Review of Activities

1
Review of Activities of the Steering Group on
NATO Simulation Policy and Applications Presented
at the International Program Reports Simulation
Interoperability Workshop 15 September 1998LTC
Harry Thompson, USA
2
Overview

• Organization
• Steering Group Objectives and Progress
• MS Master Plan
• Final Report
• Implementation

3
Organization
Military Committee (MC)
Research Technology (RT)
Board
NATO Industrial Advisory Group
(NIAG)
Steering Group on NATO Simulation
Policy and Applications (SGMS)
4
Members Participating in Steering Group
5
Steering Group Objectives

• Craft an Alliance approach to achieve simulation
  interoperability and reuse
• Develop a preliminary NATO MS Master Plan
• Draft a roadmap to achieve prioritized NATO
  simulated environments
• Recommend NATO policies regarding MS management
• Present a final report to the RT Board, CNAD and
  MC

6
Steering Group Progress(1 of 2)

• Assessment on MS Technology
• Simulation technology is mature enough to justify
  a major NATO investment
• Agreement on technical standards
• Recommendation to adopt the High Level
  Architecture (HLA) and a set of data interchange
  standards to promote interoperability and reuse

7
Steering Group Progress(2 of 2)

• Development of the MS Master Plan
• Consensus on goals, baseline military
  requirements, MS assessment and key objectives
• Agreement on key aspects of NATO MS policy
• Recommendations on policy decisions required to
  implement the Master Plan contained in a Final
  Report

8
MS Master Plan(www.dmso.mil/NATO_MSMP/)
9
MS Master Plan Structure

• Chapter 1 General Information
• Purpose scope responsibilities key definitions
• Chapter 2 NATO MS Goal
• Vision statement guiding principles discussion
  baseline military requirements top priorities
• Chapter 3 Current Assessment
• 17 aspects summary
• Chapter 4 MS Objectives
• Five objectives, with associated issues and
  actions
• Accomplished in four phases

10
NATO MS Vision
Modeling and simulation (MS) will provide
readily available, flexible and cost-effective
means to dramatically enhance NATO operations in
the application areas of defense planning,
operational planning, training and exercises,
support to operations and modernization. This
goal will be accomplished by a NATO-wide
co-operative effort that promotes
interoperability, reuse and affordability.
11
Summary of Assessment

• "NATO has not yet begun to harness the full
  potential of MS to improve operations. Uses are
  rich and diverse, but a common Alliance strategy
  incorporating interoperability and reuse, a key
  to cost-effectiveness, does not exist."

12
Master Plan Objectives
Objective 2
Objective 3
Objective 4
Objective 5
Objective 1
Establish a Common Technical Framework
Provide Common Services in NATO MS
Incorporate Technological Advances
Develop Simulations
Employ Simulations
Sub-objectives
Sub-objectives
Sub-objectives
Sub-objectives
5.1 Monitor MS-related advances 5.2
Conduct R D 5.3 Share
information 5.4 Implement advances
2.1 Compile MS information 2.2
Provide MS education 2.3 Establish a
simulation resouce library 2.4
Establish a help desk
3.1 Identify prioritise
requirements 3.2 Identify strategies 3.3
Allocate resources 3.4 Execute
strategy 3.5 Provide feedback
4.1 Plan employment 4.2 Provide
resources 4.3 Provide databases 4.4 Operate
simulations 4.5 Conduct Impact
Assessment
1.1 Adopt HLA 1.2 Establish data
interchange standards
13
Final Report(to be presented to CNAD 5 November)

14
Final Report Policy Recommendations(1 of 7)

• Identifies several policy options
• Shows relative advantages and disadvantages of
  each option
• Incorporates Steering Group-preferred options
  into policy recommendations

15
Final ReportKey Policy Issues (2 of 7)

• Key implementation decisions considered by the
  Steering Group
• What level of common funding should be provided?
• Where organizationally should the NATO simulation
  policy group (NSPG) be established?
• Where organizationally should the Simulation
  Co-ordination Office (SCO) be established?

16
Policy RecommendationsCommon Funding
Recommendation(3 of 7)

• Recommendation to the North Atlantic Council
• 1.7 million ECU (2 million) per annum for
  common services and SCO operations
• 2.6 million ECU (3 million) per annum for
  investment in core simulation/federation
  development

17
Policy RecommendationsNATO Simulation Policy
Group Overview (4 of 7)

• A policy-level body to ensure the coherent
  management and co-ordination of MS activities
  across the Alliance
• Key responsibilities
• Oversee implementation of MS Master Plan
• Allocate available funding to foster
  co-operative, high-priority efforts
• Oversee SCO
• Sponsor MS-related STANAGs
• Meet periodically - probably on a semi-annual
  basis
• Balanced representation from all NATO
  organizations with an interest in MS, to include
  simulation developers, technology developers,
  MNCs, and modernization activities

18
Policy RecommendationsNATO Simulation Policy
Group (NSPG) Recommendation (5 of 7)

• Recommendation to the North Atlantic Council New
  body report to the CNAD

19
Policy RecommendationsSimulation Co-ordination
Office (SCO) Overview (6 of 7)

• Working level organization that reports to and
  serves as secretariat to the NSPG
• Responsibilities
• Serve as day-to-day focal point to the MS
  community
• Co-ordinate MS activities and execution of
  Master Plan
• Provide or oversee provision of MS-related
  common services
• Identify and facilitate opportunities for
  co-operative development
• Co-ordinate MS-related standardization
  activities
• Serve as the liaison with NATO organizations, the
  nations, technical agents and standards
  organizations on MS matters

20
Policy RecommendationsSimulation Co-ordination
Office (SCO) Recommendation (7 of 7)

• Recommendation to the North Atlantic Council
  Establish in the International Staff

21
Implementation
22
Implementation of MS Master Plan

• Transition Proposal
• Simulation Co-ordination Office (SCO) Stand-up
• Pathfinder Projects
• HLA STANAG

23
Transition Proposal
Interim Activities
SCO Operational
Preliminary Education
NATO MS Education
Initial HLA certification
HLA certification
Preliminary Help Desk
Help Desk
Preliminary Resource Library
Resource Library
International Conferences
ITEC Europe
Develop Standards
Co-ordinate HLA STANAG
Phase 0 Technology Development (Technology
Transition Workforce Experience)
IPSG (Refined Recommendations)
Military Requirements
Possible NATO common funding
Nations provide funding resources
1998
2001
1999
2000
24
SCO Stand-upDraft Implementation Plan

• Jan-Jun 99 (NAC approval plus six months)
• Establish office
• Establish Help Desk
• Monitor pathfinder activities
• Conduct outreach to NATO staff and nations
• Jul-Aug 99 (NAC approval plus seven to eight
  months)
• Convene first NATO Simulation Policy Group
• Sep-Oct 99 (NAC approval plus nine to ten months)
• Hold first NATO MS Conference
• Conduct first NATO MS Staff Officers Course

25
Proposed Pathfinder Projects

• Phase 0 pathfinder effort/DiMuNDS 2000 conducted
  by the MNWG and supported by industry (next 18-24
  months)
• focused on continuing and sustaining a level of
  technical understanding and knowledge of
  building, adapting and using distributed
  simulations with proof of principle type user
  exercises (education/awareness/technology
  transition)
• supported mainly through existing NATO resources
  and national contributions
• Follow-on pathfinder projects SCO will lead a
  distributed simulation development project to
  support a military exercise
• Uses technical proficiencies developed during the
  preliminary effort
• Uses common funding money and national
  contributions to address military needs

26
HLA STANAG

• MS Master Plan gives SCO the responsibility to
  develop an HLA STANAG
• SGMS recommends that Land Group 8 coordinate HLA
  STANAG until stand-up of the SCO

27
Backup Slides
28
Background
1. Tasking
4. By Autumn 1998
Council of National Armaments Directors
3. Terms of Reference
2. Recommendation
29
Participants
Ministries of Defence
National Programme Research Centers
NATO Industrial Advisory Group
SGMS
NATO Military Authorities
Other Interested NATO Parties
30
Subgroup Taskings

• Develop baseline military requirements for MS
• Prioritise the requirements

• Advise on standards
• Advise on coordination of MS activities

• Define current baseline of Commercial
• Off-The-Shelf (COTS) applications
• Advise on standards
• Analyse multinational federated force rehearsal

31
Master Plan Development Process
High Level Architecture Evaluations
Member Nations

• Surveys on
• Simulations
• and Activities
• Written Inputs
• Reviews of Master Plan Drafts

Existing NATO Studies
Military Requirements and Priorities
Commercial Off- the-Shelf Product Availability
Prefeasibility Studies
32
Programme of Work Timeline (1 of 2)
5-6 Nov 97 CNAD MC - Present status report
11 Sep 97 RT Board - Present status report
Related Activities
28-30 Apr 97 SGMS Mtg - Approve
POW - Approve survey plans - Approve MSMP
structure - Approve MSMP assessment areas -
Discuss glossary - Discuss vision statement
8-10 Jul 97 HLA Technical
Workshop - Review discuss MS
standards
21-23 Oct 97 SGMS Mtg - Review
survey results - Review industrial subgroup
study - Approve vision statement - Review MSMP
Version 0.1 - Conduct initial discussion on
NATO MS policy

SGMS Activities
MSMP Ver 0.2 Read-ahead by 16 Dec

MSMP Ver 0.1 Read-ahead by 19 Sep
Vision, Simulation Survey MSMP Inputs Due by
1 Jul
Glossary Inputs Due by 31 Jul
Inputs for MSMP Ver 0.2 Due by 18 Nov
Writing Team
Write MSMP Ver 0.1 2 Jul to 18 Sep
Write MSMP Ver 0.2 19 Nov to 15 Dec
33
Programme of Work Timeline (2 of 2)

21-24 Sep 98 RT Board - Present final
report MSMP
4-5 Nov 98 CNAD MC - Present final report
MSMP
Related Activities
JAN 98 FEB
MAR APR MAY
JUN JUL
AUG SEP OCT
NOV
13-15 Jan 98 SGMS Mtg - Approve MS
standards - Review MSMP Version 0.2 -
Review policy recommendations and final report
4-8 May 98 SGMS Mtg - Review MSMP
Version 0.3 - Approve policy recommendations
15-17 Jul 98 SGMS Mtg - Discuss
MSMP Ver 0.4 - Approve MSMP Ver 1.0 - Revise and
Approve Final Report
6-7 October 98 SGMS Mtg
(Tentative) - RTB Briefing -- Provide
feedback -- Discuss issues - Preview MS
video - MSMP implementation -- Discuss
personnel -- Discuss funding -- Discuss
Pathfinder
SGMS Activities
Inputs for MSMP Ver 0.3 Due by 25 Feb
MSMP Ver 0.4 Read-ahead by 15 Jun
MSMP Ver 1.0 Distributed by 31 Jul
MSMP Ver 0.3 Read-ahead by 3 Apr
Writing Team
Write MSMP Ver 0.3 26 Feb to 2 Apr
Write MSMP Ver 0.4 8 May to 14 Jun
Write MSMP Ver 1.0 17 Jul to 30 Jul
34
NATO Simulation Policy GroupProposed Membership

• National government representatives Senior
  official responsible with policy oversight for
  military modeling and simulation e.g. Proposed
  U.S. representative is .
• NATO staff representatives Senior level policy
  representative from NATO organizations with an
  interest in MS, to include simulation
  developers, technology developers, MNCs, and
  modernization activities.

35
CNAD Letter
36
SCO Stand-upResource Requirements

• Establish SCO (1,000k)
• 4 persons to staff SCO
• communications equipment
• office equipment and supplies
• Establish Help Desk (400k)
• 2 persons to staff Help Desk
• communications
• office equipment and supplies
• Provide Education (250k)
• education materials
• facility rental
• annual conference
• Establish Simulation Resource Library (150k)
• server
• website
• maintenance
• Establish Travel Account (60k)
• travel and conference attendance

37
SCO Stand-upResource Provider Actions

• NATO
• Near-term (3-4 months)
• Solicit national contributions
• Plan infrastructure implementation to support SCO
• Consider personnel
• Mid-term (6-7 months)
• Appoint SCO head
• Provide infrastructure
• Nations
• Near-term (3-4 months)
• Consider providing personnel
• Consider providing access to national
  capabilities, e.g., MSOSA and the EUCLID Project
  11.14, Flexible Training Composition
• Consider providing interim funds
• Mid-term (6-7 months)
• Provide resources as available
• Timeline started at July 1998 SGMS Meeting