DoD Live Virtual Constructive (LVC) Integrating Architecture Study 9 May 2007

1. DoD Live Virtual Constructive (LVC) Integrating Architecture Study 9 May 2007 Ken Goad Study Project Manager kenneth.goad@jfcom.mil

2. Briefing Topics • LVC Architecture Issue • Project Methodology • Schedule • Status • Organization & Implementation Strategy • Working Group • Summary

3. The LVC Architecture Issue • Current LVC environments are not inherently interoperable.  • High Level Architecture (HLA) and Distributed Interactive Simulation (DIS) are most often used for integrating virtual and constructive assets • Test & Training Enabling Architecture (TENA) is widely used in testing and to integrate live assets into exercises/events. • Common Training Instrumentation Architecture (CTIA) promotes commonality among the U.S. Army's instrumented ranges and home stations; LVC - Integrated Architecture (LVC-IA) is next-generation Army multi-echelon, integrated, joint, training and mission rehearsal environment; • Multiple protocols, gateways, and object models are often used to bring an LVC Environment together.  • Interoperability and efficiency issues arise when bringing disparate protocols and entities together in a common operational environment. • Complexity, disconnects, duplication of effort, risk, and costs increase with multiple architectures/protocols/gateways. Four communities agree; critical review needed to develop way forward for efficient, effective interoperability.

4. What we are doing • Developing a recommended plan (way forward) regarding LVC interoperability across three broad areas of research: • Desired future technical architecture(s) • Desired business model(s) • Manner in which standards should be evolved and compliance evaluated • The plan will provide: • Rationale for recommendations, citing the findings on which they are based • An assessment of how any LVC architecture policy change might impact the user communities, with recommendations on strategies to promote new direction and minimize impact • Recommended next steps (e.g., further study/analysis, experiments, prototyping any new architecture) Develop an LVC Architecture Plan

5. May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Apr WS PREP WS PREP WS PREP WS PREP WS PREP T9*: Interim Report Expert Team Meeting Expert Team Meeting Expert Team Meeting Expert Team Meeting Expert Team Meeting Expert Team Meeting WG Meet Hampton WG Meet WG Meet Orlando WG Meet WG Meet DC Notional Long Term (15-Month) Schedule Jan 08 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul T1: Scope T2: Define Use Cases Start date 4 April 2007 T3: Define Requirements T4: Identify capabilities & limitations T12: Plan Outreach T6: Analyze functionality of middleware T5: Map Capabilities by Requirements T7: Analyze business model T8: Analyze standards management T10: Perform a systems engineering AoA T13: Final Report T11: Develop Draft Plan DMSC SISO IITSEC MORS SISO DMSC NATOR&T NATOR&T SISO

6. Status • Contract actions awarded • JFCOM • PEO – STRI (Subject Matter Experts) • Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA) • Major Accomplishments (JFCOM & IDA) • Project Execution Plan / Task Statements (Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plans) • Non-Disclosure Agreement (Approved by Contracts) • Working Group Roles, Responsibilities and Estimated LOE / Travel • Second Order Detail in POA&M • Established interfaces with • SISO – briefed December, 2006 at I/ITSEC • Establish interface with NATO MSG-052 • JFCOM M&S Board of Directors, December 2006 • TENA AMT – briefed January, 2007 • Training Community of Interest - briefed January, 2007 • Joint Architecture & Technical Standards – briefed January, 2007 • Study Project Team Pre-Kickoff – 19 March 2007 at Georgia Tech Research Institute • Developed Working Group Schedule and Detailed Execution Plan • Expected Near-term Milestones • Issue Request for Information – April 2007 • Technical Expert Team Kickoff – 9 May 2007 • Hold 1st Working Group Meeting - Jul 2007 • Establish outreach with Experimentation, Acquisition, and Test communities • Host 2nd Working Group Meeting in conjunction with 2nd NMSG-052 workshop – September 2007

7. LVC Assessment Organization

8. Innovative strategy employing Modified Delphi Approach (Community participation) Strong Leadership structure promoting collaboration and transparency Planned IPRs for M&S community feedback Consider all major protocols HLA, TENA, CTIA, DIS, ALSP, etc. Leverage ongoing work and past studies SISO Effort JMETC Prototype JFCOM/JATTL HLA Analysis JDSETES (HLA/TENA) PEO STRI LVC IA Study NATO MSG-052 Activity Implementation Strategy

9. M&S Steering Committee USJFCOM J7 Program Manager Project Support Team Technical Expert Team Working Group Working Group Balanced Set of Representatives from the User Community Focus Areas • Communities • Acquisition, Planning, Analysis, Testing, Experimentation, Training • Services, Agencies, Academia, Industry • Distributed Simulation • Simulation Interoperability Member Qualifications • Knowledge of and Access to Respective LVC User Communities • Sufficient Expertise to Judge Findings • Necessary Influence to Represent Constituency’s Response to Findings • Technical, business model and/or standards experts

10. M&S Steering Committee USJFCOM J7 Program Manager Level of Effort and Travel Requirements • Anticipate 3 Workshops in first 9 months and periodical review of products on portal • Associated costs are not reimbursed by LVC Architecture study • Telecon available for all WG meetings Project Support Team Technical Expert Team Working Group Working Group Work Group Contributions • Information Collection and Distribution (Requirements, Use Case Information, …) • Participation in Workgroups/Teleconferences • Facilitation of Introductions of Project Support Team to Constituency • Review and Provision of Feedback on Products, Findings and Recommendations • Provision of Input in Support of Product Development

11. Working Group Registration Working Group Registration Website http://www.cie.jfcom.mil <select Account Request> Special Instructions for Request Form Justification / Notes – LVC Arch Study Sponsor – Ken Goad, kenneth.goad@jfcom.mil, 757-638-4011

12. Summary • Statement of Relevance: The LVC architecture study will provide a cross community/domain analysis of LVC architecture interoperability requirements and capabilities, and a systems engineering analysis of alternatives with an eye towards developing a strategic vision on how to best organize around the Global Information Grid and Net-Centric Data Strategy. • Interoperate with operational IT environments supporting our Warfighters– Provide architecture vision from where we are today toward where we should be at full instantiation of the GIG. • Accelerate Adoption of LVC Interoperability – Provide sufficient guidance to allow program managers to make decisions affecting the interoperability and conformance of their architectures and systems. • Reduction of Risk – Provide a risk mitigation strategy for programs that have requirements to interoperate in an LVC environment with common architectures • Cost & Time Savings– Provide efficient LVC architecture interoperability recommendations to support rapid federation design through best practices.

13. Contact Info Ken Goad (Project Manager) - kenneth.goad@jfcom.mil, 757-638-4011 Warren Bizub (Project Engineer) - warren.bizub@jfcom.mil, 757-203-6969 Dr. Amy Henninger (Study Lead) - ahenning@ida.org, 703-845-6892

14. Questions?Backup Slides

15. M&S Challenges • Keep up with accelerating requirements • Test, train, experiment and rehearse in a continuously available environment • Reduce time and cost to set up exercises / simulations • Encompass all real-world environments • Provide interoperability across the Unified Action partners, i.e., interagency & multinational • Develop a focused enterprise strategy The World is Transforming but M&S is Evolving

16. DEFINITIONS • Live Domain – The domain where live participants operate operational systems and platforms (including their full range of mobility) in the physical environment. • Virtual Domain – The domain where live participants operate simulators/emulators/operational systems in a synthetic environment. • Constructive Domain – The domain where live participants, typically command and staff trainees, conduct activities in an environment constituted by a large scale constructive synthetic environment (simulation). The trainees provide stimulus to simulated forces at all levels and act upon consequences generated by the simulation.

17. Constructive LVC Interoperability Communities (and Services) depend upon LVC capabilities: Acquisition, Experimentation, Testing, and Training