders, a Lockheed Martin Company MARSHA I. LESTER, University of Pennsylvania THOMAS A. PRINCE, California Institute of Technology NICHOLAS P. SAMIOS, Brookhaven National Laboratory L.E. SCRIVEN, University of Minnesota SHMUEL WINOGRAD, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center CHARLES A. ZRAKET, Mitre Corporation (retired) NORMAN METZGER, Executive Director

OCR for page R1
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force This page in the original is blank.

OCR for page R1
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force Preface This report is part of the nine-volume series entitled Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force. The series is the product of an 18-month study requested by the Chief of Naval Operations, who, in a memorandum on November 28, 1995, asked the National Research Council to initiate through its Naval Studies Board a thorough examination of the impact of advancing technology on the form and capability of the naval forces to the year 2035. To carry out this study, eight technical panels were organized under the committee on Technology for Future Naval Forces to examine all of the specific technical areas called out in the terms of reference. The study's terms of reference (Appendix A) asked for an identification of “present and emerging technologies that relate to the full breadth of Navy and Marine Corps mission capabilities,” with specific attention to “(1) information warfare, electronic warfare, and the use of surveillance assets; (2) mine warfare and submarine warfare; (3) Navy and Marine Corps weaponry in the context of effectiveness on target; [and] (4) issues in caring for and maximizing effectiveness of Navy and Marine Corps human resources.” The terms of reference went on to identify 10 technical areas for special attention. One involved modeling and simulation (M&S): “The naval service is increasingly dependent upon modeling and simulation. The study should review the overall architecture of models and simulation in the DoD (DoN, JCS, and OSD), the ability of the models to represent real world situations, and their merits as tools upon which to make technical and force composition decisions. ” It was against this background that the Panel on Modeling and Simulation was constituted and asked to develop the present report. Upon reviewing the terms of reference and defining a feasible scope of work, the panel noted that

OCR for page R1
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force recent documents (some of them produced after the terms of reference were created) already provide a reasonable architecture-level survey of the Defense Department's M&S, as well as a vision statement. In particular, the Office of the Secretary of Defense's (OSD's) Defense Modeling and Simulation Office (DMSO) has developed a substantial Master Plan for M&S, the purpose of which is to establish a common technical framework for DOD's M&S. 1 Given this body of existing material, the panel focused its efforts on key issues that have previously received little or insufficient attention. The objectives the panel set for itself, then, were (1) to clarify why the Department of the Navy leadership should care and be concerned about the substantive content and comprehensibility of M&S; (2) to assess what the Navy Department (and DOD) may need to do to benefit fully from the opportunities presented by M&S technology; (3) to clarify what M&S can and cannot be expected to accomplish in aiding decisions on technical, force-composition, and operations planning issues; and (4) to present priorities for M&S-related research. The panel made no attempt to conduct a full survey of M&S relevant to the Department of the Navy. Much of the report deals with large-scale joint models such as those used in campaign planning, the evaluation of systems and new doctrinal concepts, or joint training —e.g., M&S such as the Joint Warfare System (JWARS) and the Joint Simulation System (JSIMS) systems now under development. The report has less to say about engineering- or engagement-level models, although it discusses the important role of simulation-based acquisition. Finally, this report is not a “forecast,” nor does it lay out “roadmaps” for what should be done decade by decade for the next 40 years. Instead, the panel has chosen to focus on a chronic problem that took many years to develop and will take many years to deal with effectively—the lack of a good military-science research foundation on which to base the modeling and simulation that it so much depends on—and on priorities for remedying that problem over the years ahead. Panel membership included experts in the research for and development and application of modeling and simulation, in both defense and nondefense domains. It also included experts in force planning; operations planning; applied mathematics, including probability and statistics; modeling and simulation theory; physics, including statistical mechanics; control theory; computer science; electrical engineering; operations research; gaming; and strategic planning. The panel met eight times to receive briefings from Service and industry 1   See Defense Modeling and Simulation Office. 1995a. Department of Defense Modeling and Simulation (M&S) Master Plan, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, Washington, D.C., October; Kaminski, Paul G., Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology. 1996. “DMSO ‘Modeling and Simulation, '” Keynote address at DOD Fifth Annual Industry Briefing, Alexandria, Va., May 22; and other materials—both formal and informal—available from the DMSO or the DMSO 's World Wide Web site at http://www.dmso.mil .

OCR for page R1
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force representatives, visit facilities, deliberate, and draft its report. It also participated in the three plenary meetings for the overall study. The first plenary meeting, in March 1996, established organization and a common starting point for the entire study. It included presentations by the Chief of Naval Operations and other high-level officials of the Navy Department, the other Services, the Defense Department, and industry. The subsequent plenaries were for drafting, comparison and integration across panels, the working out of cross-cutting issues, and synthesis (reflected primarily in Volume 1: Overview). The result follows. The report (which consists of a summary, the main report, and a set of appendixes) discusses modeling and simulation as a foundation technology for many developments that will be central to the Department of the Navy and Department of Defense over the next 3 to 4 decades. The panel report is, of course, a product of the whole. However, the Vice Chair, Paul Davis, organized and led report preparation. He and Richard Ivanetich also compiled the panel's work and briefed it to study leadership along the way.

OCR for page R1
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force This page in the original is blank.

OCR for page R1
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force Acknowledgments The Panel on Modeling and Simulation is indebted to many people who provided briefings, scientific papers, or discussion time. It gives special thanks to Darryl Morgeson and Chris Barrett of Los Alamos National Laboratory, Jeff Grossman of the Naval Research and Development Laboratory (NRaD), Les Parrish of SPAWAR, Bill Stevens and Jeff Steinman of Metron, Inc., Henson Graves of Lockheed Martin, Tom Skillman of Boeing, Timothy Horrigan of Horrigan Analytics, CDR Dennis McBride, USN, of the Office of Naval Research, and Wayne Hughes of the Naval Postgraduate School. CAPT Jay Kistler, USN, was the panel's contact with the Navy, the study's sponsor. Both he and CDR McBride provided useful briefings and contacts. The panel also acknowledges RAND's courtesy in supplying several of the figures used to illustrate concepts discussed in the report.

OCR for page R1
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force This page in the original is blank.

OCR for page R1
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force Contents     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY   1  1   INTRODUCTION   18      Background and Objectives,   18      Reasons for the Department of the Navy to Be Interested in and Concerned About M&S,   20      Getting Started: Some Definitions and Distinctions,   22      Structure of This Report,   27  2   TECHNOLOGICAL PROSPECTS FOR DOD'S M&S   28      Application Areas,   28      Data on the Value of M&S for Acquisition, OT&E, and Training,   28      M&S as a Cross-cutting Foundation Technology,   31      Some Observations, Forecasts, and Images,   36      Tools for Decision Support,   39      Other M&S-related Forecasts,   43  3   POTENTIAL FAILURES AND DISASTERS FOR DOD'S M&S   44      Broad Observations,   44      Intellectual and Technological Infrastructure,   44      Complex Systems and the Need for Humility,   45

OCR for page R1
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force  4   DEALING WITH AND IMPROVING DOD'S M&S   49      Significance of the Issues,   49      The Multifaceted Nature of Model Quality,   51      Uncertainty as a Core Reality in Building and Using Models,   51      Approaches to Dealing with Uncertainty,   55      “Doing Better” on Model Content: Need for Managerial Changes, Not Just Token Exhortation,   55      Verification, Validation, and Accreditation,   57  5   FOCUSING WARFARE RESEARCH AND IMPROVING M&S   62      Background,   62      Prioritizing Warfare Subjects for Research,   65      Desired Attributes of Research Programs,   65  6   CREATING AND IMPROVING INTELLECTUAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE FOR M&S   70      KEY TECHNICAL PROBLEMS REQUIRING INVESTMENT,   70      Hierarchically Integrated Families of Models,   70      M&S Infrastructure,   77      Repositories and Model Integration,   83      Advanced Environments and High-level Languages for M&S,   83      Recommendations on Joint Models,   85      Recommendations for Research,   88  7   CHALLENGES IN ASSIMILATING AND EXPLOITING M&S TECHNOLOGY   91      Traditional Challenges,   91      Implications for the Navy,   91      A Background of Leadership Aloofness from M&S,   93      New Circumstances and the Need for Technology-driven Attitude Changes,   94      Issues for the Department of the Navy,   95     BIBLIOGRAPHY   101     APPENDIXES       A  TERMS OF REFERENCE   111     B  VIRTUAL ENGINEERING: TOWARD A THEORY FOR MODELING AND SIMULATION OF COMPLEX SYSTEMS John Doyle, California Institute of Technology   116

OCR for page R1
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force     C  SIMULATION-BASED ACQUISITION Richard Ivanetich, Institute for Defense Analyses   171     D  EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS Paul K. Davis, RAND and the RAND Graduate School   180     E  MULTI-RESOLUTION MODELING AND INTEGRATED FAMILIES OF MODELS Paul K. Davis, RAND and the RAND Graduate School Bernard Zeigler, University of Arizona   184     F  MODEL REPOSITORIES AND ASSEMBLY AND INTEGRATION OF MODELS Bernard Zeigler, University of Arizona Paul K. Davis, RAND and the RAND Graduate School   204     G  COMPONENTS OF A THEORY OF MODELING AND SIMULATION Bernard Zeigler, University of Arizona   211     H  AREAS OF RESEARCH IN MODELING AND SIMULATION Bernard Zeigler, University of Arizona   216     I  COMBAT MODELING ISSUES Paul K. Davis, RAND and the RAND Graduate School Donald Blumenthal, Gualala, California Donald Gaver, Naval Postgraduate School   226     J  PROBABILISTIC DEPENDENCIES IN COMBAT MODELS Paul K. Davis, RAND and the RAND Graduate School   233     K  M&S-RELATED EDUCATION Donald Gaver, Naval Postgraduate School   239     L  ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS   245

OCR for page R1
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force This page in the original is blank.