1. NAVY WARFARE DEVELOPMENT COMMAND Federation Agreements Mr. Guy Purser Director, M&S Mr. John Bell Technical Director Navy Warfare Development Command

2. NAVY WARFARE DEVELOPMENT COMMAND Introduction Apologies to Ms. Phil Zimmerman! NWDC is executing  JTFWARNET  JFCOM Collaborative Information Environment LOE  Change of Command I could not be away from the above for more than 24 hours and with Hurricane Isabel, I was forced to cancel

3. NAVY WARFARE DEVELOPMENT COMMAND For Phil: Tell a Joke! It’s a good way to start out

4. NAVY WARFARE DEVELOPMENT COMMAND No Phil, I meant a GOOD joke!

5. NAVY WARFARE DEVELOPMENT COMMAND High Level Architecture HLA has provided the simulation world a means of bringing simulations together in a meaningful way!HLA has provided the simulation world a means of bringing simulations together in a meaningful way! NWDC executes approximately 6 large scale war games and experiments per year involving the federation process of many and varied simulationsNWDC executes approximately 6 large scale war games and experiments per year involving the federation process of many and varied simulations

6. NAVY WARFARE DEVELOPMENT COMMAND NWDC Federations IncludeInclude –JSAF Core Simulation –Naval Undersea Warfare Command Virtual Submarine Lab –Naval Surface Warfare Command DDX and DDX ANGUS Gun Simulations –NAVSEA/Northrop Grumman Virtual Hawkeye 2000 Experimental Simulation –Royal Australian Navy ANZUS DD Simulation

7. NAVY WARFARE DEVELOPMENT COMMAND NWDC Federations (continued) OASES - With significant new undersea representationsOASES - With significant new undersea representations USAF Airborne Laser (ABL) SimulationUSAF Airborne Laser (ABL) Simulation Aegis Training and Readiness Center Aegis Combat Systems Environmental SimulationAegis Training and Readiness Center Aegis Combat Systems Environmental Simulation Lockheed Martin Sea Slice Attack System SimulationLockheed Martin Sea Slice Attack System Simulation Battle Force Tactical Training SystemBattle Force Tactical Training System JTCSIL MUSEJTCSIL MUSE C4I Gateway to many C4I systemsC4I Gateway to many C4I systems

8. NAVY WARFARE DEVELOPMENT COMMAND WARCON Simulation EnvironmentWARCON Simulation Environment ADOCS C2 SystemADOCS C2 System USMC Distributed Virtual Training Environment (DVTE) (in October)USMC Distributed Virtual Training Environment (DVTE) (in October) MC-02 Federation MC-02 Federation NWDC Federations (continued 2) Point – NWDC has allot of Federation Experience! That means NWDC has many lesson’s learned!

9. NAVY WARFARE DEVELOPMENT COMMAND NWDC Federations Note that in all cases but one, federation was achieved by bringing a standalone, small representative simulation into the NWDC Experimental Federation Environment (i.e. JSAF and DDX)Note that in all cases but one, federation was achieved by bringing a standalone, small representative simulation into the NWDC Experimental Federation Environment (i.e. JSAF and DDX) Except in the case of MC-02, Federation did not involve more than one large battlefield representation simulation (i.e. JSAF, AWSIMS and JCATS)Except in the case of MC-02, Federation did not involve more than one large battlefield representation simulation (i.e. JSAF, AWSIMS and JCATS)

10. NAVY WARFARE DEVELOPMENT COMMAND NWDC Federations As a result, NWDC Federations result in small and simple Federation AgreementsAs a result, NWDC Federations result in small and simple Federation Agreements Required user output functionality is documented in Operational Sequence Diagrams (OSDs)Required user output functionality is documented in Operational Sequence Diagrams (OSDs) OSDs provide a framework for pre- experiment V&V testingOSDs provide a framework for pre- experiment V&V testing

11. NAVY WARFARE DEVELOPMENT COMMAND Large Scale Simulation Federations MC02 as a Case Study The MC02 Federation was a result of a political decision vice a requirements driven technical decisionThe MC02 Federation was a result of a political decision vice a requirements driven technical decision The MC02 Federation Agreement provided basic detail of how the federates should provide and interpret data involving objects and their interactionsThe MC02 Federation Agreement provided basic detail of how the federates should provide and interpret data involving objects and their interactions The agreement was very large, complicated, and relatively well thought outThe agreement was very large, complicated, and relatively well thought out In spite of this, the Agreement did not contain sufficient instruction to ensure that interactions between objects of different federates were valid In spite of this, the Agreement did not contain sufficient instruction to ensure that interactions between objects of different federates were valid

12. NAVY WARFARE DEVELOPMENT COMMAND Large Scale Simulation Federations MC02 as a Case Study The amount of time to specify in an agreement, a “rule set” to provide for valid interactions among objects would have been enormousThe amount of time to specify in an agreement, a “rule set” to provide for valid interactions among objects would have been enormous The amount of time and effort to implement the “rule sets” to ensure valid interactions among objects would have been an order of magnitude greaterThe amount of time and effort to implement the “rule sets” to ensure valid interactions among objects would have been an order of magnitude greater The MC02 federation process took time in terms of years vice weeks and rendered the rationale behind HLA useless (an economical (time and funds) process for bringing needed functionality together)The MC02 federation process took time in terms of years vice weeks and rendered the rationale behind HLA useless (an economical (time and funds) process for bringing needed functionality together) Instead of engineering a robust set of interactions (desired state) MC02 ended up “partitioning which federates provided platforms, services, and functionalityInstead of engineering a robust set of interactions (desired state) MC02 ended up “partitioning which federates provided platforms, services, and functionality

13. NAVY WARFARE DEVELOPMENT COMMAND Large Scale Simulation Federations MC02 as a Case Study The solution attempted to partition as many of the interactions in a single federate as possible (i.e. all air interactions in AWSIM, all ground interactions in JCATS, all Maritime interactions in JSAF)The solution attempted to partition as many of the interactions in a single federate as possible (i.e. all air interactions in AWSIM, all ground interactions in JCATS, all Maritime interactions in JSAF) Great problems were created when USN airplanes flew from aircraft carriers or USMC helicopters flew from amphibious shipsGreat problems were created when USN airplanes flew from aircraft carriers or USMC helicopters flew from amphibious ships This assumed that model interactions in a federate were validThis assumed that model interactions in a federate were valid This resulted in the declaration that ALL interactions would be adjudicated by a White Cell (now that is a Federation Agreement – it uses Man as an interaction algorithm)This resulted in the declaration that ALL interactions would be adjudicated by a White Cell (now that is a Federation Agreement – it uses Man as an interaction algorithm)

14. NAVY WARFARE DEVELOPMENT COMMAND Large Scale Simulation Federations MC02 as a Case Study Testing of advanced/robust interactions may never get testedTesting of advanced/robust interactions may never get tested Operational control of the simulation is close to impossible and requires an extensive C2 network of its ownOperational control of the simulation is close to impossible and requires an extensive C2 network of its own These federations result in huge functionality tradeoffs to the userThese federations result in huge functionality tradeoffs to the user Interface outputs tend to be impossible to correlate due to complexity of C2 modeling processes and inability to develop a working federation agreement to overcome modeling differencesInterface outputs tend to be impossible to correlate due to complexity of C2 modeling processes and inability to develop a working federation agreement to overcome modeling differences

15. NAVY WARFARE DEVELOPMENT COMMAND Large Scale Simulation Federations MC02 as a Case Study Even within the Agreement restrictions, interactions were often invalid, very common, and extremely hard to correctEven within the Agreement restrictions, interactions were often invalid, very common, and extremely hard to correct Nearly all of the development/federation processes were devoted to getting the basic functionality (plumbing) and primitive interactions to a workable and stable stateNearly all of the development/federation processes were devoted to getting the basic functionality (plumbing) and primitive interactions to a workable and stable state This begs the question: Is it better to federate large scale simualti0on or pick one and improve its functionality?

16. NAVY WARFARE DEVELOPMENT COMMAND Large Scale Simulation Federations MC02 as a Case Study MC02 was highly successful in completing the engineering necessary to achieve basic interoperability among a large number of federatesMC02 was highly successful in completing the engineering necessary to achieve basic interoperability among a large number of federates NWDC has found the corollary to be true: A federation between a large scale simulation environment and select platform or capabilities simulations can achieve advanced interoperabilityNWDC has found the corollary to be true: A federation between a large scale simulation environment and select platform or capabilities simulations can achieve advanced interoperability

17. NAVY WARFARE DEVELOPMENT COMMAND Lessons Learned If your federation agreement is getting to be large and complex, re- look the proposed federation!If your federation agreement is getting to be large and complex, re- look the proposed federation!

18. NAVY WARFARE DEVELOPMENT COMMAND Phil, if no questions and allot of silence, you should consider another joke!