I _-2* Document Number AD-A282 759

ILE3RIALL.I ~Western Development Lab~s

*I COMBAT VEHICLECOMMAND & CONTROL (92)

*l INNOVATIVE TRAINING METHODS

RESEARCH PRODUCT 1 (FINAL)

Catalogue Of Training Tools For Use In Distributed* Interactive Simulation (DIS) Environments

Submitted By: oTIC* Loral. Syste ls C. o pa n, A ---L--

ADST Program Office JUL 2 81994*I Orlando, F1

Prepared For:United States ArmySimulation, Training & Instrumentation CommandI Orlando, F1

I In Response To:Contract N61339-91-D-0001 ,94-•23835Delivery Order D006CDRL Item AOOF lp

30 July 1993 Ds A • •SPEC'BED 8

* 94 7 2G 096

I Form App m - -

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB NO. 0704-08Pubic r*grg burden Ior Iti •M fn of mlinullan af l d 00 &WOM 1 I Mg per NepoWu - 1 . h tim laot 0MvuwV 1rUlaw S. s IU-h I @xj9X dWA OouI•"fhentf fl d--Imae,?*ng me dclaf iedo. a"d comeIng •e•d r •vew. ow.. ooe of Wemom e" owlerw, gwo. W" burdde otmt ot i.Iy othe eaMpCI of tb odoledin of kd•,dammoirlo seuge ne for r~dl=mg the ho to WMafo0gln NHadcuLe•ler Sro"ee. [)m0.e s foar left naion OpNeeunr e " ecl om, 1215 J.eleoon e.Nm HMrny, Sum 1204. Atmgr% VA

222024-M,. ard to d. ols Moo M er'1 anwd WWg4PK rwo* R1educhet Proew (07204.O1U). WasetifmaI. OC 20503.1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVEREDIJuly 1993 Final 9/91 to 7193

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE J 19o5. FUNDING NUMBERS

Catalog of Training Tools for Use in Distributed Interactive Simulation (DIS) N61339-91Environments D-O001/O006

63007AI 795"6. AUTHOR(S) 3206I Atwood, N K., Winsch, BJ., Quinkert, K.A., and Heiden, C.K. CIo

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDREDS(ES) 8. PERFORZAING ORGANIZATIONIREPORT NUMBER

BDM International, Inc.1801 Randolph Rd. S.E.Albuquerque, NM 87106

9 SPONSOHINGAIONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORINGAGENCY REPORT NUMBER

U.S. Army Research InstituteField Unit at Fort KnoxFort Knox, KY 40121-5620

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NO 'ES

Contracting Officer's Representative, Dr. Kathleen A. Quinker-

12a. DISTRIBUTIONIAVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

Approved for Public Release; distribution is unlimited i

I 13. ABSTRACT (Maxium 200 ~words)This report catalogues training tools for use in Distributed Interactive Simulation (DIS) environments. It is intended asa reference document for users of DIS facilities and for planners of new simulation-based training facilities. The reportdescribes the background and context in which these training tools were developed, and the capabilities and applicationsof tools developed to enhance simulation-based training in three. functional areas. These areas include: (a) techniquesfor structuring simulation-based exercises- (b) strategies for eliciting and capturing Command, Control andCommunications (C3) performance; and (c) approaches for demonstration, presentation and analysis.

14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES

Distributed Interactive Simulation (DIS). Simulation-Based Training 80Performance Measures. Simulation 16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OFOF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT ABSTRACT

I UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED UnlimitedNSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)

; 1i PmreW by ANSI St& 23•i-gS29&10

Research Product __

CATALOG OF TRAINING TOOLSFOR USE IN DISTRIBUTED INTERACTIVE SIMULATION (DIS)

ENVIRONMENTS

I Nancy K. Atwood,Beverly J. WinschBDM Federal, Inc. -_---

Kathleen A. Quinkert NTIS CRA&IU.S. Army Research Institute DTIC TAB Un c

SUriannotineed El

MG Charles K. Heiden J------ - .....................

U.S. Army (Rtd.) By .......

Distibutonr I .

Field Unit at Fort Knox, Kentucky Availability CodesBarbara A. Black, Chief A and/or

Training Research Division Dist Special

Jack H. Hiller, Director I

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and SocialSciences

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333-5600

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for PersonnelDepartment of the Army

I July 1993

III Army Project Number Future Battlefield Conditions

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited

Iii •I- _

IW

FR The U.S. Army Research Institute (ARI) is charged withconducting basic and applied behavioral and social research thatwill contribute to the Army's capability to meet the soldierperformance challenges of today and tomorrow. As part of ARI'straining research program, the objective of the Future BattlefieldConditions team at Fort Knox is to enhance soldier preparedness byidentifying future battlefield conditions and developing trainingmethods that assure effective soldier performance under theseconditions.

As the Army moves toward the greater use of simulationenvironments for training, particularly distributed interactivesimulation (DIS) environments, tools are needed to conducttraining exercises efficiently and effectively. This productprovides a catalog of training tools developed by the FutureBattlefield Conditions team at Fort Knox for use in a DISenvironment. They have been refined and used with success in theMounted Warfare Test Bed (MWTB) facility. This catalog ispresented as a reference document for users of DIS facilities toacquaint them with specific methods which may be appropriate fortheir particular requirement. It is also intended to offer ideasto the planners of new DIS facilities which they may wish toincorporate into their design and development process.

ARI's research on training requirements and methods for- future automated C3 systems is supported by the Memorandum of

Agreement (MOA) between USARI-Knox and the Tank Automotive Command(TACOM) on Combat Vehicle Command and Control (CVCC) dated 22March 1989 and the MOA between USARI-Knox and the U.S. Army ArmorI Center (USAARNC) and Fort Knox titled Research in FutureBattlefield Conditions, 12 April 1989.

The results of this effort were briefed to the CommandingGeneral, Fort Knox; the Director, Mounted Warfiahting Battle SpaceLaboratory; the Deputy Chief of Staff, U.S. Armor School; theCommanding General, Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) and theDeputy Chief of Staff Training, TRADOC.

I EDGAR M. JOHNSONTechnical DirectorI

III

iii

I

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The training tools described in this Research Product havebeen developed through the contributions of several organizationsand a large number of individuals within these organizations.Technical guidance was provided by Dr. Barbara Black, Chief of theArmy Research Institute's Fort Knox Field Unit, Dr. KathleenQuinkert, Team Leader of the Future Battlefield Conditions (FBC)Team, and Dr. Carl Lickteig and Mr. Gary Ell'ott of the FBC Team.While the individuals are too numerous to mention, contractorsupport was provided by a number of organizations including BDMFederal, Inc., BBDN Systems and Technologies, anc., Loral, DecisionResearch Corporation, Microanalysis and Design, and UniversalEnergy Systems.

i In describing the training tools presented here, narrativehas been drawn with some editing from previous reports and manualswhere appropriate. This approach was taken to ensure clarity andconsistency and reflects the full knowledge and agreement of allauthors.

iI

IIii

iiv

I

ICATALOG OF TRAINING TOOLS FOR USE IN DISTRIBUTED INTERACTIVESIMULATION (DIS) ENVIRONMENTS

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION ............................................... 1

Organization of the Research Product ............................ 2Background.................................................... 2The Context for Tool Development ........................... 8

TECHNIQUES FOR STRUCTURING SIMULATION-BASED EXERCISES ...... 14

Overview .............................................. 14Tactical Vignettes ......... ................................. 14ITethering and Automated Messaging .......................... 18Checkpointing ......................................... 26

STRATEGIES FOR ELICITING AND CAPTURING C3 PERFORMANCE ...... 31

Overview ... ........................................... 31Instrumented Devices .................................. 32SEND Utility .......................................... 44LISTEN Utility ........................................ 51

m Control Measure Performance Measurement System ........ 52

APPROACHES FOR DEMONSTRATION, PRESENTATION & ANALYSIS ...... 60

Overview .............................................. 60Plan View Display ..................................... 60Stealth ............................................... 68

* Mini Cameras .......................................... 73

SUMMARY .................................................... 75

REFERENCES ................................................. 78

APPENDIX A. INTERVIEW PROTOCOL USED AT FORT KNOX ............. A-IAPPENDIX B. INTERVIEW PROTOCOL USED AT FORT LEAVENWORTH ... B-I

IIII vI

!ACONTENTS (Continued)I

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1. User needs to be met by distributed interactivesimulation (DIS) (from Beaver et al, 1992) ........ 11

2. DIS architecture supporting ARI program ............ 12

I 3. A company-level horizontal slice usingtethering ....................................... 21

4. A battalion-level vertical slice .................... 23

5. Automated messaging to support training ofinformation management skills........................ 25

6. A reconfigurable simulator equipped withdigitized target acquisition and automatedcommand, control, and communications device 33

7. Close-up drawing of the instrumented deviceshoused within the vehicle commander'screwstation ............................... ..... 34

8. Drawing of the conmander's control handle withthe functions labeled ............................ 35

9. Schematic drawing of the CCD user interface ..... 36

10. Drawing of the driver's T-bar showing the* steer-to-display on the right ........................ 37

J.1. Individual vehicle/vehicle route planning(from IVIS Operational Concept) .................... -42

12. Platoon-consolidated vehicle directed firesketches (from IVIS Operational Concept) ........ 43

1 13. Use of SEND for vehicle-based training ............. 4714. use of SEND utility for tactical operations

center staff training ................................. 49

15. The Planned View Display ............................. 62

16. Real time event flagging ............................. 65

II

vi

I

ICONTENTS (Continued)I

LIST OF TABLES

I PageTable 1. Training Principles from FM 25-100 .................... 3

2. Participating Agencies: Training RequirementsInterviews ........ ................................... . 5

I 3. Critical qraining Requirements: Fort KnoxInterviews ........ ................................... . 6

4. Critical Training Requirements: Fort Leavenwo:thInterviews ........ ................................... . 7

5. Requirements for Training Delivery: Fort Knoxand Fort Lee.venworth Interviews ..................... 9

6. Training Objectives for One Tactical Vignette ... 16

7. Training Objectives for a Second TacticalVignette ........................................ 17

8. Fundamental C3 Task at Company-Level Appropriatefor Checkpointed Training Scenarios (From ARTEPU 71-1-MTP; notc subtasks arc not shown) ............. 30

9. Automated Equipment Usage Measures .................. 38

i 10. A Typical Contact Report File ....................... 4511. Time Stamping of Vignette Files (from CVCC

Utilities Users Manual) ...... ........................ 46

12. LISTEN Station Output of a Contact Report ....... 51

13. Control Measures ...................................... 54

14. Area Locations for Control Measures ................. 58

15. Example of PVD Log Format ............................ 66

16. Summary of Training Applications .................... 76

II

I viiI

I

Catalog of Training ToolsFor Use In Distributed Interactive

Simulation (DIS) Environments

introduction

This Research Product describes training tools developed bythe U.S. Army Researcl .- stitute Field Unit. at Fort Knox (ARI-Knox) for use in a program of ongoing research by the FutureBattlefield Conditions (FBC) Team. In some cases, these trainingtools constitute new training-oriented applications of existingsimulation-based hardware and software capabilities. In othercases, these training tools represent new training developmentsfor use within a simulation-based training environment.

A major thrust of the FBC Team's research program has beenthe identification of conditioris likely to be encountered on thefuture battlefield and the specification of training requirements.This research has been conducted using advanced simulation tech-nology. This technology, referred to as Distributed InteractiveSimulation (DIS), allows soldiers to participate in training exer-cises through interactive combat vehicle simulators engaged in asimulated battlefield environment. This product describes specifictechniques, strategies, and approaches which have been used withsuccess and refined over the past five years as part of the FBCresearch program conducted in the Mounted Warfare Test Bed (MWTB)facility at Fort Knox, Kentucky.

* The catalog has two main purposes. First, it is intended toserve as a reference document for users of DIS facilities whichthcey can consult during the planning process to acquaint them-selves with tools used with success in previous training and eval-uation efforts. We anticipate that, in some cases, users may wishto adopt specific tools for their particular application; in othercases, the tools described here may inform and guide their plan-ning of productive approaches and strategies tailored to theirspecific requirement. Second, the catalog is intended to offerideas to planners of DIS facilities. As the use of simulationwithin the military expands and new facilities are built (such asthe Army's Close Combat Tactical Trainer (CCTT]), we expect thatplanners will wish to examine tools used productively in otherfacilities in the design and development process.

The tools described in this catalog were designed primarilyfor use in training within the DIS environment; however, theirutility applies to the broader range of DIS applications currentlybeing conducted and envisioned for the future. These additionalapplications include t.'st and evaluation of concepts, prototypesand emerging systems as well as studies of emerging doctrine,organizations and special issues. Thus, the intended audience forthis Research Product includes trainers and training developers,as well as members of the combat development, doctrine develop-ment, test and evaluation, and studies and analysis communities.

II

I

Organization of the Research Product

This research product is organizcd into four major sections.The remainder of this section desciibes the background and contextwithin which the tools presented in subsequent sections weredeveloped. The three remaining sections describe sets of tools tosupport and enhance functions within the DIS environment. Thesethree functional areas, corresponding to the three followingsections, focus on: (a) techniques for structuring simulation-based exercises, (b) strategies for eliciting and capturingCommand, Control, and Communications (C3) performance and(c) approaches for demonstration, presentation and analysis. Eachof these sections and the descriptions of the tools within areintended to stand as independent references for users and plannersof DIS environments and applications.

I BackgrouAn

The FEC Team ha6 been charged with conducting research toforecast conditions on the future battlefield and to developtraining methods to prepare soldiers to perform effectively underthese conditions. The following discussion is intended to providea brief overview of the nature of training requirements antici-pated in the near future and the increasing prominence ofsimulation-based training as a strategy for addressing theserequirements. This discussion is followed by a short introduction

to the context in which the tools described in the catalog weredevelopcd. It focuses on two fcatur,_ of the contcxt tha,,at arcparticularly important for understanding the genesis of thesetools: (a) the substantive focus of the ARI-Knox reseaichprogram, and (b) the DIS environment in which the research wasconducted.

Emerging Training Requirements. The U.S. Army has institu-tional mechanisms in place for identifying training requirements.These requirements emerge from two primary sources:(a) examinations of past performance or "lessons learned" to iden-tify areas requiring attention and (b) projections of futuretrends and their implications for training requirements3.

The principal Army agency charged with examining lessons

learned is the Center for Army Lessons Learned (CALL) at FortLeavenworth, Kansas. A recent report published by the GeneralI Accounting Office (GAO) in 1991 summarized the common trainingshortfalls identified by CALL as part of a larger study of landusage (GAO, 1992). Requirements for improved performance focusedon the following primary areas: (a) battlefield planning bycommanders ind their staffs, (b) use of intelligence data indeveloping plans of operations (intelligence preparation of thebattlefield), (c) conduct of reconnaissance and counter reconnais-sance, (d) maintenance of communications, and (e) conduct ofrehearsals. Follow-up interviews of key Army leaders by GAO stiff

I2I

Isuggested that. many believed that the key to addtzcssinq theseareas is increased emphasis on individual and small uniL traing.

While several Army agencies have charters to examine futurerequirements, the Department of the Army's overall view of futuretraining requirements is well characterized in a draft pamphletcurrently under coordinat ion by the Army's Training and DoctrineCommand as Draft TRADOC PAM 525-5B (Department of the Army,1991b). This pamphlet recognizes the unprecedented changes whichthe Ar~my is facing including downsizing of the force, the budgeton which it depends, and available land for maneuver and ranges.At the same time, the Army is fielding hiqh technology devices andweapon systems that enhance lethality on the battlefield butdemand: (a) considerably greater command and control skills fromleaders; (b) more precise, complex performance from soldiers; and(n) greater space for train.Lng. The global environment and thechanging nature of the threat from a U.S. - Soviet balance ofpower to a multipolar world order with new centers of regionalpower further complicate the situation- This threat calls forversatile forces which can perform their missions under a varietyof conditions and circumstances, can insert units to carry outcontingency operations and can operate in conjunction with coali-tion forces.

The Draft TRADOC PAM 525-5b calls for training as a corner-stone for developing and maintaining a smaller Army capable ofeffectively accomplishing its mission and countering the threatsto U.S. interests. It is based on a concept for AirLandOperations for a Strategic Army which describes how Army forces

will operate as the land component of military power in joint,combined and interagency operations in the future. TRADOC recog-nizes tough, realistic training as a prerequisite for successfulimplementation of this strategic concept. TRADOC leaders expectthe principles of training inherent in the Army's capstone train-ing doctrine manual, FM 25-100 (Department of the Army, 1988a), toremain valid and to drive evolving tactics, techniques, and proce-dures (see Table 1) . This approach will be supplementea by the

bCombined Arms Training Strategy (CATS) currently under development

Table 1

Training Principles from FM 25-100

PRINCIPLES OF TRAINING

Train as Combined Army and Service Team*Train as You FightUse Appropriate DoctrineUse Performance-Orientud TrainingTrain to ChallengeTrain to Sustain ProficiencyTrain Using Multi-echelon TechniquesTrain to MaintainMake Commanders the Primary TrainersI

3

by each proponent school (Coordinating Draft, TC 17-1.2-2). CATSwill serve as a training and resource management tool to "squeezeevery bit of value from every training event and program" to meetthe challenging training requirement--: of the future.

The Armor community has formulated the Armor 2000 strategyand the Armor portion of CATS (U.S. Army Armor Center, 1990) toarticulate projected requirements for the Armor force and strate-gies for delivering training to meet these requirements. TheArmor 2000 strategy views training as the cornerstone oe mobilityand lethality of the Armor force. Given an era of resource con-straints, Armor is moving to a device and simulation-based train-ing strategy coupled with live-fire and maneuver field exercises.This training strategy emphasizes realistic simulations; combinedand integrated simulators and modern training devices which can beused to train soldiers, vehicle crews, and units on nearly allrequired battlefield tasks under demanding conditions.

j As the Armor community fields increasingly complex technol-ogy, the importance of training in general and simulation-basedtraining in particular is expected t,- increase. For example, theNM1A2 tank will contain an automated command and control devicereferred to as the "'Intervehiculat Information System" (IVIS).Among other capabilities, IVIS will allow tank commanders to sendand receive messages digitaldy. Such technology will levy newtraining requirements, not only for device operation skills, butalso for effective information management under conditions ofoverload and integration of device usage into a tactical environ-i ment.

To e.aborate and further understand published trainingrequirements, a series of interviews were conducted with represen-tatives of key Army organization!, at the U.S. Army Armor Centerand School. (USAARMC&S) Fort Knox, and the Combined Arms Command(CAC) located at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas during the Spring of1-0,92. These interviews were structured to gather participants'views of current training needs and emerging training require-ments, particularly in the area of c.ommand, control, and communi-cations. The C3 area has been recognized as a particularlyimportant area in published reports of training requirements andone which lends itself well to simulatioll-based training. Assuch, C3 is a focal area of research interest for the FBC Team.(Copies of interview protocols can be found in Appendixes A and

B.)

Organizations participating in the interviews are identifiedin Table 2. While we have not identified specific individuals tomaintain privacy and confidentiality, most ir.terviLwees were fieldgrade officers or above or seniLor civilians at the rank of GS-12or above. In some cases, one representative from an oiyanizat ionwas interviewed. In other cases, group interviews were conductedgenerally with ti-.o or three individuals, altlinugh two interviewsessions numbered six participants due to the high level ofinterest by the organization in participating i.n the interview.

I4IIi'l1"!! R l"! !l lr Ir i i

IIbParticipating Agencies: Training Requirements Interviews

I I U.S. ARMY RESEARCH

INSTnTUE-F-T. KNOXFIELD UNIT

TACTICAL COMMANDERWS

G-3 DIRECTORATE OF DEVELOPMENT COURSESPLANS, TRAINING, AND owN MOILIZATION

SCHOOL FOR ADVANCEDDIRECTORATE OF ! - MILITARY STUDIES (SAMS)

TRAINING DEVELOPMENT

COMMAND AND STAFF LABORATORY (FCL)DEPARTM•ENT COURSE J COMBINED ARMS TRAINING

INTEGRATION DIVISIONCOMBINED ARMS TACTICAL (TS

TRAINING CENTER (CATTC) CENTE•R FOR ARMY

A content analysis of the interviews was conducted to iden-tify training requirements viewed by interviewees as critical todeveloping or maintaining high performing soldiers and units underprojected future battlefield conditions. The following discussionhighlights key findings emerging from the interviews.

Table 3 summarizes key findings emerging from the interviewsconducted at Fort Knox. These training requirements fell intofour main categories as shown in Table 3. The first categoryincluded more general mission-oriented requirements centering onoperating effectively as a member of a combined arms team with thecapability to respond to a variety of contingency force doctrines.-The remai.ning three categories corresponded to the threeBattlefield Operating Systems (BOSs) targeted for focus in theinterviews: (a) Command, Control and Communications,(b) Intelligence, and (c) Maneuver. The three primary require-ments associated with C3 (shown in Table 3) center on training toaccommodate the use of automated C3 devices while maintainingmanual skills. This requirement is consistent with conceptualtraining requirements associated with the fielding of new tech-nologies, such as the IVIS to be housed within the MIA2 tank.Requirements derived from the interviews associated with theIntelligence BOS focused on intelligence preparation of the

1!I

Ibattlefield (IPB) and reconnaissance. These areas were also iden-tified as priority intelligence training requirements in a GAOstudy of training conducted as part of a large study of land usage(GAO, 1991). Finally, training requirements in the maneuver areareflect two sets of related requirements. The first is the needI. for disciplined, well coordinated performance as recognized bypublished training requirements calling for rehearsals. Thesecond is the versatility of performance across conditionsrequired by emerging doctrine and future anticipated mission-requirements.

I-- Table 3Critical Training Requirements: Fort Knox Interviews

I CATEGORY KEY FINDINGSIIOperate as part of a combined arms team

MISSION Respond to doctrines of contingency forces

"Use voice and digital communications effectivelyC3 Manage incoming Information appropriately

Maintain manual skills reinforcing automatedC3 devices (e.g., map reading)

Conduct of Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield (IPB)INTEL Conduct of reconnaisance activities

Conduct of leader's reconnaissance

Synchronize forcesMANEUVER Operate effectively as creww

Perform according to Tactical SOPDecrease fratricidesReact to mass casualtiesPerform under adverse weather conditionsNavigate on varied terrain under different conditions

Findings derived from the interviews conducted at FortLeavenworth are highlighted in Table 4. The main focus of thesetraining requirements is on C3 at battalion level. More specifi-cally, interviewees underscored the need to concentrate on thefundamental skills of C3, to structure training experiences sothat battalion staff members learn to work together as an inte-grated battle staff, and to ensure that battalion staff learn howto coordinate combat assets effectively to produce battle synchro-nization. The central role of learning how to conduct effectiverehearsals was also stressed in these interviews. The importanceof rehearsals has been repeatedly identified as a training lessonlearned and is documented in the GAO report mentioned earlier(GAO, 1991). Finally, two training requirements requiring balancebetween technological and human considerations emerged from theFort Leavenworth interviews. A technology-oriented trainingrequirement emerged for the incorporation of C3 devices intotraining exercises. The concept here was to ensure that units andtheir leaders l.earn to incorporate effective use of their C3

6I

Idevices into their procedures prior to deployment. The otherI• training requirement centered on the importance of trainingcommand skills and the need to explicitly teach leadership skillsunder stress. More specifically, interviewees made the point chatC3 training must balance human and technological considerations sothat commanders capitalize on technology tools while honing theirskills to lead effectively.

Table 4

Critical Training Requirements. Fort Leavenworth Interviews

CATEGORY KEY FINDINGS

Train C3 fundamental skills to standard

Operate as an integrated battle staff at Bn

Coordinate combat assets effectively to produce battlesynchronization

C3 Conduct effective rehearsals

Integrate operation of automated C3 devices Into* established procedures

Command and lead soldiers under stress balancing humanand technological considerations

II i _ __ __ _In summary, the training requirements facing the Army today

are challenging. These requirements derive from a variety ofsources including a reduced force structure, a more austerebudget, less maneuver area for field exercises, and a regionalizedand diverse threat. Units must be prepared tc operate as a com-I bined arms force, perform a variety of contingency missions underdiverse conditions, and capitalize on emerging technology to fightand win. These circumstances dictate new training requirementssuch as an increased capability to manage large amounts of infor-mation effectively (given the emerg•_nce of digital communications)and underscore the importance of recognized training requirementssuch as needs for skilled planning, careful preparation andrehearsal and disciplined performance of well practiced tacticalprocedures.

The growinag Prominence of Simulation-Based Training. Theneed to counter a wide variety of diverse threats at a time ofmanpower and budget reduction has placed increased priority ontraining generally and on simulation as a strategy for deliveringtraining in particular. Simulation offers a cost-effective

7

stzategy for providing training on a widespread basis under avariety of conditions. Furthermore, simulation-based training iswell suited to addressing the training requirements underscored inour interviews which are also receiving increasing attention in

i the Army community.

For example, a keynote speaker at the 1992 Armor Conference,COL Molinari, Director of Training Development (DOTD) at FortKnox, offered seven compelling reasons for training using simula-tion. They centered on the capabilities of simulation, especiallyDIS, to provide:

I 1. Greater frequency of training events;2. More in-depth analyses of tasks;3. Better training of collective tasks;4. Objective feedback;5 Realistic scenarios;6. Training efficiency;

-7. Training standardization; andi 8. Training under more varied conditions.It is also instructive to note that our interviews at Fort

Knox and Fort Leavenworth also yielded recommendations 7or train-ing d in addition to the training performance requirements

described earlier. As shown in Table 5, these mirror many of theadvantages of simulation noted above as shown in Table 5. Thesetraining delivery requirements also centered around perceivedneeds for improved feedback and assessment, standardized and

* hands-on training; strategies for improving training efficiencyU and effectiveness (through cross-training, multiple iterations of

training exercises, greater realism, and mission training prior tofield deployment) and use of automated C3 devices integrated intotraining.

It is clear that simulation as a training strategy is receiv-ing increasing recognition in the Army community. The problemfacing users is to plan and structure simulation environments tomaximize their capability to provide realistic and effectivetraining exLrcises. The tools presented in this Research Productwere designe! to enhance this capability.

I The Cont xt for Tool Development

The tools presented in this Research Product were developedfor use in the ARI-Knox research program on future battlefieldconditions. This research was conducted using the Army's firstDIS environment, the Close Combat Test Bed (CCTB), at Fort Knox.The following sections provide a brief overview of the focus ofthe ARI-Knox research and development program from which thesetools emerged and the components of the DIS environment withinwhich the program was implemented. This discussion is intended toprovide the reader an understanding of the context in which thetools presented here were developed.

S I " 8!'I II •• 1 1 1 • V l ' l*'!rI " !• I fS'!"'i •; ;"Ii '••• • i•

I •-

i Table 5Requirements for Training Delivery: Fort Knox and FortLeavenworth Interviews

Objective data for training feedback

Quality assessment process through After Action Reviews (AARs)

Standardized training

p Hands-on trainingCross-training

Multiple training Iterations

Greater realism of classroom training

Mission-oriented training prior to field exercises

"-Plug-in" C3 devices for Integrated training

The ART-Knox Research and Development Program. The FutureBattlefield Conditions Team has been engaged in an ongoing programof research and development aimed at supporting the Army'srequirements for future C3 systems. A major thrust of this workhas focused on future Combat Vehicle Command and Control (CVCC)systems. As part of the CVCC program, ARI-Knox has been conduct-ing simulation-based research on future C3 system configurationsand the training requirements associated with these configu-rations.

The research program has included a series of simulation-based, soldier-in-the-loop evaluations of future tank systems andtheir associated training requirements. These efforts have pro-ceeded in a bottom-up fashion from assessments of crew and platoonperformance using a digitized position navigation (POSNAV) system(DuBois and Smith, 1989) and an automated Command and ControlDisplay (CCD) for the tank commander (DuBois and Smith, 1991). Asubsequent investigation examined the integration of the CCD andI POSNAV with the Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer (CITV), adigitized target acquisition system for tank commanders (Quinkert,1990). These efforts were followed by a series of investigationsof company performance incl'iding: a company level evaluation ofthe operational effecti%,eness of companies equipped with CVCC sys-tems including integrated POSNAV, CCD and CITV capabilities

I!9

! I lm P ' "aq I1' I • '' ,q'I• l ' '' • •= " , ...

I(Leibrecht et al., 1992); an examination of the training require-ments associated with the system (Atwood et al., 1991); andresearch on soldier-machine interface (SMI) issues associated withthe design of CVCC user interfaces and controls (Ainslie, et al.,i 1991).

More recent evaluations are focusing on the extension offuture C3 capabilities to the battalion level. These effortsinclude an evaluation of automated workstations 1o support a bat-talion Tactical Operations Center (TOC) (O'Brien et al., 1991) andan evaluation of battalion level performance currently in

* progress.

The tools described here were developed to support the FBCresearch program. They were designed to operated within a DISenvironment. Key features of the DIS environment are describedbelow.

The nTS Environment. The Army, along with the other militaryservices, is currently engaged in the design of a DIS architec-ture. The DIS architecture is intended to provide a blueprint toguide the development of a general purpose simulation system whichwill meet the needs of a w;ide range of users, as shown in Figure 1(from Beaver et al., 1992).

i The DIS architecture is being structured to satisfy a largeset of user objectives and implementation principles. However,the most pervasive and general requirement is for a man-in-the-loop simulation which simulates battlefield interaction betweenmultiple warfighters at levels of fidelity that are sufficient toinvoke realistic decision making behavior by the participants.

i DIS is a direct descendent of simulation networking (SIMNET)technology. SIMNET was initiated in 1983 as a project on large-scale simulator networking by the Defense Advanced ResearchProjects Agency (DARPA). It was a proof-of-principle technologydemonstration of interactive networking for real-time, person-in-the-loop battle engagement simulation and wargaming suitable for abroad range of applications (Alluisi, 1991).

The FBC team initiated its research and development programE in the SIMNET facility established at Fort Knox. The facilityincludes standard SIMNET combined arms simulators routinely usedfor tactical training, particularly in the area of C3, housed at

"I i the Fort Knox Combined Arms Tactical Training Center (CATTC). Anadjacent facility also includes developmental simulators designedto serve as reconfigurable weapon systems in which selected systemcharacteristics can be modified to emulate conceptual weapon sys-tem configurations and their associated soldier-machine inter-faces. These simulators are housed in the Fort Knox Close CombatTest Bed (CCTB) located adjacent to the CATTC.

I10

I

Training & Test &I Readiness Evaluation

SDoctrinal ,System-Development Acquisition &

mDcvelopment

IDIS Force • TrainingIDevelopment Development

Logistics Operations MilitaryI Planning & AnalysisRehearsalI

BI

Figure 1. User needs to be met by Distributed InteractiveSimulation (DIS) (from Beaver et al., 1992)

The FBC research program is being conducted in the Fort KnoxCCTB. While many of the tools described in this research producthave migrated to the CATTC, they were originally developed in theCCTB which offered the advantages of increased experimental con-trol and reconfigurable simulators. In this case, the Ml tanksimulators in the CCTB were configured with SIMNET-compatible C3

prototypes and CVCC systems to support the ARI-Knox researchprogram.

Figure 2 illustrates the SIMNET architecture which has sup-ported the ARI program and the approximate physical location ofcomponents within the facility. These components provide theframework within which the tools described in this Research

* Product have been developed and implemented.

II

11

I

Iaarb an I%/ SAFOIH SAFORAnalysis WorkstationsI

I Usten SAFOR00 CO 0 0 Eercise Coantrol B~oom

Date Logger File Server pVD PVD

i ComnMter Room M SCC

Ij ----- - --- - - - ---

Stalth (Mobile Location) IS3) Operatons

Workstation

(S..) Intelligence FSO Workstation

i $4 Wrk~0o

I SuDisphla BDE/XODislay SEND Workstation

SImulatgr Bf BNT•,

InI g93-020-TR-G-01

Figure 2. DIS architecture supporting ARI program

The architecture includes five majo: classes of components.The first class includes the simulators themselves shown in thesimulator bay. These Ml simulators are built to be reconfigurableso that components can be utilized as required for a particulartraining or testing exercise. Thus, a particular component suchas POSNAV or the CCD may be added to simulators to support a par-ticular training or testing requirement. (The only exception tothis modularity is the CITV which is integrated into the simulator

I"12I

simulation software.) For the most recent ARI-Knox researcheffort, simulators were configured to operate with CVCC prototypesystems (including an integrated POSNAV, CCD, CITV capability) oras standard baseline Ml simulators. The second class includes theautomated Tactical Operations Center which includes workstationsfor battalion staff including an Itiielligence Workstation,Operations Workstation, a Fire Support Workstation, a workstationwhich can be used as a BLI.gade or an Executive OfficerWorkstation, a Combat Service Support (S4) workstation, and alarge screen Situation Display. (A SEND utility for transmittingautomated messages is currently housed on the .4 workstation.)

I A third major component identified in Figure 2 and located inthe simulator bay is the Stealth. The Stealth is a phantom vehi-cle which can be used to traverse the battlefield without d tec-tion by battlefield participants. The Stealth has been usea for awide variety of purposes including cerrain analysis, reconnais-

sance, and After Action Reviews (AARs)A fourth class of components reside in or adjacent to the

Exercise Control Room. They include:

I 1. A Management, Command and Control (MCC) system for con-trolling and monitoring manned simulators and implement-I ing fire support;

2. A SIMNET Control Console (SCC) for initializing an exer-cise and setting battlefield parameters;

3. Semi-Automated (SAFOR) stations for creating and con-trolling unmanned vehicles and aircraft, both friendly(BLUrOR) and enemy (OPFOR);

4. A Plan View Display (PVD) for providing a "birds eyeview" of the battlefield which can be used to monitorexercises and flag key events;

5. A LISTEN station to record digital messages; and

6. Radio nets for monitoring simulated SINCGARS radio traf-fic and communicating between control stations andmanned simulators.

Finally, the computer room contains a set of components foruse in data recording and analysis including: (a) a file server,(b) a Data Collection and Analysis System (DCA) for on-lineŽrecording of automated data and exercise playbacks (DataLogger),

I and (c) off-line reduction and analysis (Data Probe and RS/lAnalysis Workstations). (Data Logger, Data Probe, and RS/l areregistered trademarks of the BBN Software Products Corporation.)At present, all of these DCA components are only available attest-oriented DIS facilities such as the Mounted Warfare Testbed(MWTB) at Fort Knox. Currently, training-oriented DIS sites have

I313_

II

Ithe file server and Data Logger systems to allow for recording ofall automated data and subsequent exercise replay.

Taken together, this architecture provided the structurewithin which the enhancements described here were implemented. Itprovides the larger picture for interpreting how the specifictools described in subsequent sections can be integrated within aDIS environment.

More specifically, the remainder of this Research Product isorganized into three main sections. These sections describe:(a) techniques for structuring simulacion-based exercises;(b) strategies for eliciting and capturing C3 performance; and(c) approaches for demonstration, presentation, and analysis.I

Techniques for Structuring Simulation-Based Exercises

This section presents three sets of tools for structuringsimulation-based exercises. These tools allow the trainer tonarrow the focus of an exercise to specific training tasks whichcan be executed in a shorter time period than an entire tacticalscenario. They also provide a mechanism for reducing the person-nel requirements for a particular exercise. Thus, taken togetherthey offer tools for incieasing training efficiency and improvingthe effectiveness of a training exercise.

More specifically, three sets of structuring tools are dis-cussed below. They include: (a) tactical vignettes;(b) tethering and automated messaging; and (c) checkpointing.

I Tactical VignettesTactical vignettes were developed by ARI-Knox to structure -

exercise settings which are more constrained in focus than a fullmission scenario and are capable of execution within a shortertime period. Two types of tactical vignettes have been developed.The first are "sandbox exercises" which are more open-ended andallow the unit commander to determine his course of action and tointeract with his unit to make sure that his intent is understood.The sandbox exercise then focuses on execution of the commander'sselected course of action. The second are -'data collection exer-cises" which are more constrained and intended to focus on theexecution of a specific course of action. The former type oftactical vignette provides a moru general training tool, while thelatter provides a more specific tool which can be used to addressa more limited set of training objectives. While the two types ofvignettes differ in scope, focus, and purpose, they share commonfeatures described below.

14I

ICapsuleIDescription. Tactical vignettes are short exercises

aimed at reinforcing crew skills, teamwork, reporting and naviga-tion skills. They are centered around one significant event andgenerally last around 30 minutes. The significant event isdesigned to create a flow of information to the commander of theunit, to necessitate implementation of a decision by the comman-der, and to require execution by subordinate units. This informa-tion flow is supported through tactical radios as well as a proto-type Command and Cont Ai Display (CCD) housed in the simulator.This approach allows soldiers to comxtiunicate by voice and digitalmessaging.

I To ccnserve time and support standardized training, vehiclestarting positions are established electronically through an ini-tialization file so that vehicles are located consistent with theOperations Order (OPORD) . This file may also specify unmannedvehicles which are "tethered" to manned vehicles to reduce person-nel requirements (see following section for a description of teth-ering). Measures of peiformance (MOPs) related to each vignetteare specified for automated data collection within the DIS envi-ronment. in some cases, radio nets are also monitored to collectperformance data on reporting behavior. Battlefield events mayalso be monitored using the Plan View Display (PVD). The PVDallows an observer to watch movement, firing and other tacticalevents in real time as they occur during the exercise (see subse-quent section on the PVD for a more detailed description). Forany particular training exercise, vignettes are presented in alogical sequence within the context of the higher headquarter'sOPORD.

Taken together, the ARI-Knox developed tactical vignettesprovide a set of "mini-scenarios" which can be used to structureshort, focused training exercises. They also provide a specificformat for developers wishing to create additional tacticalvignettes focused on specific training requirements. This formatincludes: (a) training objectives; (b) OPORD from higher head-quarters to provide a context for a set of vignettes; (c) an OPORDfor the unit commander to initiate the vignette; (d) predefinedterrain and starting locations specified in an initializationfile; (e) specifications of measures of performance (MOPs) forautomated data collection; and (f) data collection formats for

I :-adio/PVD monitoring.Applications. The tactical vignettes developed by ART-Knox

are essentially short, Situational Training Exercise (STX) liketraining events. As such, they support the emerging Combined ArmsTraining Strategy (CATS) presented in Coordinating Draft, TC 17-12-2) (Department of the Army, 1991a) which designates STXs forboth active and reserve unit training. The specific data collec-tion exercises designed by ARI-Knox draw their respective signifi--cant event from the Army Training and Evaluations Program (ARTEP)I Mission Training Plan (MTP) for Tank and Mechanized Battalions,ARTEP 71-2-MTP (Department of the Army, 1988b) . However, the tac-

115

I

Itical vignette format could be easily adapted by training develop-ers to acconmnodate training tasks for the Tank and MechanizedInfantry Company and Company Team, ARTEP 71-1-MTP (Department ofthe Army, 1988c) or the Tank Platoon, ARTEP 17-237-10-MTP(Department of the Army, 1988d).

The format and structure of the tactical vignettes addressthree of the nine training delivery requirements which emerged inour interviews with the Armor and Combined Arms training communi-ties. More specifically, they support: (a) standardizedtraining--since training vignettes are standardized for start-upterrain and location; (b) iterative training--since they are shortand allow for the completion of multiple vignettes within a rela-tively constrained time frame; and (c) objective feedback--sinceMOPs and data collection formats are built into the tactical.vignette format

The tactical vignettes developed by ARI-Knox also addressspecific task areas identified as critical training requirements,particularly as seen by the Armor training community. For exam-ple, two critical 03 training requirements emerging from theseinterviews focused on managing incoming information appropriatelyand using voice and digital communications effectively. Since thetactical vignettes are specifically designed to define a signifi-cant event that triggers a flow of information between the unitcommander and his subordinates and provide mechanisms for bothvoice and digital communication, they are well suited to theserequirements. Table 6 illustrates the training objectives for one

* such tactical vigncttc. The 3ccond and fourth objcctivc lizt.cdare particularly germane to these training requirements.

I Table 6Training Objectives for One Tactical Vignette

SEVENT A TRAINING OBJECTIVES1. Practice tactical movementI 1st Platoon B - Internal Coordination

Coordination between manned and semi-autornated forces Pits & Cos

2. Communicate using the revised net structureVoice radio A and B nets (if both available)Digital nets

3. Practice navigation as point platoon

4. Practice reporting procedures• Upward comnmo from wingman to Tactical Operations Center/

Battalion ComansnderDownward commo from Tactical Operations CentertisttallonCommandem to wingman

5. Become familiar with sequence and time constraints of a typical vignette

I16

I

The current tactical vignettes arc also wcll suited to tworequirements in the maneuver area identified as critical in ourinterviews with the Armor community. These include operatingeffectively as ciews and navigating on varied terrain under variedconditions. Objectives 1 and 3 in Table G are directly rit:-Ivantto these requirements.

Training objectives taken from a second tactical vignette areshown in Table 7. They also illustrate the applicability of thistraining format for cornutunicatioii and reporting (objectives 1 and3) and maneuver (objective 2).

I Table 7Training Objectives for a Second Tactical Vignette

EVENT B IRAINING OBJECTIVES

1. Reinforce new manning and net structures

2. Practlce taCtic2i movement wiCt vignette strucure"" Emphasize actions on contact

3. Reinforce reportirg proceduret• Generate & process CONTACT & SPOT reports" Process Fragmentary Orders (FRAGOs) "under fire"

.In su1L. the tact-ica' vJAJigette fo-,Fuat is useful sLiLt~yfor delivering STXs in a simulation-based environment. The spe-_cific vignettes developed by ARI-Knox provide "mini-scenarios"which can be used to train selected C3 and maneuver tasks, partic-ularly crew skills, teamwork, repoLting and navigation skills.The tactical vignette format also p-ovides a model for trainingdevelopers wishing to extend the existing set to other trainingrequirements.

xEso9arce. Two primary document!- are available to potentialusers or developers of tactical vignettes for u'e in a simulationenvironment. They include:

O'Brien, L.H., Leibrecht, B.C., Ainslie, F.H., Williams,G.S., and Smart, D.L. (1991). Research lan for the comnat vehi-cle command and control battalion-level formative evaluation.

I 3 (ART Technical Report). Alexandria, VA: U.S. ArmyResearch Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Leibrecht, B.C., Kerins, J.W., Ainslie, F.A., Sawyer, A.S.,Childs, J.M. & Doherty, W.J. (1992). Combat vehicle-command an£control systemsI Simulation-baped company leVel evaluatiQon(ARI Technical Report). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army ResearchInstitute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

I "--I7i--

I_ Tehrn crdA1-~ d MQ s aci nCL-- Tethering and automated messaging are two ARI--Knox developed

strategies for augmenting the capabilities of BLUFOR training inthe DIS environment.. Tethering allows unmanneo vehicles to beconfigured as subordinate units and to operate as menmbers of 11hVBLUFMO: unit using the SAFOR capability. Automated messaging pro-vides a tcchnique for simulating message traffic from the leaderof the unit of unmanned vehicles. This technique relies on theuse of a prototype automated C3 device for receipt of automatedmessages in manned sLmulators.

U While the following discussion focuses on the ustz of tether-ing and automated messaging to enhance the capabilities of DLUFORunits, the reader should note that tethering is also possible whentie SAFOR capability is used to represent the OPFOR. In thiscase, an OPFOR comlnander may operate on the digital battlefieldthrough a simulator with unmanned vehicles configured as subor-dinate units using tethering. At this time, the automated messag-ing capability described below does not exist for the OPFOP; how-ever, this capability could be pro-'ided relativcly easily ifrequired.

CapsP_2eDscrjipLi -;)AI Teth ring. is a strategy for augmentingfriendly (BLUFOR) units with subordinate units comprised ofunmanned vehicles using the Semi-Automated Force (SAFOR) capabiL-ity. There are two main modes for structuring tethering. In thefirst mode, the Command mode, unmanned vehicles are configured asa unit (such as a platoon) an' are "tethered" to the, man ilator of their next higner commander (in this case, the companycommander's (CO's) vehicle which is a manned simulator). TheS,-UFOR unit. then moves up and forms on the commander's simulatorand responds to his orders through the workstation opexator. TheSAFOR unit will move in the formation and at the speed directed bythe company commander through the workstation operator (who actsas the subordinate platoon leader).

The second mode is the Follow mode. In this case, units areconfigured without. the unit command element (for example, a pla-toon is established without its platoon leader) . The three tanksare then tethered to the platoon leader and simply conform to his

movement in a follow mode. Their appearance on the simulated bat-tlefield is identical to a fully manned platoon.

In this way, subordinate units comprised of unmanned vehiclescan be "tethered" to manned vehicles in a variety of configura-tions depending on training requirements and personnel availabil-I ity. While SAFOR has historically been used to portray OpposingForce vehicles (OFFOR), this ARI-Knox designed strategy providesa substantial increase in the training capabilities of the DISenvironment. It allows for flexibility in manning training exer-cises and provides an approach for structuring exercises specifiedin the emerging Combined Arms Training Strategy (CATS) as

I18I

described in Coordinating Draft, TC 17-12-7 (Department of theArmy, 1991a). These events include: (a) Tactical ExercisesWithout Troops (TEWTs), (b) Command Post Exercises (CPXs), and(c) STXs. Use of tethering in structuring these types of trainingevents minimizes required personnel resources, increases trainingtime in specific positions (such as company commander or platoonleader) since multiple iterations of an exercise can be run in thetime it would take for one comparable field exercise, and retainsrealism without the addition of personnel resources.

More specifically, tethered units of unmanned BLUFOR vehiclesH are initialized, monitored, and controlled through the SAFORBLUFOR station. (Four such workstations exist at the DIS facilityat Fort Knox; however, the number may vary at other DIS facili-ties.) Initial files are created for each training exercise andscenario which allow units comprised of unmanned BLUFOR vehiclesto be named, configured within the unit chain of command andcalled up in their correct starting locations. The initializationprocess also allows the SAFOR operator to specify the tetheringmode in which the unit will operate (Command or Follow) as previ-ously described. In addition, the markmanship level of the unitcan be designated by the SAFOR operator as "Master," "Competent"

or "Novice." A "Master" setting multiples the probability of hitby 1.00. A "Competent" setting multiplies the probability of hitI by 0.75. A "Novice" setting multiplies the probability of nit by0.50. The BLUFOR operator may also designate the fire status ofthe unit vehicles. "Hold Fire" status indicates that vehicleswill not be able to shoot. "Fire at wili" indicates that vehicleswill be able to shoot when a detected enemy is in range. Thesefiles are created and saved before a training exercise, thenloaded prior to the start of the exercise.

Once the exercise begins, the BLUFOR SAFOR operator monitorsbattlefield events using the workstation. The SAFOR operator mayview the battlefield from one of two perspectives. The firstviewing mode is the Commander's View. This perspective allows theoperator to view the state of the battlefield as seen from theunit commander's simulator. The second viewing mode is theOmnipotent View. This perspective allows the operator to view theentire battlefield without regard to the perspective of any par-ticular simulator. In both viewing modes, the workstation pro-vides a top-down color map display showing the current state ofthe battlefield. The operator can zoom or pan to any point on themap display and can choose to display map features (such as con-tour lines, UTM grids, roads, water, trees and bridges) to facili-tate the monitoring process. When the operator wishes to conitrola particular tethered unit, he or she may enter performanceparameters such as movement, speed, and engagement activity using

i the keyboard.

The realistic portrayal of tethered units can be cnhancedthrough a second ARI-Knox developed strategy, automated messaging.This approach allows the SAFOR to send battlefield messages from

19I

Ithe leader of the unmanned unit ii, real time. This capabilityincludes multi-echelon relay of messages as well as built-in real-I istic time delays for message traffic. It allows training ofhigher echelon leaders using fewer personnel resources as well asenhancing the realism of unmanned "tethered" units by providing acommunications capability. This capability also supports trainingof information acquisition, processing, and dissemination tasks byproviding a mechanism to simulate message traffic and increase

S message load without increasing person el.

More specifically, the SAFOR workstation can be used to setautomated reporting requirements for tethered units. Severaltypes of reports can be sent out to simulate message traffic froman unmanned unit leader including: contact, spot, shell, situa-tion and ammo status reports. These messages are received bymanned simulators as digital messages displayed on a prototype C3device called the Command and Control Display (CCD). The CCDallows commanders of manned vehicles to review, process, and dis-seminate messages. Messages from unmanned simulators cannot bedistinguished from those sent by manned simulators. The SAFORmessaging capability provides automatic built-in time delays fortraining realism and relays across echelons as appropriate.

Apnlications. Tethering and automated messaging providetools for structuring realistic simulation-based exercises whileminimizing the requirements for BLUFOR personnel. From a trainingdelivery perspective, these ARI-Knox developed tools allow struc-turing of simulation-based exercises which meet several of thenine requirements identified by the Armor and Combined Arms train-ing communities. Taken from Table 5 presented earlier, theyinclude requirements for: (a) standardized training--since theactions of unmanned "tethered" units can be specified in theinitialization files and controlled by the SAFOR operator;(b) hands-on training--since individuals have greater access tosimulation-based training because the personnel resources for anyparticular exercise are reduced; (c) cross-training--since indi-viduals within manned vehicles may trade positions or be reini-tialized to different positions with additional units partici-pating via tethering; (d) multiple training iterations--since thepersonnel requirements for any particular exercise are reducedusing tethering and it is more feasible to conduct multiple itera-tions of training exercises with participating personnel; and(e) greater training realism--since larger, more complex exercisescan be structured with fewer personnel taan would normally be

I possible.Tethering has been used as a tool for structuring a variety

of training exercises focused on a range of training objectives.It provides a strategy for delivering more focused training on thefundamentals of C3 (noted as critical by the Armor and CombinedArms training communities in our interviews) but keeping personnelrequirements manageable. While many applications of tethering canbe imagined, three types of applications are of particular value

1 20I

and potential interest to the Army trainLng community. Theseinclude the use of a horizontal slice, a vertical slice andfocused messaging, and are described below.

The horizontal slice is illustrated in Figure 3. This figureshows a horizontal slice at the company level. In this case, theCompany Commander (CO), Executive Officer (XO), and the threeplatoon leaders participate in the exercise in manned simulators.The remaining three vehicles in each platoon are tethered to theirrespective platoon leaders as unmanned simulators. The reductionin personnel requirements structured in this manner are substan-tial. If all the vehicles represented in Figure 3 were manned,fourteen four-man crews (or fourteen three-man crews if an auto-matic loading capability exists in the simulator) would berequired for a total of 56 (or 42 with the automatic loader)soldiers. In contrast, with nine tethered vehicles, the personnelrequirements are reduced to five four-man crews (or five three-mancrews with an automatic loader) for a total of 20 (or 15 with the

automatic loader) soldiers. This represents a 64% reduction inpersonnel requirements for an exercise structured in this way.

JCOMPANYJ(HORIZONTAL SLICE)

-CO

I PLT 2PLT 3L

SAF SAF SAF

Figure 3. A company-level horizontal slice using tethering

U 21I

IThe horizontal slice is particularly useful for training

focused on a particular command level. Such training requirementsoften occur in institutional training where courses are focused oipreparation for particular positions, such as Armor OfficerAdvanced Course (AOAC) which trains potential Company Commandersand the Armor Officer Basic Course (AOBC) which aims at preparingfuture platoon leaders.

As an example, the horizontal slice is well suited to struc-turing simulation-based training exercises for institutionalcourses such as AOAC and AOBC because it allows students greateropportunity to participate in the position for which they arebeing trained. The configuration shown in Figure 3 is wellmatched to preparing AOBC students for mounted tactical training(currently representing 160 hours of instruction in the AOBCProgram of Instruction or POI). A horizontal slice moved up anechelon to include manned simulators for the Battalion Commander(Bn Co), XO, and COs suppurted by tethered platoons could serve acomparable role for AOAC students. The current AOAC POI includestactical training for offensive and defensive missions (includingdeliberate attack, movement to contact, defense in sector, defenda battle position, and delay) which are well suited to simulation-based exercises using tethering.

A vertical slice may also be configured using tethering whichprovides manned simulators at each level of the command chain withunit augmentation at each level by tethered, unmanned simulators.For example, Figure 4 illustrates a battalion level verticalslice. In thi.j case, ittamned simulators ate used at BaLLalion foxthe Bn Co and his Operations Officer (Bn S3) . At the companylevel, manned simulators are used for one CO and his XO with theremaining COs and XOs supplied as tethered vehicles. Similarly atthe platoon level, one of the manned CO's platoons (including theplatoon leader, platoon sergeant and two wingmen) participate inmanned simulators. Other platoons associated with the manned CO'svehicle as well as the other unmanned CO's vehicles are repre-sented in the exercise using tethering.

Again, the savings in personnel requirements are consider-able. As shown in Figure 4, eight manned simulators are requiredfor one battalion level vertical slice. Using tethering, theremaining 26 vehicles (three COs, three XOs, the remaining eightplatoon vehicles tethered to the manned CO and twelve platoonvehicles tethered to their respective unmanned CO vehicle) can berepresented without additional personnel requirements. Thisstrategy brings the personnel requirements down from 232 (four mancrew) or 174 (three man crew) soldiers if all simulators weremanned to 32 (four man crew) or 24 (three man crew) soldiers.using tethering. In this vertical slice example, the savings inpersonnel required is over 85%. It can be readily seen that theconduct of the simulation-based exercises themselves, especiallyon an iterative basis, are much more logistically feasible usingtethering as a structuring tool for the exercise.

I22I

BATTALIONI(VUIflCAL SLICE)

Iatalon Commander

BNS3

A Company B Company Company D Company

SAF SAF SAFCompany Commandat

IQMýII

IPLT 2PLT 3pLT

SAF SAFPlatoon LDR

* I'iatow S

Wingman Wlngman

Figure 4. A battalion-level vertical slice

A vertical slice structure is particularly applicable totraining objectives focusing on the C3 interactions up and downthe chain of command. This focus is, of course, of particularimportance in unit training where leaders must learn to workI together effectively. The emerging battle-focused Combined ArmsTraining Strategy (CATS) currently under coordination by the Armorcommunity as Coordinating Draft, TC 17-12-7) (Department of theArmy, 1991a) calls for a number of training events that are wellsuited to a vertical slice training strategy. These includeTactical Exercises without Troops (TEWTs) and Command Post

Exercises (CPXs) in particular.

Finally, focused messaging is a third application which isemerging in importance. Focused messaging uses the automatic mes-saging capability of the SAFOR to provide real time generation ofbattlefield messages from the leaders of tethered units. These

23

--_-_- -

mesges can be focused in content and formnat depending on train-ing objectives and can be relayed across echelons with appropriatem,`_time delays bu~ilt in. (Automated messaging can be further enhancedwith the use of the SEND utility described in a subsequent sectionIof this Research Product.)

There are at least two important training applications forfocused messaging. First, messages can be formulated to serve asI prompts for leader action. This approach provides leaders with astructured opportunity to deal with specific types of C3 problemswithin a tactical situation. For example, the Mission TrainingIPlan for the Tank and Mechanized Infantry Company and CompanyTeam, ARTEP 71-l--MTP, (Department of the Army, 1988c) identifiesthe following subtask associated with the sustainment of combatoperations: "lThe commander, XO, and lSG analyze. the mission withI input from key NCOs and leaders to determine anticipated ammu--nition, supply and service requirements" (Subtask 12, p. 5-198).Focused messaging allows messages to be formulated prior to theexercise which will give company leaders the opportunity to dealwith specific combat service support (CSS) planning of this type.

Secondly, the automated messaging provides a strategy fortraining information management skills. As noted in the inter-views described in the introductory section, there is a growingrecognition within the Army community of the importance of train-ing leaders to process and manage information effectively. Theseskills are becoming increasingly important as the Army moves

toward the fielding of automated C3 devices with digital messagingIcapabilities (see, for example, Henderson, 1992).

Figure 5 provides a graphic representation of the automated* messaging capability. Essentially, this capab~ility allows for the

transmission of messages from led~ of unmnanned units using theSAFOR to manned vehicles. it should be noted that automated mes-sages will always originate from the commander of the unit repre-I sented by the SAFOR even though there are multiple uninanned vehi-cles comprising his unit. So, as shown in Figure 5, all automatedmessages originate for the platoon leader (?.21) and are transmit-I ted to the CO. (Automated messages cannot originate from othervehicles in the platoon; i.e., A22, A23, A24.)

Automated messaging allows a greater number and more types ofI messages can be sent than might otherwise be possible. Thesemessages are received by the manned vehicle in digital form usingIa prototype C3 device housed in the simulator. The leader in themanned vehicle is then faced with the opportunity to acquire, pro-cess and disseminate this information efficiently and effectively.

Army training doctrine is currently evolving and can beexpected to more explicitly articulate training tasks related toinformation acquisition, processing and dissemination (i.e.,information management) in the future. However, both institu-

tional and unit training currently focus on selected aspects Of

24

information management which lend themselves well, to trainingusing automatic messaging. For example, from an institutionaltraining perspective, the AOBC POI currently includes sections oncombat communication techniques and battlefield informationreporting. An example from a unit training perspective is theMission Training Plan for the Tank and Mechanized InfantryBattalion Task Force, ARTEP 71-2-MTP (Department of the Army,1988b) which includes the task, "Maintain Communications" as anelement of Battalion Command and Control. While the specificsubtasks associated with this task focus primarily on radio commu-nications, digital communications represents an alternative commu-I nication means.I

II\

Unmanned I --

V e s ICo u i t a c t

spotSITREP

A22 Shell A24

I A23* Manned

Vehicles A CO CDR

RECEIVE MSGS

CONTACT

ta~nned tPOTi VehicleSITREP

SHELLI 9340OOTAOiFigure 5. Automated messaging to support training of informationmanagement skills

25I

IIn summary, tethering and automated messaging are powerful

tools for structuring training exercises that take full advantageof the SAFOR capability wit.tin a simulation environment. Theyprovide a flexible strategy for reducing personnel requirements,focusing the training experience on key positions and supple-menting message traffic to support specific training objectives.(Readers should note that the current SAFOR capability within theDIS environment is scheduled to be updated with a modular semi-automated forces (MODSAF) capability during the summer of 1993.Documentation on MODSAF is expected to be available in DIS facili-ties at that time.

IResQurne. A number of documents on the use of the SAFORworkstation are available for the prospective DIS user. Chiefamong these is the User's Guide for the workstation:

Saffi, M.R. (1991). STMNET sem!-automatedc forceso The com-bined arms workstation user's guide (Report No. 7025). Cambridae,MA: BBN Systems and Technologies Corporation.

Also available are updated release notes published periodi-cally and typically appended to the User's Guide available in theDIS facility. Unpublished materials include a set of briefingcharts entitled "SAF Troubleshooting Guidelines" and SAFOROperator Instructions.

Checkpointina

SCheckpointing is a software utility that is housed on theBattalion Tactical Operations Center (Bn TOC) workstations.Checkpointing allows the current state of an exercise to be savedso that it can be retrieved at a later time.

Capsule Description. Checkpointing essentially allows anexercise to be "frozen" and saved for future use. When the check-pointing utility is invoked, the current state of all workstationsand simulators configured on the network with which the user' s -workstation can communicate is saved. For example, if a networkwere configured with three TOC workstations (the Intelligence,Operations ana XO workstations) communicating with six Ml tank

*.mulators, the checkpointing utility would send messages to allI nree workstations and all six simulators to save their currentrates. For the workstations, the current state includes: loca-

tion of map center, map scale, Bn TOC location, all overlaysbelonging to a particular workstation, the set of overlays visibleat the time of checkpointing, all messages in the system and theirdistribution (that is, to folders, journal and workbook) and allformats belonging to a particular workstation. For the simula-tors, the current state includes simulator location, and fuel andammo status as well as comparable elements housed within theI Command and Control Display (CCD).

I26

I

The checkpointing utility has four main functions. Thefirst, Checkpoint, allows the user to save the current state of anexercise. This function requires the user to select theCheckpoint option and to enter a name for the checkpoint file tobe created. The software then creates the checkpoint file asnamed which includes the current state of all communicating simu-lators and workstations on the network and records the date andtime that the exercise state was saved.

The second checkpointing function, Delete, allows the user todelete checkpoint files that are no longer needed. Since thesefiles require a considerable amount of disk space, it is desirableto delete files after the requirement for their use has passed.Using the Delete function is a simple matter of selecting thefunction and the file name and confirming the selection. Thesoftware then deletes the selected checkpoint file.

The third checkpointing function, Restart, allows the user torestart an exercise at the point where it was previously"frozen". The user simply selects the Restart function and thename of a previously saved checkpoint file and confirms the selec-tion. These actions restore the exercise to its checkpointedstate and changes screens at workstations and in the simulators toreflect the status of the restarted exercise.

The fourth checkpointing function, Shutdown, allows the userto conclude an exercise. This action requires the user to selectthe function and to confirm the selection. At this point, allworkstations and simulators on the network are shut down.

APplications. The checkpointing utility offers numerousadvantages from the perspective of training in a DIS environment.From a training delivery view, Checkpointing allows the trainer to"freeze" scenarios at key points which are well suited for demon-stration of an important teaching point. Furthermore, since sce-narios can be saved at any point within the engagement, trainingexercises do not necessarily need to start at the beginning of ascenario. Thus, exercises can be shorter in duration without lossi of training value and training time can be used more efficiently.These efficiencies allow for the delivery of a greater frequencyof training exercises and more iterations of exercises focused onspecific tasks than would otherwise be possible. The latterrequirements for training delivery were perceived as particularlyimportant in our interviews with the Army training community.

i There are at least three specific training applications forwhich the checkpointing utility is well suited. These applica-tions, which emerged as important training requirements in ourinterviews with members of the training community at Fort Knox andFort Leavenworth, can be used for both institutional and unittraining. They include using checkpointing to build scenarios fortraining: information management skills, fundamental C3 skills,and operation as an integrated battalion staff.

27

IWith the advent of automated digital communications, informa-I tion man.eimgen • k.__ . are becoming increasingly recognized within

the Army community as important for success on the battlefield.While current Programs of Instruction (POIs) within the institu-tional training community and current Mission Training Plans(MTPs) intended for unit training do not explicitly call them out,it is reasonable to expect that these skills will be included asautomated command and control devices are fielded.

ARI-Knox has recently developed an Information ManagementExercise (IMEX) using the checkpointing utility in a DIS environ-ment. The IMEX is intended to provide individual training to sol-diers on the receipt, processing and dissemination of informationusing automated digital communications. The exercise uses a net-work of four double-screened workstations to provide a trainingexercise which can accommodate four participants at a time. Oneof the monitors at each workstation displays an automated CCDwhich is used by the student to manage tactical information. Theother monitor is used for presenting instructional materials tostudents including training objectives, tactical information suchas OPORD extracts, control messages and feedback on performance(see Winsch, et al., in preparation, for a complete description ofthe IMEX).

The checkpointing utility was used to create starting statesfor the training vignettes used in the IMEX. For each vignette,overlays for the tactical map and "old" (i.e., previouslyreceived) messages were sent to a workstation with CC) software toestablish the starting state of the display for each vignette.Once the training developers were satisfied that the display rep-resented an appropriate starting point for the vignette, the filewas saved using the Checkpoint function. Four checkpoint fileswere created in this manner, one for each vignette. During anactual exercise, the checkpoint file for a vignette is simplyactivated at the appropriate time using the Restart function.(The messages for student actions are transmitted to theWorkstation using another ARI-Knox developed utility, SEND. ThisI utility is described in the following section of this researchproduct.) In this way, the checkpointing utility provides avaluable tool for structuring short, focused exercises (such asthe IMEX vignettes) for use in DIS-based exercises.

A second rich application area for checkpointing is in thetraining of fundamental C3 skills. The importance of these skillswas consistently underscored in our interviews with the Armytraining community. The prevalent view was that since the impor-tant C3 skills have been well articulated in training doctrine,the training requirement centers on developing more effectivetraining approaches.

Checkpointing can be used to create a library of exercisefiles related to training specific C3 skills. This library couldcontain files aimed at the same training objective or task to

I28I

Iallow for multiple iterations and practice until the standard isachieved. These files could also be sequenced to require perfor-mance under increasingly difficult conditions. It would also bepossible to sequence these sets of checkpointed files so that theyprovide a basis for conducting a series of exercises on C3 skills.

Specific examples of C3 skills for which training exercisesI could be structured in this way can be found in the MTPs for the:tank platoon, ARTEP 17-237-10-MTP (Department of the Army, 1988d);the tank and mechanized infantry company and company team, ARTEP71-1-MTP, (Department of the Army, 1988c); and the tank and mecha-nized infantry battalion task force, ARTEP 71-2-MTP (Department ofthe Army, 1988b) . Table 8 highlights illustrative C3 tasks inthe planning phases from the company and company team MTP whichcould be treated in this way. While these tasks represent aplanning cycle that can be trained from beginning to end, it isnoteworthy that this is a multi-step process which is time con-suming to undertake and train. Using the checkpointing utility,it would be possible to build a scenario which focuses on one taskwithin the cycle, such as developing courses of action. In thiscase, the company team commander would be provided with the tacti-cal situation and related information generated to that point.The training exercise would focus specifically on the task of gen-erating courses of action and checkpointed scenarios could bestructured to allow him th, opportunity to perform this task underdifferent conditions an,, -ith varying amounts and nature of infor-mation available.

I The key point here is that the DIS environment coupled withthe checkpointing utility allows trainers to carefully structureshort, focused exercises aimed at specific C3 training objectives.I Instead of having to start at the beginning of a scenario, thetactical situation can be "fast forwarded" to a predeterminedpoint which has been saved for later restart using the utility.This approach offers greater efficiency in the form of trainingtime savings and greater effectiveness in the form of increasedfocus on specific training tasks and objectives.

Finally, a third application area well suited to the use ofcheckpointing is trainina operation as an 'ntearated battalions . This area was emphasized as an area of critical trainingimportance, especially in our interviews with members of thetraining community from the Combined Arms Command at FortLeavenworth.

I Operating as an integrated battalion staff is a di.fficult andcomplex training task. Staff officers must not only know how toperform the tasks associated with their own positions, they mustlearn to work together effectively. Working together means notonly understanding each other's working style ani coordinatingefforts in an effective manner, but also having sufficient under-standing of the tasks performed by other staff officers so thatappropriate information can be provided at the appropriate time.

I29I

ITable 8

Fundamental C3 Task at Company-Level Appropriate for CheckpointedTraining Scenarios (From ARTEP 71-I-MTP; note that subtasks arenot shown)

The company team commander:

1. reviews the OPORD2. performs a mission analysis3. Issues a warning order4. develops courses of action5. makes a tentative plan

The company team:

6. Initiates movement as requiredor quartering party, selectedunits, or entire team

7. conducts reconalssance

The company commander:

8. completes the plan based on METT-T,Intelligence from the reconnalssanceand other available resources

9. Issues his orders to his subordinate leaders

Checkpointing allows battalion staff officers to worktogether on one set of tasks at a time rather than requiring themto perform all tasks over the course of an entire scenario. As inthe company example above, this focus allows more efficient use oftraining time and a more constrained set of training tasks onwhich to focus. Examples of tasks taken from the Mission TrainingPlan for the Tank and Mechanized Infantry Battalion Task Force,ARTEP 71-2-MTP (Department of the Army, 1988b), include:(a) staff develops an OPORD from the commander's guidance;(b) commander and staff coordinate and refine the plan; and(c) Task Force leaders command and control the execution. Ofcourse, training should eventually include a full-up scenario frombeginning to end so that battalion staffs have the opportunity toperform the full cycle of required tasks. However, building upfrom smaller sets corresponds to the Army's crawl-walk-run phi-losophy of training which calls for gradual increments in diffi-culty and complexity.

Furthermore, shorter checkpointed scenarios also offer oppor--tunities for cross-training. Individuals can switch staff posi-tions and checkpointed scenarios can be repeated to provide theman opportunity to perform in another role; thereby gaining anunderstanding of the skill requirements across various staffpositions. The need for such cross-training also emerged in our

I30I

interviews at Fort Leavenworth as an area requiring attention inArmy training.

A final aspect of battalion staff integration which )endsitself well to the use of checkpointed scenarios is training forshift changes and movement of battalion command posts (CPs) =Battalion staff members typically work a 12 hour shift in a combatsituation. When they resume their duties after a shift change,they must quickly become updated and prepared to deal with conai-tions which have changed in their absence. Checkpointed scenariosprovide a mechanism for training smooth shift hand-offs by struc-turing opportunities for battalion staff to perform under one setof conditions and timeframe and then to undertake their duties ina second scenario checkpointed to reflect changes which haveoccurred in their absence. A similar approach could be taken withthe movement of CPs, since a "CP jump" requires battalion staff toalter their perspective to the new location and quickly updatetheir picture based on events that may have transpired duringtheir physical relocation.

In summary, checkpointing is a very useful tool for structur-ing training exercises in a DIS environment. It allows scenariosto be "frozen" at a particular point for future restarting. Thus,shorter, more focused training situations can be established whichallow units and soldiers to focus in on a restricted set of train-ing tasks. This focus avoids the dilution which sometimes occurswhen many training tasks are addressed in a single exercise andallows for efficient use of training time since it is not neces-sary ~ to start at the oegJJI11fIy U- d- d or uc eXperleuce d.Lof the events which lead up to a given point on the battlefield.

Resources. Users interested in the checkpointing utilityshould consult the Battalion Tactical Operations Center (Bn TOC)Workstation User's Guide. This guide contains a section with spe-cific instructions for using the four functions of :he checkpoint-ing utility (see pp. 3-6 - 3-8).

Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc. (1991a). SIMNET CVCC BattalionTactical Operations Center (Bn TOCM Workstation User Manual(Release 1.5, Report No. 7629). Cambridge, MA: BBN Systems andTechnologies Corporation.

Strategies for Eliciting and Capturing C3 Performance

IThis section describes four tools for eliciting and capturing

Command, Control, and Communication (C3) performance. The firststrategy provides the capability for trainers to use prototypedevices within the DIS environment to prompt C3 behaviors of

31I _

leaders and to record their performance. The second twostrategies provide supporting utilities which minimize personnelrequirements for C3 exercises and produce a written record ofsoldier actions. Finally, the fourth strategy provides amechanism for examining the effectiveness of C3 performance bycomparing the correspondence between the maneuver of blue forceunits and the location of their designated control measures.Thus, they serve as important tools for planning and deliveringtraining of C3 skills and for providing objective feedback on per-iormance.

S orThe four strategies are presented below. They includeta) instrumented devices; (b) the SEND utility; (c) the LISTEN

utility; and (d) a control measure performance measurement system.

TnstrIAmentedj Dvices

The use of instrumented devices is a strategy developed toelicit C3 behavior in a realistic manner and to capture measurescf performance for use in training feedback. This approach capi--talizes on the capabilities of the DIS environment by introducinga C3 device into reconfigurable M1 simulators and building datahooks into the device software so that the performance of soldierson these measures can be captured using the data collection aridanalysis system.

Capsule Description. Use of instrumented devices for con-* ducting C3 training in a simulator-based exercise requires config-

.uzatQion and Oinegrto of oUJ.L mdjuL W.aiVL it. within the ,IS)environment. These capabilities are: (a) reconfiguration of thevehicle simulators; (b) development of the instrumented device;(c)