the concept of linked constructive simulations, with Army ground force players at remote sites being linked to the U.S. Air Force Air Warrior Center. An exercise called STOW-97 was conducted to test new doctrine, tactics, and weapon system concepts. It incorporated Soar-based IFORs to represent fixed-wing air-craft that exhibited human-like behavior. The STOW concept has expanded and evolved to include linking of virtual simulations in both joint service and North Atlantic Treaty Organization scenarios.
Joint combat operations (JCATS) is being developed by the Conflict Simulation Laboratory at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to model joint combat operations, as well as unconventional warfare (e.g., hostage rescue, operations other than war). Coverage is from the individual up to the division level. Currently, no human behavior representation is included, and all tactics and play are specified by the human players. However, efforts are under way to incorporate an optimal route-planning algorithm developed by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to support route planning for individual and unit entities. No cognitive architecture has been specified for representing synthetic human players.
The joint warfare system (JWARS) is being developed by the JWARS program office to model joint combat operations (Prosser, 1996a, 1996b). Key command and control, communications, and computers (C4) intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) modeling requirements include the following tasks:
Situation development and assessment
Intelligence planning and direction
Command and control decision making
It is not clear whether any attempts are being made to represent the way human decision makers accomplish these tasks. For example, situation development and assessment are modeled by a stepwise process of (1) data fusion, (2) situation map generation, and (3) enemy course-of-action assessment through best-fit matching of library templates to the estimated situation map. Although this approach reflects a plausible process for automated situation assessment, whether it provides an appropriate basis for human behavior representation is unclear. Likewise, there is no description of how or whether JWARS models the human planning function for either intelligence planning and collection or operations planning. Additional review is clearly needed, especially in light of the emphasis being placed on JWARS as the keystone tool for joint operations analysis.