Training Transformation (T2) Overview

1. Training Transformation (T2)Overview Fred Hartman Director, JAEC OUSD (P&R)

2. Dynamic, complex security environment World of uncertainty and surprise Adaptive enemies Employ asymmetric approaches Non-traditional environments Skill set: war fighter - diplomat Defending at Home Lesser Contingency Lesser Contingency Deter Forward Deter Forward Deter Forward Deter Forward Win Decisively Swiftly Defeat Swiftly Defeat The Training Challenge in Today’s Security Environment:

3. Provide dynamic, capabilities-based training for the Department of Defense in support of national security requirements across the full spectrum of service, joint, interagency, intergovernmental, and multinational operations. Create Dynamic, Global Knowledge Network Joint Knowledge Development & Distribution Capability Establish Performance Assessment Architecture Joint Assessment & Enabling Capability Build Live, Virtual, Constructive (LVC) Training Environment Joint National Training Capability Training Transformation Vision and Capabilities

4. Force Transformation Approved by SECDEF T2 Strategic Plan Approved by DEPSEC T2 Implementation #2 Approved by DEPSEC T2 Implementation #1 Approved by DEPSEC Training Transformation References

5. T2 Direct Connect • To learn more about Training Transformation, please attend the afternoon session featuring Mr. Dan Gardner, Director of Readiness and Training, Policy & Programs, OUSD (P&R). Transforming DoD Training: Observations, Direction, Challenges • You are invited to attend and participate in the Mini-Symposium and Workshop (see www.mors.org) Training Transformation: Analysis and Assessment in New Operational Environments September 28-30, 2004 McLean, VA • Visit www.t2net.org for today’s presentations and others

6. Training Capabilities Analysis of Alternatives(TC AoA) MORSS – WG 22 23 June 2004 Fred Hartman Director JAEC, OUSD(P&R) FOUO – Draft

7. Outline • Background • Study Schedule • AoA Process • Discussion

8. Background • Directed by Program Decision Memorandum 1, 12 Dec 02 • Conduct an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) beginning in FY03 • Complete in 12 months • Identify cost-effective methods for Joint & Service Training • AoA Guidance signed by USD, Acquisition Technology and Logistics (AT&L) Jul 03. • Senior Steering Group (SSG) Co-Chaired by USD (P&R) and JFCOM • Senior Steering Group (SSG) representatives from offices that monitor and evaluate joint and service training performance (OSD, Services, Joint Staff, and Intelligence Agencies) • Provide a Final Report by 1 Aug 04

9. OSD AoA Guidance • Develop a business case to assess whether simulation tools can resolve existing or projected training gaps and deficiencies or enhance capabilities. • Consider a broad range of alternatives: • The base case – current live, virtual, and constructive training systems. • Common joint tool based on the Department of Defense standard. architecture. • Separate joint & service systems developed independently to a standard architecture. • Privately-funded initiatives to develop a training solution(s). • Use of commercially available products and gaming/sim technology. • For each simulation alternative provide reasonable candidate technology, cost-benefit analysis, training effectiveness and cost factors. • Each alternative must support joint and service training. Source: USD(AT&L) memo of 17 Jul 03, AoA guidance for Cost –Effective Methods of Meeting Joint and Service Training Requirements

10. Technology Panel (OSD) Study Organization Senior Steering Group Co Directors Special Advisors (Army/AF/USMC) Team Lead & Integrator Cost Panel (OSD) Training Panel (USJFCOM) Effectiveness (JWFC) Capabilities (Army) Contract Support Services, JFCOM, and Intel Agencies provide functional support for Panels

11. Outline • Background • Study Schedule • AoA Process • Discussion

12. Schedule You are here Business games Senior Steering Group meetings • AoA Schedule to completion • Complete Final AoA Report for coordination mid-July 04 • Deliver AoA Report to OSD (AT&L) NLT 1 Aug 04 • Complete programmatic details of 3 June SSG Decisions for budget process

13. Outline • Background • Study Schedule • AoA Process • Discussion

14. Business Case Gaming • Pre-Game Activity • Interview of principals prior to first game • Alternatives/Methodology Game: 14-16 January 2004. • Purpose: Approve identified alternatives and methodology • Desired Outcome: • Consensus on measures of effectiveness and performance • Consensus on training requirements and needs • Industry Strategy Game: 11-13 February 2004. • Purpose: Strategize with Industry on cost effective methods to meet alternative solutions • Desired Outcome: Identify key business strategies to achieve alternatives • Decision Game: 8 April 2004 • Purpose: Review the Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) study alternatives, methodologies used, recommendations, and strategies from industry • Desired Outcome: Consensus on recommended alternative(s)

15. Findings & Observations • TC AoA more like a Mission Area Analysis (MAA) than an AoA due to scope and level of detail • Management & oversight more than technology has caused failure of previous joint training simulation efforts • Current joint training has been largely based on training exercises supported by simulations • Not all training issues are cost effective for large scale simulation applications • Alternative training methodologies may provide more cost -effective solutions • COCOMs not directly funded to conduct SJFHQ(Core Element) and COCOM/JTF HQ & Staff training • Many COCOM training requirements are not filled by joint exercises and large simulations • Intelligence must be part of training audience vice training aid • Not all training issues can be resolved within time and resources allotted to the AoA Team • Cost estimates in AoA Report with programmatic details to follow implementing actions from SSG decisions

16. SSG Decisions • Management Decisions • JFCOM leads Joint Requirements Office (simulations) • Transition SSG Oversight to T2 Exec Steering Group • Simulation Options • Constrained enhancements to Base Case FY 06-11 • Re-engineer Training Options • Re-engineering Study with Prototyping in two COCOMs • Acquisition Prototype Options • One year base contract with two option years to mature capability • Include Intelligence as partner in future joint training • Working constructive simulation federation content and funding with JFCOM

17. Way Ahead • SSG Decision Recap • Blended Course of Action for future training • Agree to content/structure of Final Report • Complete AoA Report for final review and staffing NLT 15 July • Deliver AoA Report to USD (AT&L) NLT 1 August • Schedule next SSG or T2 ESG update in Aug 04 • Develop programmatic level detail for FY 06-11 • Reengage program review process later this year • Initiate draft Program Change Proposal (PCP) • Respond to brief Congress within 90 days

18. Questions & Discussion

19. Other SSG Actions • Need Intelligence Community as full partner in Joint and Service training • USD(I) leading effort for JNIF, renamed Joint National Intelligence Training Federation (JNITF) • Requirements: Lead JFCOM J7 (JRO) • Software Integration: Lead JWFC SSF • Roadmap and Exec Agent: Decision Support Center for USD(I) • Governance: ISR Integration Council (ISR Roadmap M&S Annex) • FY 05 funding issue • Related issues – highlighted but not solved in AoA • Multi-Level Security for training systems • Full Global Information Grid (GIG) Integration to include Training Enterprise Services

20. Bounded Scope Strategic +1 Combatant Commander/Staff 0 Joint Task Force CDR/Staff Operational Functional Component CDRs/Staffs -1 ARMY NAVY USMC AIR FORCE SOCOM -2 INTEGRATION OF JOINT & COMBINED EFFECTS / SYSTEMS TO LOWEST LEVEL Tactical

21. Senior Steering Group (SSG)

22. Joint Requirements Office • JFCOM establishes a Joint Requirements Office (JRO); funds joint training development activities • JRO establishes and maintains joint training requirements and standards, and verification of joint interoperability compliance • The JRO charters a Joint Requirements Control Board (JRCB) and Joint Configuration Control Board (JCCB), chaired by JFCOM • Includes representatives from COCOMs, Services and Combat Support Agencies (CSA) • Business strategy • Centralized research. JFCOM serves as a focal point for research into new joint training functionality • Decentralized Development. Development of new joint functionality is decentralized to the organization responsible for the simulation • Centralized integration and maintenance. The Joint Development and Integration Facility (JDIF) integrates new development and maintains joint models and federations • Inherent Database Development Capability. JFCOM maintains the capability to develop new data sets or modify existing data sets, as required to conduct joint exercises and mission rehearsals The JRO focuses on customer needs, as presented by the COCOMs, Services, Combat Support Agencies and multi-national partners

23. Common Architecture Standards Common Data Common Tools AAR Tools Aggregate Models Entity Models Virtual Sims Specialty Models Range Gateways C4I Interfaces Alternative #3 Joint Simulation Toolkit • Flexible • Composable • Distributable • Interoperable • Leverages Existing Technology Portable

24. Joint Training Continuum Functional General Familiarization Certification Execution Education Individual Training Preparation Operations Collective Training Integrated and disciplined preparation to defined performance standards Mission Rehearsal Experience Staff Training Individual Learning Indoctrination Qualification Validation Time

25. Joint Training Continuum COA 2 Training Reengineering Study with Proof of Principle Activities • Conduct study and include prototyping activities for two COCOMs • Includes Study from COA 1 • Focus prototyping on 2 COCOMs in near to mid term (FY06-08) • Prototyping would provide practical insights to chart way ahead for all COCOMs, as well as some actual tools to address SJFHQ and JTF training requirements of the 2 COCOMs • Development oversight by JFCOM (fenced from exercise dollars) • Timeline: FY05 Study, FY06-08 prototyping activities, FY 09-11 hardening/sustainment • Prototyping Activities • Provide dedicated O/T support to two COCOMs through JFCOM • Develop/test MMP for two COCOM applications by leveraging the Army Asymmetric Warfare Environment (AWE) STO • Develop/test use of lightweight federation for 2 COCOM applications by leveraging DARWARS project and existing COTS/GOTS* • Develop and test two “story-drive” applications (Pol-Mil, Seminar gaming, etc.) by leveraging JKDDC effort and existing Service/Industry/Academic efforts • Includes instructor support tools for building training scenarios and conducting AARs • Includes training effectiveness studies for various training modes/products

26. Feedback Execute Toolbox Requirements TSPs TRAININGEXERCISEOPERATIONS Need DEVELOPMENT Generate Toolbox of Components& Data (TrainingSupportProvider) Select Vendors Alternative #4 New Business Process • TRAINING EXERCISE OPERATIONS • Training purchased by houror exercise • Firm Fixed Price contracts • Multiple TSPs compete byevent or program • TSP configures event from items purchased from toolbox • DEVELOPMENT • Receives requirements • Populates toolbox • Licenses tools to TSP • Vendors differ from TSPsOCI in place USERS Training Headquarters/Training Audience Users Market Maker • MARKET MAKER • Stimulates Development • Makes Investments topopulate toolbox • Technical architectureand standards • Compliance test; VV&A • Government, industry,and service members GOVERNANCE • GOVERNANCE (Includes Users) • Develop and enforce policy • Allocate resources between ops. and dev. • Establish and track performance metrics • Provides oversight, government functions • Continuously review/improve business model

27. Acquisition Prototype Result • Acquisition strategy that provides rapid fielding of operational Joint Close Air Support (JCAS) Training and Mission Rehearsal capabilities • JCAS Mission Readiness • Demonstrate a viable innovative business model for future application to acquire Joint Training and Mission Rehearsal capabilities.