A Proposed Standards Profile for Blended LVC Application Architectures

1. A Proposed Standards Profile for Blended LVC Application Architectures John Logsdon & Dr. Rob Wittman US Army Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training, and Instrumentation

2. Introduction • Purpose: Proposes an initial architecture-oriented standards profile for constructing blended Live Virtual and Constructive (LVC) simulation environments • Problem Statement: do the existing standards (NATO / SISO / IEEE / etc) address the requirements for future LVC architectures • Approach: review the basis and implementation of existing standards within the individual Live, Virtual and Constructive domains for applicability as part of a blended LVC architecture

3. Standards - A Lifecycle Perspective MODEL B REQUIREMENTS SIMULATION A REQUIREMENTS TOOL C REQUIREMENTS SIMILAR CAPABILITIES BINNED ( DOMAIN / FEDERATION ) IMPLEMENTED CAPABILITIES IMPLEMENTED CAPABILITIES IMPLEMENTED CAPABILITIES COMMUNITY INTENT TO FORMALIZE STANDARDS BODY APPROVAL STANDARDS BODY ACCEPTANCE

4. LVC Standards - Lifecycle Perspective LIVE DOMAIN CONSTRUCTIVE DOMAIN VIRTUAL DOMAIN SIMILAR STANDARDS BINNED ( LVC ARCHITECTURE ) UTILIZED STANDARDS UTILIZED STANDARDS UTILIZED STANDARDS ESTABLISH BLENDED SOLUTION SET PURSUE NEW STANDARDS DETERMINE CRITICAL GAPS

5. LVC-IA: A US Army Perspective The LVC-IA and Infrastructure consists of two mutually dependent components. The Live Virtual Constructive Integrating Architecture defines “how” information is exchanged… The Live Virtual Constructive Training Infrastructure provides the “means” for communicating, exchanging data… The end-state goal of the LVC-IA and Infrastructure is to enable an LVC Integrated Training Environment that approximates the Operating Environment. Live/Virtual/Constructive Integrating Architecture (LVC-IA)

6. An Analysis of LVC Standards

7. LVC Standard Recommendations • Our overall findings show that the defined M&S standards do apply to the construction and execution of an LVC environment • Additional engineering rigor and coordination from a system of systems perspective must occur • A number of gaps were also identified • Pre-Exercise gap: No specific engineering process for “Blending LVC Components” • This study advocates a system of systems approach that leverages a combination of top-down systems engineering processes specifying constraints and guidelines that account for a bottoms-up assessment of what the identified components have “as built in” constraints (I.E. support for only a single M&S interoperability standard). • Pre-Exercise gap: No “business rules” included within the Modelling section to augment reference FOMs, BOMs, and graphical modelling techniques like UML and SysML • Needed to give LVC integrators and LVC component developers the appropriate information to exchange and use the data according to plan.

8. LVC Standard Recommendations • A number of gaps were also identified (Cont) • Pre-Exercise: No area within Modelling is identified to house and categorize standardized conceptual models concerning physical representations for line of sight (LOC), mobility, vulnerability, delivery accuracy, etc. • Required to enabling consistency among LVC components as part of the enduring “fair fight” issues between independently developed models • Exercise Execution: lack of a common data set to assess the health and management data of each of the LVC components. • Although each of the infrastructure technologies defines a management-type data model if none of the technologies are used or multiple technologies are used there is no simple common intersection • Post Exercise: lack of A specific minimal data model for post-exercise review • Necessary to provide a holistic review of all the data in a cohesive and coherent manner. • RECOMMENDATION: A MORE FORMAL REVIEW OF THE AMSP-01(A) STANDARDS USING THIS REPORT AS INPUT TO INVESTIGATE AND AUGMENT AMSP-01(A) • REFLECT THE GROWING TREND FOR DISCIPLINED ENGINEERING-BASED DEVELOPMENT OF BLENDED LVC ENVIRONMENTS.