Testing Potential Solutions in a Training Environment. Work Shop Facilitator Guide

Transcription

1 Testing Potential Solutions in a Training Environment Work Shop Facilitator Guide Ken Pierce GS-14, Solution Development October 2011

2 Testing Potential Solutions in a Training Environment Statement of the Problem: There is no formal mechanism to transition training insights from experiments into practical application during exercises. (JCW Mr. Ken Pierce) Workshop Outcome(s): Target Audience: Understand the similarities and differences between joint training exercises and joint experiments Appreciate the differences and the synergy between joint capability areas (JCAs) used in experimentation and joint mission essential tasks (JMET) used in joint training exercises Possible methodologies to transition experimentation insights, in regards to training, into training objectives for joint exercises Swedish Armed Forces NATO Joint Force Training Centre Finnish Ministry of Defense Future Systems Directorate, MINDEF Singapore Estonian Ministry of Defense CD&E Center (Finland) DEU - Bundeswehr Transformation Centre NATO HQ SACT Italian Defense General Staff - Centre for Defense Innovation Canadian Forces College Workshop Objective(s): Bring together experimenters and trainers Compare and contrast joint exercises and joint experiments Explore methodologies to transition emerging insights from experiments into the objectives for training exercises Seek opportunities to include training objectives in joint experiments. Remarks: This is an issue that has been highlighted by the disestablishment of JFCOM and the establishment of DD J7 JCW.

3 Testing Potential Solutions in a Training Environment Purpose: Explore methodologies to transition emerging insights from experiments into the objectives for training exercises Method: Two-hour panel consisting of 3-4 international officers, a training subject matter expert, and a transition subject matter expert Two break-out groups facilitated by Ken Pierce and Eric Springer (SE) with 20 international officers in each group using a case study: Phased Adaptive Approach for Ballistic Missile Defense (PAA-BMD) End State: New or different techniques, ideas, and methods to test and or transition solutions into a training environment

4 Battle Rhythm Wednesday, 16 November 2011 Time Subject Location OPR Notes Scene Setter Panel NY Conference Room Coffee Break Foyer Mr. Morse Ken Pierce will be panel member Solutions Training Panel Manhattan Conf Room Ken Pierce LT Col Casucelli (IT) Lt Col Hirvonen (FIN) TBD (GER) MR Springer JCW Mr. Aldridge JS Support by IT Hoff and CDR Gaston USNR Lunch Citrus Restaurant Solution-Training Case Study Manhattan Mediterranean Ken Pierce B/O 1 Eric Springer B/O 2 Recorders: CDR Gaston IT1 Hoff Coffee Break Foyer Solution-Training Case Study Manhattan Mediterranean Ken Pierce B/O 1 Eric Springer B/O 2 Recorders: CDR Gaston IT1 Hoff

5 Battle Rhythm Thursday, 15 November 2011 Time Subject Location OPR Notes Solution-Training Case Study Coffee Break Foyer Solution-Training Case Study Manhattan Mediterranean Manhattan Mediterranean Lunch Citrus Restaurant Ken Pierce B/O 1 Eric Springer B/O 2 Ken Pierce B/O 1 Eric Springer B/O 2 Recorders: CDR Gaston IT1 Hoff Recorders: CDR Gaston IT1 Hoff Prep for Out brief Manhattan Ken Pierce LT Col Casucelli (IT) Lt Col Hirvonen (FIN) TBD (GER) MR Springer JCW Mr Aldridge JS Recorders: CDR Gaston IT1 Hoff Coffee Break Foyer Work Shop Summaries New York Ballroom Ken Pierce Recorders: CDR Gaston IT1 Hoff

6 Training VS Experiment Mission Analysis COA Development COA Wargaming Define the Battlespace: - Area of Interest - Area of Influence - Area of Operations Analyze Mission Requirements Develop Potential Methods to accomplish assigned mission Select a wargaming technique- - Sequence of essential tasks - Avenue in depth - Belt - Box Apply analytical techniques to compare and contrast Problem Formulation Find the warfighting problem Identify proposed solutions Identify relevant conditions Determine appropriate metrics, measures and key performance parameters Experiment Design Decompose problem Select hypotheses Determine structure and nature of experiment treatment groups Work through scenarios Determine technical requirements Experiment Execution GUIDEx Experiment Development Determine required fidelity of representations Allocate responsibilities Source data and technical details Develop models and system representations Conduct pilot testing Train subjects Undertake rehearsals COA Comparison Analysis Identify findings Check for rival explanations of findings Orders Development Transition Develop detailed plans to execute the mission Communicate the plan to higher, adjacent and subordinate units Report & Transition

7 Panel Discussion Purpose: To have a panel of experts address specific questions setting conditions for the break-out group case studies. Method: Panel consisting of a U.S. experiment expert, a U.S. training expert, and a Finnish, Italian, and German officer in a discussion moderated by Ken Pierce from JCW. End State: Participants will understand the lexicon and the similarities and differences of training and experiments.

8 The Panel Moderator: Mr. Ken Pierce Joint Staff LT Col Casucelli (IT) Lt Col Hirvonen (FIN) TBD (GER) Mr. Springer Joint Staff Mr. Aldridge Joint Staff

9 Panel ROE Moderator asks leading question to a member of the panel to initiate discussion Panel members discuss the issue Moderator queries audience for questions to panel members Moderator summarize discussion

10 Similarities and differences between joint training exercises and joint experiments Intended outcome of a joint training exercise Intended outcome of a joint experiment Similarities and differences in the design of joint training events and experiments Scenario requirements for an experiment or exercise Methods for categorizing gaps/shortfalls/vulnerabilities for training exercises or for experiments

11 The differences and the synergy between joint capability areas (JCAs) used in experimentation and joint mission essential tasks (JMET) used in training exercises Joint mission essential tasks (JMETs) and their uses for training Joint capability areas (JCAs) and their uses for experiments Deriving a units mission essential tasks Deriving capabilities or capability gaps from experiments Relating doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership, personnel, facilities and policy (DOTMLPF-P) to JMETs and JCAs

12 Methodologies to transition experimentation insights in regard to training into training objectives for joint exercises Defining a concept Defining doctrine Using concepts and doctrine for training and experiments Role of the scenario Isolating experiment objectives from an exercise objective for data capture purposes Requirements for modeling and simulation for exercises and experiments

13 Case Study Phased Adaptive Approach to Ballistic Missile Defense

14 Phased Adaptive Approach To Ballistic Missile Defense (PAA-BMD) Using Phased Adaptive Approach for Ballistic Missile Defense (PAA-BMD) as an example, what methodologies and or best practices can be used to transition experimentation insights, into training objectives for joint or combined exercises and individual or collective training?

15 Break-out Groups personnel in each group: Group 1: Mr. Ken Pierce, Facilitator, Lt Col Casuaclli (SME); GER Officer (DME); CDR Gaston Recorder. Group 2: Mr. Eric Springer, Facilitator, Lt Col Hirvonen (SME), Mr. Bill Aldridge (SME); IT 1 Hof Recorder.

16 ROE for B/O Groups Facilitators introduce an aspect of the PAA BMD experiment and then ask leading questions to facilitate discussion on experimentation and training synergies. Executed in three sections relating to the three workshop objectives. Facilitator summarizes each discussion before moving on. Facilitator, SMEs, and recorder build outbrief slides for presentation.

17 PAA-BMD Background (U) BMD analytical experimentation campaign focused on HLD in 2015, 2018 and 2020, defending against multiple ICBM launches. Problem Statement With implementation of the PAA, USNORTHCOM must determine: 1. Does the Probability of Engagement Success (P ES ) across phase milestones meet required minimums for Homeland Defense (HLD)? 2. If not, what changes are recommended to achieve the required P ES? End State 1. Determination of Homeland P ES. 2. Identified solutions to increase P ES as required. 3. Improved implementation of PAA for HLD. 4. Operationally aligned and improved BMDS for HLD across DOTMLPF. 5. Capable, trained, and ready force that is adaptable and agile in responding to changing BMD threats. Partners: USNORTHCOM and Missile Defense Agency 17

18 PAA-BMD Background (U) Probability of Engagement Success (P ES ): The probability the BMDS will negate the lethal object(s) from a single adversary missile. It is a combined probability, from sensor detection through interceptor launch and end game (intercept or miss) P ES = P SURV * P AVAIL * P REL * P TRACK * P P&T * P GUIDE * P DESTROY * P ASSESS P DESTROY = P SSK_CORR *(1-(1- PSSK_UNCORR ) NSHOTS ) P SSK = P WEP_REL * P HO *P HIT * P KILL/HIT New Paradigm: Informs senior leaders and organizations on the relationship between metrics and implied intent by reviewing different metrics of BMD performance. 18

19 PAA-BMD Background (U) Typical BMD Analysis Broad/shallow Global/BMDS - wide focus Limited opportunity for what if exploration Developer s perspective Assumptions, variables and metrics of interest for experimentation Employment of capabilities viewed through a technical and purely BMDS lens M&S often done with limited operator visibility PAA-BMD Project Narrow/deep Homeland BMD focus Excursions outside the program of record box Operator s perspective Assumptions, variables, and metrics of interest for experimentation Multi-mission, practical view of the issues in force management, authorities and shot doctrine M&S transparency; operator participation and vetting 19

20 Solving the Problem (U) Campaign level effort across multiple FYs, impacting the entire BMDS Training & Education / Exercises Doctrine/ TTP X % increase (~1 year) X % increase (~18 months) P ES Architectu re X % increase (~2 years) Experimentation Process Analysi Analysi M&S JMT M&S s s Sensors X % increase (~6 years) DOTMLP F Architectur e Capabilitie s Weapons X % increase (~8 years) 20

21 Similarities and differences between joint training exercises and joint experiments What is the intended outcome of a joint BMD training exercise? What is the difference in the outcome of the PAA-BMD experiment? What are the similarities and differences in the design of a typical joint training event and the PAA-BMD experiment? What are the similarities and differences in scenario development? There is Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) doctrine but no written BMDS concept with a PAA what is the experimentation challenge? What are some methods for categorizing gaps/shortfalls/vulnerabilities for training exercises compared to this experiment?

22 Experimentation and Training Informs Leader Development Capstone and Pinnacle Identifies training gaps, shortfalls and vulnerabilities (baseline assessment contains DOTMLPF-P implications) Recommends solutions to joint training; both individual and collective Provides products for training purposes such as improved program of instruction or training handbook Informs and participates in training events from exercises to war games Uses experiment events such as war games and humanin-the loop (HITL) experiments to train Service personnel in aspects of joint operations. Serves as a training venue for the military reserves.

23 Leveraging Efforts(U) BMDS Wargame Jan 2011 MDA-sponsored event Sub-theme will focus on Phases III/IV of the EPAA BMDS for CY 2018 and 2020) Warfighter runs based on BMDS Program of Record Excursions examined during developer runs DIA-approved threat for 2019 Uses BMDS International Simulation (I-SIM) (using Shaped our experiment design Joint Capabilities Mix III Study JIAMDO-sponsored study of force sufficiency issues in the 2019 epoch using MDA 2018 PAA architecture Expected publication in Mar or Apr 2011 Many specific details classified Uses MSFD scenarios incorporating combatant command adjustments, intelligence updates and firing doctrines Provided insights into a larger set of BMDS issues Guidance Guidance and Plans and Plans Includes but not limited to: BMD Review Report (Feb 2010) STRATCOM Global Missile Defense CONOPS (Feb 2010) 2010 MDA Summer Study BMDS Assess to Criteria (Jul 2010 but not signed) Theater BMD Plans and Processes JIAMDO IAMD Architectures Shaped the baseline assessment 23

24 Joint Mission Threads (U) JMT: An operational and technical description of the end-to-end set of activities and systems that accomplish the execution of a joint mission. (CJCSI Series) Provide common, joint operational context for engineers, analysts, testers, acquisition professionals, and others to: Influenced PAA-BMD constructive simulation Informed project assumptions Shape Joint Capability Mix IV Identify gaps in BMDS architecture Impact Universal Joint Tasks Impact MDA and Service acquisition programs Providing the Operational Context End Result: Jointly validated, fully documented JMTs for PAA-BMD 24

25 PAA-BMD Lines of Operation (U) FY10 FY11 FY12 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr MDA BMDS Wargame Simulation Assessment NWC BMD Workshop Baseline Assessment Report TODAY JMT Architecture Development Workshops Interoperability Matrices Development JS J8 DDC4 Support BMD & C2I Transition Event Test Jun - Aug Development Sep - Oct Assessment Planning Workshops Assessment Oct - Dec Gaps/Solutions Workshop Solution Dec - Jan COI Engagements JIAMDO/JMT Mtg ESC NC/ 100 th BDE Demo Enhanced Models (MDA) ESC GT 12 PCL Development ESC ESC ESC Metrics White Paper GA Tech /ASDL Visualization Tool DoDAF Architectures Final Report Road Show CDR NC Brief 25

26 The differences and the synergy between joint capability areas (JCAs) used in experimentation and joint mission essential tasks (JMET) used in training exercises How can training objectives written as JMETs linked with the capabilities in the PAA-BMD experiment? How are capability gaps and shortfalls derived for experiments? Can JMETs and JCAs be used together? How does DOTMLPF relate to both training and experiments?

27 Ballistic Missile Defense Projects and Training Ranges from joint Service component training such as Coalition Air Operations Center (CAOC) and Maritime Operations Center (MOC) and across three COCOMs strategic level training for PAA. Baseline assessment and joint mission threads have direct impact on joint training gaps and shortfalls: PAA identified that the NORTHCOM shot doctrine and 100 th Bde training was in contrast to STRATCOM shot doctrine. Project participated in the MDA BMDS War Game and hosted a BMD Work Shop at the Naval War College Different BMD C2 organizations in CENTCOM and EUCOM in the COCOMS add complexity to lateral coordination. BMD training is inconsistent with IAMD and OCA training. Project hosted BMDS training from MDA for partners, stakeholders and JFCOM interested parties. Project is informing and being informed by training exercises from fleet exercises to Nimble Titan.

28 PAA-BMD Transition (U) Aegis BMD w SM-3 IA AN/TPY-2 (FBM) C2BMC AOC (Ramstein) ALTBMD Interim Capability Aegis BMD 4.0.1/5.0 w SM3 IB Aegis Ashore 5.0 w SM-3 IB (one site) AN/TPY-2 (FBM) C2BMC Updates ALTBMD Lower Tier THAAD Aegis BMD 5.1 w SM3 IIA Aegis Ashore 5.1 w SM3 IB/IIA (2 sites) AN/TPY-2 (FBM) C2BMC Updates ALTBMD Upper Tier THAAD, PTSS, ABIR Aegis BMD 5.1 w SM3- IIA Aegis Ashore w SM3 IIB (2 sites) AN/TPY-2 (FBM) Enhanced C2BMC THAAD, PTSS, ABIR Sensor/Weapons/C3I Recommendations Modeling Modifications More Accurate Portrayal of BMD Engagements BMDS Metrics White Paper Paradigm Shift Joint Mission Threads (Tier 2) DoDAF Repository / JIAMDO JBTEC BTEG Vigilant Shield (VS) Global Thunder & Lightning Series (Observe) 100 BDE / J-DIAMD JT&E Global Series BMD Training & Education Group (BTEG) Austere Challenge VS JP 3-27 JP 3- Countering Air 01 and Missile Threats Homeland Defense Global Series VS Global Series Joint Doctrine and TTP Modifications VS Global Series VS Global Series -CCDR Exercises (Vigilant Shield, Global Thunder, & Global Lightning, Austere Challenge) -BMDS Wargames 28

29 Transition Focused(U) COI, Academic and Scientific Community Socialization P ES = P AVAIL P REL P DETECT P TRACK P P&T P GUIDE P TARSEL P DESTROY P ASSESS Metrics White Paper Paradigm Shift BMD Community Acceptance Joint Training and Wargames Combatant Command Exercises (Vigilant Shield, Global Thunder & Global Lightning) BMDS Wargames Joint Doctrine Modifications JP 3-01 and JP

30 Phased Adaptive Approach to Ballistic Missile Defense (PAA-BMD) (U) Problem Statement: With implementation of the PAA, USNORTHCOM must determine: 1. Does the Probability of Engagement Success (P ES ) across phase milestones meet required minimums for Homeland Defense (HLD)? 2. If not, what changes are recommended to achieve the required P ES? PAA BMD Endstate: BMD analytical experimentation campaign focused on HLD in 2015, 2018 and 2020, defending against multiple ICBM launches with the following endstates: 1. Determination of Homeland P ES. 2. Identified solutions to increase P ES as required. 3. Improved implementation of PAA for HLD. 4. Operationally aligned and improved BMDS for HLD across DOTMLPF. 5. Capable, trained, and ready force that is adaptable and agile in responding to changing BMD threats. Key Events: 1. LAST : STRATCOM visit by Mr. Knapp, STRATCOM desk officer and BMD project leads. Engaged with J7, J8 and J9, and attended OFSC, chaired by STRATCOM Dep CDR. 2. NEXT: Brief to Mr. Hulcher, SES (OSD Office of Strategic Warfare): Tentatively, 12 Sep. NC briefing at request of OSD AT&L to provide update on WFC and linkage to JCM III. Partners: USNORTHCOM and Missile Defense Agency 30

31 PAA-BMD Project Team Organization Project Lead (O-6) CAPT McLachlan Project Manager (GS15) Ms. Winter MIL: 3* CIV: 6 CTR: 6 *Joint Reserve Unit support as available Transition (GS14) Mr. Nichol SMEs Lt Gen Obering (NC) Mr. Bright (NC) Mr. Brainerd (NC) Mr. Englander (MDA) Dr. Roper (MDA) Mr. McDonald (MDA) LT Carpenter (MDA) (ASDL) (ASDL) Solution Development (O-5) CDR Pollard Experimentation (GS14) Mr. Pierce Planner (GS13) Mr. Streetman Design (CTR) Mr. Boyce Scenario (CTR) Mr. Mitchell Analysis (O-5) LTC Wittwer Analyst Mr. Delucia (GS14) Mrs. Haas (GS13) Mr. Brown (CTR) Dr. King (CTR) Mr. Rich (CTR) Mr. Rouquie (CTR) 31

32 Experiment Campaign Timeline (U) Phase Test Development Assessment Solution Transition Purpose Proof of principle Identify vulnerabilities and design assessment runs Assess BMD against raids: 2015, 2018, 2020 Assess solutions Present results and recommendations to leadership Exit Criteria Run matrices to support assessment Prioritized gaps and proposed solutions for experimentation Validated solutions recommended for transition Decision on solutions to be transitioned and pathways Duration 75 days 50 days 45 days 45 days 90 days Timeline Ongoing - 15 Aug Other Events Products White Paper Algorithm development Approved algorithms DCAP 1 Sep - 21 Oct 24 Oct 9 Dec 12 Dec -27 Jan 30 Jan - 30 Apr 1520 Sep: ESC & 1 Nov: 1 ESC Nov: ESC Sep /18-21 Oct : Assess Phase Planning Workshops 1 & 2 Assessment DCAP Final White Paper Week Dec: of 12 ESC Dec: ESC 6-9 Dec: Gaps/Solutions Workshop (SAIC) NLT 10 Feb: ESC NLT 10 Feb: ESC Late Feb: Brief NC CDR Mar-early Apr: Road show Late Apr: BMDS COI Transition Event (2 days NCR) Tier 2 JMT Draft Report Final Report JCW Senior Leader Support Requested Transition deliverables 32

33 Exercises for PAA-BMD (U) Vigilant Shield 12 is focused on DSCA and results of PAA-BMD project will not be ready for integration into VS12. Project will target VS13 to integrate results Global Lightning 12 executes at same time the project is transitioning. PAA-BMD should observe execution of GL12 & target GL13 to incorporate results. Vigilant Shield (NORTHCOM): BMDS Wargame Jan 2011 Joint Capabilities Mix III Study Excursions examined during developer runs DIA-approved threat for 2019 Uses BMDS International Simulation (I-SIM) Global Thunder 12 (STRATCOM): Global Thunder 12 executes during the experimentation phase of the PAA-BMD project so there is no opportunity to integrate. However, the team will maintain contact with GT12 desk officer in order to integrate results into GT13 Global Lightning 12 (STRATCOM): Many specific details classified Uses MSFD scenarios incorporating combatant command adjustments, intelligence updates and firing doctrines Unclassified, Multi-National Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) campaign of experimentation Two year process of LOEs culminating in BMD wargame Experimental process designed to examine a range of political and military issues that will influence future, multi-national BMD operations Nimble Titan 12 (STRATCOM):

34 Methodologies to transition experimentation insights in regard to training into training objectives for joint exercises How does a PAA concept or theory relate to joint doctrine? Does the scenario matter? Can a common scenario for PAA-BMD experiment and a BMD training event be used? How can an experiment objective be isolated from an exercise objective for data capture purposes. What are the modeling and simulation requirements?

35 BMD Collaboration Internal Both hypothesis and discovery events inform concepts, doctrine, lessons learned and training. Joint mission threads (J8) are integral to baseline assessment and spiral products for partners. Advantaging joint exercise program Info sharing with JT&E feasibility study Joint Deployable Integrated Air and Missile Defense (JDIAMD). External Experiment support agreements and terms of reference formalize collaboration with partners. PAA weekly meeting includes partners (NC and MDA) and external organizations such as Georgia Tech and SAIC. PAA has formal Executive Steering Council which is focused on collaboration and synchronization ant the FO/GO level. Strategic engagement plan insures collaboration takes place with community of interest at key spirals in both experiments. Transition plans are forcing functions for early collaboration with change agents.

36 Testing Potential Solutions in a Training Environment Work Shop Summary

37 Panel Discussion - Insights OBJ 1 OBJ 2 OBJ 3

38 Similarities and differences between joint training exercises and joint experiments Break Out Group Insights

39 The differences and the synergy between joint capability areas (JCAs) used in experimentation and joint mission essential tasks (JMET) used in training exercises Break Out Group Insights

40 Methodologies to transition experimentation insights in regard to training into training objectives for joint exercises Break Out group Insights