Live Virtual Constructive LVC Architecture Interoperability Assessment

1
Live Virtual Constructive (LVC) Architecture
Interoperability Assessment
UNCLASSIFIED
2
Briefing Topics

• Modelling Simulation Challenges
• LVC Architecture Issue
• LVC Environment Vision
• Project Methodology
• LVCAR Study Team Organization
• LVCAR Study Status
• NATO Interface
• Risks and Keys to Success
• Summary

3
MS Challenges

• Keep up with accelerating requirements
• Test, train, experiment and rehearse in a
  continuously available environment
• Reduce time and cost to set up exercises /
  simulations
• Encompass all real-world environments
• Provide interoperability across the Unified
  Action partners, i.e., interagency
  multinational
• Develop a focused investment strategy

The World is Transforming but MS is Evolving
4
The LVC Architecture Issue

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

Four communities agree critical review needed to
develop way forward for efficient, effective
interoperability.
5
LVC Environment Vision

• We need an efficient and effective Global
  Synthetic Environment solution that enables
  Unified Action and Joint Capability Development.
• Global Synthetic Environment (GSE)
• Integrated live, virtual and constructive
  systems, information systems, network systems and
  stakeholders
• A persistent, globally distributed,
  multi-faceted, synthetic environment
• Capable of continuously supporting live, virtual
  and constructive events for all MS domains
  (analysis, acquisition, planning, test
  evaluation, training, experimentation and
  operations)
• Allowing for rapid adaptation to changes within
  todays battlespace while anticipating those of
  tomorrow
• Position effective solutions, both kinetic and
  non-kinetic, to the complex challenges being
  faced by our warfighters across the full spectrum
  of operations
• Knowledge network (move from information age to
  knowledge age)

Evolution of our current capability is not
enough we must transform our approach to MS
6
What We Are Doing

• Developing a recommended roadmap (way forward)
  regarding LVC interoperability across three broad
  areas of research
• Desired Integrating Architecture(s)
• Desired Business Model(s)
• Desired Standards Evolution Process
• The plan will provide
• Rationale for recommendations, citing the
  findings on which they are based
• An assessment of how any LVC architecture policy
  change might impact the user communities, with
  recommendations on strategies to promote new
  direction and minimize impact
• Recommended next steps (e.g., further
  study/analysis, experiments, prototyping any new
  architecture)

Develop an LVC Architecture Roadmap
7
LVCAR Study Scope

• Technical Architecture
• Explore the competing architectures (HLA, TENA,
  CTIA, DIS, and ALSP) and SOA
• Identify shortfalls, strengths and weaknesses
• Look ahead at technology advances for a future
  period not to exceed five years
• Recommend future technical architecture(s) that
  best address DoD enterprise requirements
• Business Model
• Identify a range of business model alternatives
  for developing, implementing and evolving
  integrating architecture(s) for the DoD
  enterprise
• Identify the opportunities, restrictions and
  impacts of existing and proposed business
  concepts on MS interoperability

8
LVCAR Study Scope (cont)

• Standards
• Identify potential standards organizations for
  LVC interoperability standardization
• Categorize the different standards development
  approaches
• Classify the types of LVC interoperability
  standards currently used by the community
• Identify certification and testing methodologies
  used for LVC interoperability standards
• Recommend manner in which interoperability
  standards should be evolved and compliance
  evaluated

9
LVC Assessment Organization
10
LVCAR Meetings
11
Recently Completed Actions / Products

• Coordinated with SISO LVC-IA group
• Produced Workshop 1 report
• Produced Scoping document
• Produced Socialization document
• Collected and analyzed requirements
  documentation, relevant papers / studies and use
  cases
• Held Workshop 2 on September 10,11

12
Workshop 1 Summary

• Captured LVC requirements
• Developed list of LVC requirements from key
  attributes to include, but not limited to, JCIDS
  documents, use case descriptions, conference
  papers, etc.
• Used this venue as a way of eliciting
  requirements from Working Group Membership
• Identified existing capabilities, shortfalls and
  challenges
• Good participation from community experts

13
Workshop 2 Summary

• Organized workshop participants into groups which
  cycled through four sessions related to
• Architecture
• Business Model
• Standards
• Use Cases
• Allowed each workshop participant to contribute
  to all LVCAR study categories
• Significant NATO involvement allowed the capture
  of NATO requirements for an LVC Architecture
• Workshop Sessions leveraged off requirements
  gathered from first workshop

14
Potential for NATO Interface

• Workshop 2 heavily attended by NATO MSG-052
  members
• Shared information / relevant studies identifying
  NATO requirements
• Identified Nations/organizations using LVC across
  user communities
• Engage MSG-052 involvement in the LVCAR Study
• Leverage ongoing MSG-052 work on Best Practices
  for Federation Design within the LVCAR Study

15
Risk Mitigation Strategy

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

16
Summary

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

17
Questions?How Can I Get Involved?
18
LVC Interoperability
Communities (and Services) depend upon LVC
capabilities Acquisition, Experimentation,
Testing, and Training
19
Working Group
Balanced Set of Representatives from the User
Community
Focus Areas

• Communities
• Acquisition, Planning,
  Analysis, Testing, Experimentation, Training
• Services, Agencies, Academia, Industry
• Distributed Simulation
• Simulation Interoperability

Member Qualifications

• Knowledge of and Access to their Respective LVC
  User Communities
• Sufficient Expertise to Judge Findings
• Necessary Influence to Represent Constituencys
  Response to Findings
• Technical, business model and/or standards
  experts

20
Working Group
Work Group Contributions

• Information Collection and Distribution
  (Requirements, Use Case Information, )
• Participation in Workgroups/Teleconferences
• Facilitation of Introductions
• of Project Support Team to Constituency
• Review and Provision of Feedback on Products,
  Findings and Recommendations
• Provision of Input in Support of Product
  Development

21
Baseline Schedule
Jan 08
Feb
Mar
May
Jun
Jul
Apr
T1 Develop Scoping Document
T2 Define Use Cases
Start date 4 April 2007
T3 Define Requirements
T4 Identify capabilities limitations
T6 Analyze functionality of middleware
T5 Map Capabilities by Requirements
T7 Analyze business model
T8 Analyze standards management
T12 Outreach Socialization Plan
T10 Perform a systems engineering AoA
T13 Final Report
T11 Develop Draft Plan