U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

i 

58–291 2010

[H.A.S.C. No. 111–171] 

MODELING AND SIMULATION: 

ENHANCING MILITARY READINESS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

JULY 20, 2010 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas, Chairman 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

GLENN NYE, Virginia 

LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

FRANK M. KRATOVIL, JR., Maryland 

BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

DAN BOREN, Oklahoma 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

ROB BISHOP, Utah 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

ROB WITTMAN, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

JOHN C. FLEMING, Louisiana 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio 

CHARLES K. DJOU, Hawaii 

VICKIE PLUNKETT, Professional Staff Member 

LYNN WILLIAMS, Professional Staff Member 

KATY BLOOMBERG, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2010 

Page 

HEARING: 

Tuesday, July 20, 2010, Modeling and Simulation: Enhancing Military Readiness ........................................................................................................................ 1 

APPENDIX: 

Tuesday, July 20, 2010 ............................................................................................ 33 

TUESDAY, JULY 20, 2010 

MODELING AND SIMULATION: ENHANCING MILITARY READINESS 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Forbes, Hon. J. Randy, a Representative from Virginia, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Readiness ................................................................................ 2 

Ortiz, Hon. Solomon P., a Representative from Texas, Chairman, Subcommittee on Readiness ...................................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Burke, Vice Adm. William, USN, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, Fleet 

Readiness and Logistics (N4) .............................................................................. 4 

Gibson, Maj. Gen. Marke F., USAF, Director of Operations, Deputy Chief 

of Staff for Operations, Plans and Requirements, Headquarters U.S. Air 

Force ...................................................................................................................... 7 

Layfield, Maj. Gen. Stephen R., USA, Director, Joint Training and Joint 

Warfighting Center, U.S. Joint Forces Command ............................................. 5 

Lewis, Rear Adm. Fred L., USN (Ret.), President, National Training and 

Simulation Association ........................................................................................ 9 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Burke, Vice Adm. William ............................................................................... 39 

Forbes, Hon. J. Randy ...................................................................................... 38 

Gibson, Maj. Gen. Marke F. ............................................................................ 82 

Layfield, Maj. Gen. Stephen R. ....................................................................... 74 

Lewis, Rear Adm. Fred L. ................................................................................ 91 

Ortiz, Hon. Solomon P. ..................................................................................... 37 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... 103 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Mr. Ortiz ........................................................................................................... 107 

Mr. Wittman ..................................................................................................... 115 

(1) 

MODELING AND SIMULATION: ENHANCING 

MILITARY READINESS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS, Washington, DC, Tuesday, July 20, 2010. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in room 

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Solomon Ortiz (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

READINESS 

Mr. ORTIZ. The subcommittee will come to order. Today the 

Readiness Subcommittee meets to hear testimony on the use of 

modeling and simulation [M&S] to enhance military readiness. 

I want to thank our distinguished witnesses from Department of 

Defense [DOD] and industry for appearing before the subcommittee 

today, and thank you so much for joining us this morning. 

As co-chairman of the Congressional Modeling and Simulation 

Caucus, with my good friend Randy Forbes, of Virginia, I am very 

pleased to have this opportunity to discuss how modeling and simulation can improve training, reduce operation and maintenance 

costs, and increase the life cycle of weapons systems. Our thanks 

go to Joint Forces Command for providing the Future Immersive 

Training Environment simulator so that members would get a 

firsthand experience with the latest simulation technology. 

And I had a chance to look at the weapon and fire, and I just 

could tell by just—that I am out of shape. 

But anyway, the military services have all, to some degree, invested in modeling and simulation to improve training, reduce 

costs, and improve the accuracy of budgeting and material maintenance projects. The services’ efforts vary in complexity and change 

continuously as technological advances in modeling and simulation 

provide improved capability shaped to meet Department of Defense 

needs. 

Today we will examine a few of the modeling and simulation 

tools available to the department as examples of how this technology helps enhance military readiness. These range from the 

Navy’s readiness models, used to determine resourcing requirements, such as flying hours and maintenance activities, to 

immersive training for ground combat, realistic flight simulation, 

and network missions operations. 

We will also look at how industry responds to the department 

needs for modeling and simulation capabilities as well as examine 
2 

potential downsides to overreliance upon simulated versus realworld training. 

And we are very fortunate to have the witnesses that we have 

today, at this hearing today. We have Vice Admiral William Burke, 

United States Navy, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, Fleet Readiness, and Logistics. 

Sir, thank you so much. 

Major General Stephen R. Layfield, United States Army, director, Joint Training and Joint Warfighting Center, United States 

Joint Forces Command; and Major General Marke F. Gibson, 

United States Air Force, director of operations, deputy chief of staff 

for operations, plans, and requirements, Headquarters United 

States Air Force; and Rear Admiral Fred L. Lewis, United States 

Navy, retired, president of Naval Training and Simulation Association. 

And at this moment the Chair recognizes the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Forbes, my good friend, for any remark 

that he would like to make. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ortiz can be found in the Appendix on page 37.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. J. RANDY FORBES, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM VIRGINIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

READINESS 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you. And, Mr. Chairman, I have a written 

statement that, with your permission, I would like to put in the 

record, but I would like to just make a few other comments—— 

Mr. ORTIZ. No objection. So ordered. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Forbes can be found in the Appendix on page 38.] 

Mr. FORBES [continuing]. If I could. 

I am not sure, when we are up here oftentimes we say this is 

one of the most important hearings that we will have in Congress, 

and I don’t know that too many people would, perhaps, agree with 

us if we said that this morning, but I would say this: I think that 

the topic we are talking about is one of the most important topics 

that we can be talking about, given the current situation of where 

we are in the country. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to first thank you for co-chairing the Modeling and Simulation Caucus. I want to thank you for holding this 

hearing. 

I want to thank each of our witnesses, because it will be up to 

us to be able to articulate to all of our colleagues and to Congress 

the importance of what you are able to give to us as a country. We 

know the incredible economic value of modeling and simulation 

that we look at, and we can see that any place we go across the 

country. We also know, pretty much, the training capacity. 

I just don’t think we can get to the jointness capability that we 

need to be as a nation without modeling and simulation. You guys 

can help bring that to the forefront so that our colleagues understand that. 

Secondly, I don’t think we can afford to do all the testing that 

we need to do today without modeling and simulation. That is just 

beyond our reach. 
3 

General, I think you are going to be able to tell us some of the 

things that we can utilize modeling and simulation for as far as 

keeping the readiness of our fleet and our aircraft and the stuff 

that we are going to be utilizing there. But there is a third component that I hope that at some point in time we can have a discussion on, if not today then down the road. 

Recently I had a lady that met me in the hall and she gave me 

an envelope. And she said, ‘‘Congressman, will you just read this 

envelope? I have been trying to get it in somewhere in government, 

and I can’t get it there.’’ 

And that night I took the envelope, I opened it, and I read it. Her 

husband worked for an environmental company and they had a 

piece of equipment that literally would take oil out of water. It 

wasn’t a theory; it wasn’t a prototype they were working on. It was 

functioning right then in West Virginia. All they needed to do was 

put it on barges. 

When I began to examine it I found out that it was not only that 

letter but thousands of ideas like that across the country that we 

just don’t have a mechanism in government to handle those kinds 

of ideas and those kinds of thoughts. 

I think we know now, whether it is a hurricane situation like 

Katrina or an oil spill, one of the things that is very difficult for 

us as a government is when we are trying to make decisions we 

oftentimes put a few smart men and women in a room, and we are 

trying to filter out all of these ideas, concepts that are taking place 

with people in garages somewhere across the country, laboratories 

somewhere across the country, and we are not able to do that and 

process that very well. 

So Congressman Scott and I are working on a piece of legislation 

called the American Response Act that would really take the component that we are working on on interagency cooperation, and 

where we can really create an opportunity for agencies to talk with 

each other, which they still can’t do the way the military can do, 

but then overlay that with modeling and simulation so that we will 

be able to take those thousands of ideas that are coming in and 

process them through a virtual world so that we can walk in and 

look 80 days down the road, 90 days down the road, and then come 

back on day 2, day 3, day 4, and say, ‘‘Now we are going to make 

decisions based on the way the world will look 80, 90 days down 

the road.’’ 

Doesn’t matter what administration or where it is. America 

needs that to be able to respond to the kind of crises we will take 

in the future. 

And you gentlemen have the key to that in what you are doing 

in modeling and simulation. 

And the last thing I will tell you is this: There is always a fear, 

when we have a hearing like this, there will be people who will 

say, ‘‘Well, I don’t want them to think we are going to actually be 

able to do these things.’’ I remember years ago one of my favorite 

places for my children to go was Disney World, and about 15 years 

ago I remember coming out of one of their futuristic displays and 

looking, and they had people talking to each other and having their 

pictures on telephones, and I remember looking at that and we 

were laughing and saying, ‘‘I wonder if that will ever happen?’’ 
4 

Today when you look at some of those exhibits they look historic 

because we have surpassed that. 

I know in the early part of the 1960s when we talked about putting men on the moon there were people who said, ‘‘You know, that 

is never going to happen.’’ We had people walk on the moon. 

You guys have an opportunity for us to create a world where as 

policymakers we can walk into the future, we can look around, we 

can decide if we like it or not, and then we can come back and have 

more informed decisions, and we have not cost as much money, we 

haven’t cost lives, and we have saved quantities of time. And for 

that I just thank you for being here. We are looking forward to 

your testimony. 

And then hopefully the chairman and I and this committee can 

help move this entire industry along to do what we think you can 

do for our country. So thank you so much for being here. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. 

Mr. ORTIZ. You know, the world has changed a lot and we need 

to stay ahead of the curve. We need to do that—as the world moves 

we need to move with it, and there are a lot of changes. We see 

China; we see other countries moving ahead. 

And you probably saw on CNN what they saw—they thought it 

was a, you know, extra terrestrial, but they think it was a missile 

being fired. So this is great, what we are doing now. 

So now let me—Admiral Burke, please proceed with your testimony, followed by General Layfield, General Gibson, and Admiral 

Lewis. So whenever you are ready, Admiral, go right ahead, sir. 

STATEMENT OF VICE ADM. WILLIAM BURKE, USN, DEPUTY 

CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS, FLEET READINESS AND LOGISTICS (N4) 

Admiral BURKE. Yes, sir. 

Chairman Ortiz, Representative Forbes, distinguished members 

of the House Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee, it is my 

honor to appear before you to testify on the Navy readiness models 

alongside General Layfield, General Gibson, and Admiral Lewis. 

Today our Navy remains engaged in supporting operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and all other combatant commander [COCOM] 

areas of responsibility. We have over 120 ships deployed, which is 

more than 40 percent of our fleet, a Global Force for Good on station around the world deterring interaction, keeping sea lanes open 

for free trade, and, when necessary, projecting power. 

Several dozen ships and subs are underway as part of preparations for deployment, and dozens more are in port training and conducting maintenance as they prepare for deployment. Others are in 

deep maintenance, resetting, and stride. Our Aviation, Special 

Warfare, and Naval Expeditionary Combat Command assets are 

going through a similar regimen. 

The Combatant Commander demand signal, as managed by the 

Global Force Management Board process, defines the capability 

needed to satisfy presence and surge requirements worldwide. The 

Fleet Response Plan describes the Navy process necessary to maintain, train, sustain, and deploy our forces in response to that demand. 
5 

Our readiness models identify the resources necessary to deliver 

that capability. As a result, I have high confidence in the accuracy 

of the readiness and maintenance budget submission. 

A few years ago we recognized the need to transition from a requirement based heavily on historic norms to a model requirement 

based on quantitative analysis of force generation and operations 

parameters. We have four interdependent readiness resourcing 

models that have been subjected to rigorous verification, validation, 

and accreditation supported by Johns Hopkins University of Applied Physics Laboratory [APL]. 

Our models are fully accredited and give us the ability to predict 

the cost of global operations in a dynamic operating environment. 

These results form the basis of the Navy’s readiness budget submission throughout the programming, budgeting, and execution 

process. 

Navy ships and aircraft are capital-intensive forces that, when 

properly maintained, are designed to remain in service for decades. 

Scheduled maintenance of these ships and aircraft and the associated training and certification of our crews between deployments is 

a key element of the cost to own and operate the fleet. Our readiness models are designed to accurately reflect the cost to own, 

train, and operate our naval forces. 

The readiness models account for each phase of the Fleet Response Plan and are integral to our readiness funding decisions. 

Readiness is a function of capable forces of sufficient capacity ready 

for tasking. 

The return on investment in our fleet readiness program is measured by our ability to deliver required capabilities in rotational deployments while simultaneously responding to emergent needs of 

the COCOMs. Our models provide the fidelity necessary to accurately define required resources and predict readiness capacity 

based on varying financial resource levels. 

Thank you for your unwavering support and commitment to our 

sailors, Navy civilians, and their families, for all you do to make 

our Navy an effective and enduring global force for good. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Burke can be found in the 

Appendix on page 39.] 

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you, sir. 

Major General Layfield. 

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. STEPHEN R. LAYFIELD, USA, DIRECTOR, JOINT TRAINING AND JOINT WARFIGHTING CENTER, U.S. JOINT FORCES COMMAND 

General LAYFIELD. Chairman Ortiz, Ranking Member Forbes, 

other members of the subcommittee, on behalf of General James 

Mattis, the commander of the United States Joint Forces Command, thank you for allowing me to appear before you today. The 

preparation and readiness of the men and women of our nation’s 

armed forces is our top priority. Since this task cannot be overstated we want to thank this subcommittee and the United States 

Congress for all your continued support for our warfighters and 

their families. 
6 

My opening remarks will be short. Therefore, I respectfully ask 

to submit a more detailed written statement to you for placement 

in the record and look forward to more detailed questions and answers. 

Mr. ORTIZ. No objection. It will be placed in the record. 

General LAYFIELD. Thank you, sir. 

My testimony will address three areas. First, the key role that 

modeling and simulation plays as a training enabler: We use modeling and simulation to replicate the equipment that we have and 

the environment where our joint forces will operate. This replication is called the synthetic training environment, or the synthetic 

battlespace. 

We do this through a federation of models and simulations composed of joint and service systems and softwares that is integrated 

and distributed by Joint Forces Command. The result: the synthetic battlespace. 

A computer-generated model of forces, infrastructure, weapons 

systems, and physical terrain, when run together, will simulate the 

real world of challenging scenarios that our warfighters face every 

day. This synthetic environment supports exercises across all of our 

combatant commands and delivers specific mission rehearsal exercises in support of our forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Horn 

of Africa. 

Most of these exercises integrate coalition and interagency participation. This synthetic battlespace also supports over 200 service-led exercises by replicating the joint environment inside their 

scenarios. 

Additionally, we are supported by the services—we are supporting the services by assisting in the development of models and 

simulations for individual training applications which can be used 

at home stations and at home on the Internet. 

The second area that I would like to highlight today is the direct 

and the indirect cost savings to be gained through the use of modeling and simulation. Modeling and simulation allows us to replicate selected training, conduct it virtually instead of live, thereby 

reducing overall costs, personnel OPTEMPO [operating tempo], and 

wear and tear on our expensive equipment. 

An example of this with the Navy can be seen when training the 

Joint and the Fleet Headquarters staffs within their fleet synthetic 

training program. This staff training, which has traditionally taken 

place during expensive, full-scale, at-sea exercises, can now be conducted effectively and efficiently pier-side at a significant cost savings. 

Another efficient use of modeling and simulation is when the 

training can be distributed and delivered to the training audience 

right at home. This saves travel costs, equipment, transportation 

costs, and affords members—servicemembers—more at-home time 

with their families. We also use simulations to create complex operating environments which are cost-prohibitive to replicate in a live 

training venue. 

My final point today has to do with the training of our close combat infantry and ground units—specifically the role of immersive 

training venues enabled by modeling and simulation. Throughout 

history infantry and ground units have suffered the large majority 
7 

of combat casualties. The same is true today in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Research shows that these casualties often occur in the unit’s initial firefights. Yet, we have not developed a realistic immersive 

simulation for ground units to prepare troops for their first engagements with the enemy. The time is now to bring state-of-the-art 

simulation to infantry and other ground units. 

To this end, working with the services, the Office of the Secretary of Defense [OSD], and the Joint Staff, we have delivered a 

prototype infantry immersive training system to the Marine Corps 

and the United States Army to expose the realm of the possible for 

infantry immersive training, and it is yielding positive results. We 

have a demonstration of this system for your viewing in the atrium—outside in the anteroom. 

Additionally, the Deputy Secretary of Defense has budgeted $285 

million in fiscal years 2011 to 2015 to the services and the United 

States Joint Forces Command to support the urgent development 

of infantry immersive training capabilities through the advancement of close combat infantry immersive training simulations. 

In summary, I would like to thank you, Chairman Ortiz, and the 

members of this committee for the opportunity to discuss United 

States Joint Forces Command’s efforts in the area of modeling and 

simulation, and I would very much, again, especially like to thank 

you for your deep support and your sincere commitment to our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, and Marines, and our civilians in 

this fight. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of General Layfield can be found in the 

Appendix on page 74.] 

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you, sir. 

General Gibson. 

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. MARKE F. GIBSON, USAF, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR OPERATIONS, PLANS AND REQUIREMENTS, HEADQUARTERS U.S. 

AIR FORCE 

General GIBSON. Yes, sir. 

Chairman Ortiz and Taylor, Ranking Members Forbes and 

Bishop, and other distinguished members of the committee, thank 

you for this opportunity to address the committee regarding your 

Air Force’s modeling and simulation programs. 

Today’s Air Force operates in a complex, post-9/11 battlespace 

that extended the scope of our mission beyond air and space into 

emerging operating environments, such as cyberspace. The trend 

towards linking weapons systems across the domains of air, land, 

sea, and space, creates a challenging need for effective individual 

and collective training for our warfighters. 

Modeling and simulation are powerful tools to expose our forces 

to the complexities and uncertainties of combat before ever stepping into harm’s way. As we look to the future with our fifth generation weapons systems, such as the F–22 and F–35, or in space— 

or in cyberspace operations, simulation will offer the best, and in 

many cases the only opportunity to train. 

As we continue to operate in a resource-constrained environment 

we realize we must strike a balance between the cost and capabili-
8 

ties of simulation and of live-fly events. Yet it is clear that maintaining the readiness of today’s Air Force requires the flexible, 

adaptive, and repetitive training capabilities that simulation offers. 

We increasingly turn to modeling and simulation to meet the 

challenge of both efficient and cost-effective training. Our goal is to 

produce the most effective and proficient warfighters in the shortest amount of time. 

Your Air Force has a long history of using simulation, beginning 

all the way back with the Link Trainer in World War II. Now we 

utilize simulation systems to conduct operations analysis; weapons 

systems tests and evaluation; command and control at the tactical, 

operation, and even strategic levels of command. We are working 

to build simulation capabilities that can operate across networks to 

integrate training in all of our core warfighting capabilities with 

those of our sister services and of our coalition and allied friends. 

Today we use simulation to improve training in every type of 

mission. For over a decade we have championed the use of live, virtual, constructive training technologies to conduct distributed mission operations that connect geographically-separated units into a 

common operating environment. 

Let me take a moment to discuss what we mean by live, virtual, 

and constructive, or LVC. Live training is what we are all familiar 

with—actual airmen operating their equipment and aircraft in a 

real environment. 

Virtual training are those same airmen operating in a simulated 

aircraft in the virtual environment. A basic flight simulator connected to a virtual environment would be one example. Constructive training adds computer-generated inputs to the virtual environment, such as a generated threat that would make you react. 

Today’s high-fidelity simulators offer tremendous possibilities to 

present high-threat environments and to rehearse specific mission 

events, or even entire missions. However, these high-fidelity systems require significant investment to be those effective training 

tools, and it must be kept in mind that simulation is not really 

meant to replace live training, but to complement it, and in most 

cases, to make our live training even more effective. 

But in many scenarios simulation is the only way we can adequately train our airmen. For example, space and cyberspace training events rely almost solely on simulation. Furthermore, we have 

been using theater- and operation-level command and control simulations to train with our sister service components and joint 

warfighters for decades now, and now simulation has become a key 

component for training our fifth generation pilots in the F–22 and 

the F–35. 

In conclusion, your Air Force and its combat-ready airmen remain focused on the mission: supporting ongoing operations and 

ensuring the continued security of our great nation. Modeling and 

simulation is and will continue to be critical to building and training a proficient and adaptive force. 

I thank the committee for its shared commitment to our national 

defense and for this opportunity to appear before you today. 

[The prepared statement of General Gibson can be found in the 

Appendix on page 82.] 

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you, sir. 
9 

Admiral Lewis. 

STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. FRED L. LEWIS, USN (RET.), PRESIDENT, NATIONAL TRAINING AND SIMULATION ASSOCIATION 

Admiral LEWIS. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it is 

a pleasure for me to appear to before you today to discuss one of 

America’s most exciting and promising enterprises, the modeling 

and simulation and training industry. I have been the president of 

the National Training and Simulation Association [NTSA] now for 

15 years, and NTSA is this country’s premier organization dedicated to furthering the growth and health of this critical national 

asset. 

Let me start by saying that simulation technologies are revolutionizing how we learn. In areas such as disaster response, emergency medicine, cultural interaction, military and law enforcement, 

advanced surgical procedures, and predictions about complex 

weather systems, modeling and simulation are enabling us to prepare more quickly, more effectively, and with far greater flexibility 

than ever before. 

Gone are the days when we learned from texts and then plunged 

headlong into the complexities of dangerous and high-risk realworld situations. Now we train in virtual environments that 

uncannily replicate those we will face in combat, in terrorist attacks, and in the emergency operating room. 

In the last few years we have begun a journey into virtual worlds 

that don’t just promise to blur the distinction between simulation 

and reality; they will soon actually remove it. The National Training and Simulation Association promotes the growth and use of 

modeling and simulation technologies through a wide variety of activities, including scholarships, certification programs, sponsorship 

of extensive research, and annual events such as the recently-concluded Congressional Modeling and Simulation Expo, held in the 

Rayburn office building, with the close collaboration of the Congressional Modeling and Simulation Caucus, with which we enjoy an 

active and productive relationship. 

Our flagship activity is, of course, the annual Interservice Training Simulation and Education Conference, ITSEC, held annually in 

the late fall in Orlando, Florida. This event, which, like the industry as a whole, is enjoying healthy growth despite an uncertain 

overall economy and now attracts well over 500 corporations, government and research organizations from around the United States 

and from over 60 countries around the globe. 

Over 100 research and scientific papers are presented and discussed, making ITSEC not only the world’s largest exhibition of 

modeling and simulation technology, but also the world’s most important annual focal point for advancement of these technologies. 

With over half a million square feet of exhibit space showcasing an 

amazing panoply of modeling and simulation, ITSEC is truly a phenomenal sight, and as an American I take great pride in seeing 

this evidence of how vibrant and creative this sector of our economy is and what great promise it holds for the future. 

During my time at NTSA I have seen the modeling and simulation industry not only grow exponentially, but undergo rapid and, 

in some cases, unexpected changed. The explosion in computer 
10 

processing power, which began in the last decade and which is continuing unabated, has enabled simulation training to migrate from 

platform trainers where single individuals interact with single 

training devices, the so-called ‘‘man-machine interface,’’ into a wide 

variety of immersive virtual environments, including those which 

link multiple actors into a unified training matrix. 

It is becoming clear that in the not-too-distant future we will 

train with avatars, wholly immersed in a three-dimensional alternative world. Creating such environments is, in fact, the next great 

technological challenge for our industry, but we are on the way to 

getting there. 

With it, among other precedent-setting applications, we will be 

able to immerse our warfighters in new and unfamiliar cultures, allowing them to learn by doing, by living in a virtual Afghan village, 

for example. I don’t believe this level of technology will be achieved 

while we pursue our current objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan, 

but we will see it in the not-too-far future, and it will play an invaluable role in many critical areas of national importance. 

As to today’s modeling and simulation industry, I would like to 

underscore not only that it is important to a wide variety of different domains, but also the flexibility and the agility of our industry to respond to changing requirements based on changes in the 

threat environment. A good example of that responsiveness was the 

development in Orlando—the deployment—and deployment to Iraq 

in six months of a convoy tactics trainer. Our industry had quickly 

and effectively answered a critical battlefield requirement to train 

our soldiers and Marines how to react if attacked while en route 

in a convoy of trucks and/or other vehicles. 

My confidence in the modeling and simulation industry’s technological capabilities is unshakeable, and based on the solid evidence 

of creativity and innovation that I have attempted to briefly outline 

today. Against this promising background, however, we face two 

challenges that each, in very different ways, threaten to hinder 

what otherwise would be further dramatic progress. 

The first is a bureaucratic obstacle that can be removed; I am 

convinced, with concentrated action by all interested parties. Specifically, the Economic Classification Policy Committee of the Office 

of Management and Budget has rejected for the third time in eight 

years our applications for granting unique industrial classification 

codes for modeling and simulation. As we have stated in our request, granting such stature would not only bestow deserved formal 

status and recognition of our industry, but would also greatly facilitate tracking of economic data pertaining to modeling and simulation, which at present is an elusive goal. 

While we have some economic data for certain geographic areas 

where the simulation industry enjoys a pervasive presence—for example, in Orlando, Florida, or in the Hampton Roads area of Virginia—we have no unified picture of the industry’s overall contribution to the health of the American economy, although we know intuitively that it is considerable and growing rapidly. We intend to 

vigorously challenge this ruling and call on those with an interest 

in furthering the growth of the modeling and simulation community of practice to join us in that activity. 
11 

The second challenge facing our industry is of a more fundamental nature. For a number of years alarm bells have been alerting us to the widening gap between the United States and most 

other developed countries in the science and technology skills of 

our young citizens. Studies equating our achievement levels to 

those of some less-developed countries and indicating that we have 

made no improvements in our standings in the—around the globe 

since 1990 have begun to focus public and private organizations 

upon the urgent need to rekindle student interest in the hard 

sciences and to strengthen technology teaching in the classroom. 

But raising awareness of the seriousness of our shortcomings 

may prove the easier task. Ahead of us lies the challenge of creating a sense of excitement and enthusiasm among our youth about 

the promise that technology and its opportunities offer for a lifetime of achievement and personal reward, just as demanding as 

the need to provide enhanced instruction and a clear, viable path 

for classrooms to careers. 

President Kennedy’s challenge to reach the moon by the end of 

the 1960s motivated several generations of Americans to great 

achievement in science and engineering. What we now need in the 

21st century is a similar challenge, and I believe that modeling and 

simulation can be a key to that excitement. 

Perhaps no other industry is more dependent on a reliable supply 

of first-class scientists and engineers than the modeling and simulation community. At the same time, modeling and simulation enjoys a built-in advantage in that young people have surrounded 

themselves with variations of simulation technology. Video games 

in particular are a type of virtual simulation, and in fact, serious 

games based on video game technology are an increasingly important component of the overall simulation training picture. 

But even with that kind of stimulation of the younger generation 

our downward trend continues. We at NTSA have engaged in several efforts to try to reverse the trend, and while worthwhile and 

successful, they are only fractural and affect only the margins. 

We must do more to enhance science, technology, engineering, 

and mathematics education—STEM education—across the nation. 

If we do not then we will continue to see our American leadership 

in technology erode as other nations eagerly assume the leadership 

position previously held by us. 

There are challenges ahead for my community, but in the exciting and dynamic world of modeling and simulation the way ahead 

is lit with the promise of being able to address our nation’s most 

vexing problems. 

Sir, I thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today, 

and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Lewis can be found in the 

Appendix on page 91.] 

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you so much. 

We have had some very good testimony this morning. And I am 

going to ask the—all the panel here a question, and maybe each 

one of you can try to answer the best that you can. 

In your opinion, what is the proper balance between the use of 

simulated training and real-world or live training, and what criteria are used to evaluate to achieve that balance? And of course, 
12 

if I understand correctly, the equipment that I saw back here is 

being—is not being used now; it is a prototype. I mean, once you 

do that if you can give me a description—do you get used to either 

one of the live training or the simulated training? Maybe you can 

help me understand some of this. 

General LAYFIELD. Thank you, sir. I will take the first stab at 

that question. 

Without question a balance of all the venues of training, live or 

simulated, is a key component of the total force readiness. All of 

our services apply great rigor to finding that balance and making 

sure that we have the most effective mix of combination of training 

venues. 

Outside you are watching what is a modeling and simulation 

venue. It is not intended to replace live at all; it is intended to enhance live training and to enhance the readiness of that small unit 

that has experienced that—experiencing that venue. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Anybody else like to give it a try? 

General GIBSON. Congressman Ortiz, I think in each scenario 

there are several variables that one would have to consider, given 

my experience in aviation, especially in the air side. One is the 

type of mission that you are trying to replicate, and then offsetting 

that with the ability both of the simulation and the investment and 

whether you can achieve a high-fidelity simulator that will do a 

good job of replicating that live flying activity, or command and 

control activity, or whatever it is you are trying to pursue. 

Where we have seen that sometimes begin to drift is requiring 

that simulator or simulation to continue to keep a pace of the aircraft upgrades and things of that nature. As soon as those two 

begin to break apart you encounter what we call ‘‘negative training.’’ In other words, the pilots and the operators know what it is 

like in the actual aircraft and if they go so something that doesn’t 

accurately replicate that it becomes problematic. So there is an investment aspect to this and a technology aspect of keeping those 

two joined very closely. 

In the end, I think each system has its own balance. Based on 

that and the scenario and what you are trying to do I think simulation is fantastic in its ability to stop and start again from an instructional value. You don’t have to waste an entire sortie or mission to come back and talk about what happened; you have the 

ability to interrupt and instruct and correct right then and there, 

while it is effective. 

But in the end, certainly some of the live flying or live activity 

has to take place because ultimately that is where the confidence 

is built in that system before you have to employ it for real. 

Admiral BURKE. Mr. Chairman, I think I would agree with what 

has been said up until this point. I think there is—when you think 

about simulation there are essentially three things that occur. You 

can fully simulate some of the things that you are required to do 

and you can get full credit, if you will, for that simulation. 

There are other things that you can simulate that you may want 

to do in the actual platform. But you can get to a level of proficiency faster by doing the simulator, and more cheaply. 

And then there are certain things that the simulators just don’t 

lend themselves to yet at this point, and those are some of the 
13 

more complex evolutions. You know, we haven’t figured out how to 

fully simulate a ship yet, or multiple aircraft flying together—you 

know, flying close to one another. That has got a pucker factor in 

the real world that you may not get in the simulator. 

We also need to recognize that the simulators are growing in capability every year, so what was—what we weren’t able to do last 

year we might be able to do this year. So as we improve the fidelity 

of those simulators we can do more in them. 

And then the last thing I would like to say is—to follow on what 

Marke said—is the—it is critical that we upgrade the simulators. 

Now, I am a submariner, and the way we have done this in my career is we bought the simulator up front and we made a commitment to upgrade the software when we upgraded the ship, so what 

that allowed us to do was continue to train on that simulator and 

not get that negative training that the general mentioned. However, that is a challenge because we are taking away money from 

something else to upgrade those. 

Admiral LEWIS. Mr. Chairman, just let me add one final comment or thought to what you have heard from the—my distinguished colleagues here, and that is that the mix and the balance 

depends on the scenario, depends on the piece of equipment that 

you are trying to train an individual on. 

The classic example, of course, is the Apollo program, and for the 

air crew, or the astronauts who operated a lunar module. They only 

had an opportunity to train in a simulator before they actually did 

the real evolution, so that is kind of one end of the spectrum. 

At the other end of the spectrum is the more routine kinds of scenarios, situations, operations that you might have to engage in 

when you are operating that piece of equipment—an airplane, a 

ship, or a submarine—you can easily train people on simulators in 

that regard. 

So the Gordian’s Knot of training and simulation is the question 

that you just asked, and that is, ‘‘What is the balance?’’ It depends 

on the equipment; it depends on the risk involved in operating that 

piece of equipment and the kind of environment in which you are 

going to operate; it also depends on the requirements that each individual service and the joint community has for operation of that 

equipment and those units who are employing those equipments. 

Mr. ORTIZ. I am just going to ask one short question before I pass 

it to my good friend, Mr. Forbes. 

The candidates, the crew that utilize the simulators—do you 

have some of them who might have a problem adapting or learning? Do they fail, or are most of the people that use it—most of the 

crew members, or the soldiers, or sailors, or Marines that use it— 

do they all pass with flying colors or do you have problems with 

them? 

Admiral LEWIS. Mr. Chairman, can I give a non-military example 

of—in response to your question? And that is the—you know, simulation is used not only in the military case, but also there are 

hundreds of applications for utilizing simulators in the private sector, one of which is in the health care field. 

So one classic simulation in the scenario equipment that is being 

used in medical schools around the country and hospitals around 

the country are the operating room environment, which can be sim-
14 

ulated with a simulated patient. So the operating team can come 

in, do the procedure, the mannequin is hooked up to life-cycle, life 

signs monitoring equipment and so forth, and they can, you know, 

apply the medications that are required for a specific case, and if 

they are successful the mannequin survives, and if they are unsuccessful then the mannequin dies. But better on the mannequin 

than on you or me, I say. 

But the beauty of it all is that they can step back away from that 

and the whole scenario can be replayed with the participants observing what had transpired during the execution of the procedures 

that they had just used to try to assist that patient. So it is—not 

necessarily do they—once they go through the procedure do they 

get an upcheck. If they fail they can fall back and relearn, so that 

is the beauty of the simulated environment. 

Mr. ORTIZ. The reason I ask is because in war you die one time; 

in politics you die many times. 

Mr. Forbes. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank all of you, gentlemen, for your expertise and being 

here today, and I will try to ask each one of you a question and 

then pass it on to my colleagues, and maybe come back if we have 

additional time. 

But, Admiral Burke, if I could start with you just because of 

where you are on the podium there—we know that some recent 

studies have at least placed into question some of the Navy’s readiness modeling and financial—don’t want to address that now, but 

my question for you is this: How do you feel the current financial 

models used by the Department of Defense compare to corporate 

America? Specifically, do you believe they rival the corporate models in sophistication and accuracy or do you believe that there may 

be room to improve upon these models? 

And I know all of you were being brief in your testimony, but I 

read your written testimony and one of the statements that you 

mention in there, it says, ‘‘All models meet an industry standard 

of less than 5 percent error acceptance level.’’ What industry are 

we comparing that to for that? 

Admiral BURKE. Thanks for the question, sir. I think, first of all, 

we go through a rigorous verification, validation, and accreditation 

process, and that—we have a team within the Navy staff that 

works in the model area and does this, but also we get help from 

outside folks—Johns Hopkins APL. And Johns Hopkins is in the 

business of—or, they have a team that is in the business of doing 

this across industry. 

And so the standard is essentially that your assumptions are 

well-documented, the model results are stable, and there is a correlation between the input and the output. And the standard is 

five—less than 5 percent. 

Now, as far as what DOD is doing to do their modeling, I am not 

specifically sure—— 

Mr. FORBES. Address the Navy, then, if you would like. 

Admiral BURKE. Yes, sir. But in the case of the Navy, essentially 

what we are doing is taking a complex set of inputs and putting 

that input into databases and spreadsheets to relate that to a cost 

output. So if you want to say—if you want to take the fleet readi-
15 

ness program and say, ‘‘Here is what we need,’’ then we can easily 

relate that to cost. 

Am I getting near what you are looking for or am I missing 

your—— 

Mr. FORBES. You are, and let me try one more stab at it, because 

one, I appreciate what you are doing and we truly are—we are here 

trying to help jointly and cooperatively getting to the goal that we 

want. One of the things in this subcommittee and in our full committee that I know the chairman is constantly grappling with is, 

we have proposals that come to us where we are given option A, 

but it is very difficult for us to say if we pick option A that means 

we take B, C, and D off the board, and we are constantly trying 

to get our arms around that so that we can ask those questions so 

we are intelligently making decisions that help the defense of the 

country. 

And sometimes we can get all the accreditations in the world, all 

the check-offs in the world, but if they are not answering the questions or they are not reaching the goals and we are still off it hasn’t 

done us much good. So my question—not critical at all, it is simply 

groping for, forgetting the accreditations and the check-offs that we 

all do so that we kind of protect ourselves in saying we have done 

everything we needed to do—in your experience, when you compare 

what we are doing with the Navy or the Department of Defense 

how do they stack up in comparison to the models that the private 

sector is using? 

Are they reaching as good of results? Are they as predictive? And 

secondly, when we say they have got to be within five percent of 

the industry, what industry are we basing that on? 

Admiral BURKE. Sir, let me take the last part first. The five percent is we look at what the model predicted versus what actually 

occurred, so we go back and look at that. So that is how you get 

to the five percent. The five percent is the industry standard for 

full accreditation of the model. We just happen—— 

Mr. FORBES. Okay. 

Admiral BURKE [continuing]. So both of those come together. 

Mr. FORBES. Okay. 

Admiral BURKE. Now, what we used to do is we used to say, 

‘‘What did we do last year,’’ so that is probably good enough for this 

year. I don’t know that there is a—I don’t know that we—there is 

an industry that would compare to what we do and I don’t know 

that we have tried to do that, but I will go back and look at that 

and figure out how we would compare ourselves to industry, sir. 

Mr. FORBES. And then, Admiral, any suggestions you have about 

what we can do to help you do that we would really appreciate as 

a committee, because we want to do that. 

Admiral BURKE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FORBES. General Layfield, Chairman asked a very good question about balance between live and virtual training, but General 

Mattis has been a leader in this area. It is a crucial speech I heard 

him give about the amount of lives that we can save for people in 

the infantry, because as I recall his speech, which I heard him deliver, he mentioned the fact that the infantry was taking the brunt 

of the casualties and that if he could narrow that learning curve 
16 

down months that he could save a number of lives and he felt that 

modeling and simulation was the key to narrowing that down. 

If I have misstated that in any way please correct me, but if that 

is close to accurate would you tell us and explain the essence of 

what he was saying and how we might be able to do more with 

modeling and simulation to save those lives in the field? 

General LAYFIELD. Congressman, that is very clear, and I agree 

with you completely with General Mattis’ comments and the intent 

of the message he was trying to portray, which is one of our keen 

focuses at Joint Forces Command, is to try and build an exercise 

regime, a scenario, an immersive venue for all of our warfighters 

so that their very first fight is really no worse than their last practice, their last rehearsal. Using modeling and simulations is a great 

way to enable that. 

Out here in the anteroom we have a demonstration of the exact 

same thing. On that video—and this is a quote; I would like to read 

it to you to bring home the point of how valuable bringing home 

an immersive environment to the ground unit, specifically our 

great Marines right now and our great Army and all of our ground 

forces to help them actually get through that first firefight and 

make it really be no worse than their last practice. 

And this is a quote from Sergeant Jose McFadden, from the 29th 

Infantry, out of Virginia, and recently back from theater, and he 

said when he tried on this equipment, ‘‘I got caught up in the heat 

of the moment a lot of the time,’’ referring to his experience in the 

machine there. ‘‘It certainly felt like I was back in theater.’’ 

Now, that is what we are after. We are after an immersion simulation capability that allows our great military to experience combat and all the stresses of that before they have to actually do it. 

So thank you, Congressman. 

Mr. FORBES. And, General, again, if I am understanding General 

Mattis, we have a disproportionate number of casualties that take 

place in that initial deployment situation when that training is not 

where we would like for it to be, let’s say. By reducing that down 

General Mattis believes that we can save a number of lives and a 

number of casualties, and feels that modeling simulation and the 

immersion training that you are talking about could be a major assistance in doing that. Is that a fair statement? 

General LAYFIELD. Yes, Congressman, that is fair. 

Mr. FORBES. Good. 

General Gibson, one of the things that we know that you mentioned is that we can get there faster and cheaper with modeling 

and simulation, but one of the other things that I was really looking for is, how are we using modeling and simulation for structural 

models? I mean, I know we had a concern with our F–15s not too 

long ago, the cracks on the longerons. When we first built those 

planes we didn’t have modeling and simulation like we have today. 

Do we have adequate structural models for, like the F–22, the F– 

35? And secondly, how can we use modeling and simulation to go 

back on some of our legacy systems and really extrapolate and look 

and predict models that—or problems that could be caused by the 

OPTEMPO that we have put some of those units through? 

General GIBSON. Yes, sir. I wouldn’t say that modeling and simulation is my core competency, but by serendipity I was at the Fort 
17 

Worth plant for the F–35 last week on a visit—the simulator—and 

I know that they use modeling of their structures extensively there 

to make predictions. Obviously that aircraft is built for all the services and will be exposed to a number of environments, and they 

walked me through that process. And in fact, that is being borne 

out in many of their follow-on flight evals. 

As far as going back to previous aircraft, I am not familiar with 

a lot of that. I know that there is great interest because we have 

flown a number of our—what we would call major combat operations—MCO—aircraft in this counterinsurgency fight and used up 

a lot of flying hours and a lot of flying time, and we are still somewhat uncertain on what that is—what toll that is taking on those 

air frames. 

I saw some analysis the other day about—on the A–10s specifically, how much did we think we are consuming them, essentially, 

over the predicted rate that we had before. So I can take that for 

the record, Congressman. I don’t have the specifics with me but I 

know there is a concern to go—— 

Mr. FORBES. If you would just please get us back that information, because we want to help you with that. That could be a huge 

benefit for us to do. 

General GIBSON. Yes, sir. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 103.] 

Mr. FORBES. Last thing: General Lewis, take us into tomorrow 

land. What can modeling and simulation do for us? Because you 

are where the rubber meets the road on both the policy aspect and 

also what is out there, but show us tomorrow. If we are smart 

enough to be able to use modeling and simulation how could it help 

us in dealing with emergency situations? How can it take these 

ideas people have across America? 

And then also, what kind of magnet is modeling and simulation 

to encourage people to go into math and science, which is one of 

the big concerns that you mentioned? 

Admiral LEWIS. Thank you, Congressman. I alluded to a bit of 

what the future might look like in my testimony—earlier testimony—but to amplify just a little bit, Congressman Ortiz mentioned the fact about the picture—or I am sorry; that was you, 

sir—talked about the phones with the photographs and the pictures, and so forth. It wasn’t too long ago when there was a television series called Star Trek, starred Leonard Nimoy, Dr. Spock, 

and that whole crew. And if you will recall, when they are on another world they reach into their pockets and they flip out a little 

device and click it open, and that was their communicator to talk 

to the Starship Enterprise. 

Well, that was really quite something back then to imagine a 

world wherein you could be able to talk to somebody that quickly 

and that easily, and then what do we have today, probably each 

one of us in our pockets? Our BlackBerry, or our cell phones, or 

whatever. 

Another piece of Star Trek of the time—and this is, again, something I alluded to in my remarks—another piece of that particular—that show—and those people who wrote that script were 

true visionaries, absolutely incredible. But a part of the Starship 
18 

Enterprise—one space, one compartment on that ship—was called 

the Holodeck, and the Holodeck was a space that was empty to 

someone who just happened to walk by it, but once you entered it 

and the doors closed and you would say, computer, take me to 

whatever place in the world, or whatever planet, or whatever time 

that you wanted to be inserted, and suddenly that whole environment would appear. 

Now, just imagine what you have out here in the anteroom or we 

have seen demonstrated elsewhere, wherein you see a different 

world through glasses, through goggles, through something you put 

over your eyes, and this imaginary world is portrayed for you, and 

you operate in that environment, submersive kind of training that 

we are talking about, and we are about ready to really march forward with that in the M&S industry. 

It is not too much of a stretch to think that if you have that 

world here right now, just in goggles and glasses, before your eyes 

to take it out a few feet ahead of you, around you, to surround you 

in that virtual environment. Not too stretch of the imagination to 

think that that can happen. And I would say that I have heard estimates that we would have that kind of a capability not soon, but 

in certainly the next 25 or 30, 35 years, we would have the ability 

to totally immerse an individual in a virtual environment, in a virtual world, surrounded by avatars and operating in a place wherever you might think you would like to be and whatever kind of 

condition or threat environment that is there for you. 

In terms of communicating that kind of a message, that excitement—and I hope a little bit of my excitement about this technology has come through in my remarks, because I am very excited 

about the opportunities that are ahead for us—but I personally 

want to try to communicate that excitement to the young people in 

our country, to the youngsters, the children in grade school, and 

middle school, and high school, to excite them about the opportunities ahead if they would become interested in math, and science, 

and engineering, and pursue careers in those fields. 

We see that happen, to some extent, at the big event that we 

have at the end of each year down at ITSEC, where we invite students from all over the Central Florida region, we invite teachers 

from all over the country to come to visit us to—science teachers, 

math teachers—to visit us to see the kinds of technology that we 

have displayed on the floor and the kinds of bells and whistles that 

they are able to experience firsthand. 

The interesting thing about the technology that we operate in on 

a day-to-day basis is that it changes. It is dynamic; it improves; it 

gets better every single day, every single year. As I reflect on my 

time at ITSEC and in this community I have seen the change from 

almost a 90 to 100 percent focus on very high-end simulators for 

aircraft, and training air crew, and so forth, but over time—over 

the last 10 or 15 years—we have seen that change based on the 

threat—the environment in which our forces, our troops are operating and where we are around the globe. 

It changes, it evolves, it shifts in a particular direction. We are 

in the direction now of we have gone from the convoy tactics training that I talked about to the Humvee [High Mobility Multipurpose 
19 

Wheeled Vehicle] upset trainer that has been developed for our 

troops, and now we are moving into the immersive piece. 

And the technology is maturing, it is getting better, and we will 

be able to answer the kinds of challenge that senior leaders like 

General Mattis have set out for our industry. The people are there; 

the creativity is there; and the motivation is there to address those 

kinds of problems. 

Mr. FORBES. Admiral, thank you. 

Thank all of—and, Mr. Chairman, just as I yield back the balance of my time, we will go there. The question is whether we get 

there first or we get there second. 

And just to lay out the importance of what you all are doing, one 

of the experts that I know that speaks on modeling and simulation 

around the world, whenever he goes to any country, including the 

United States, he will have an average of about 200, 250 people 

that show up to listen to him talk. When he went to China to speak 

he had 5,000 engineers that showed up to listen to him and he said 

they were asking cutting edge questions, working on cutting edge 

technologies. 

We cannot afford to be second. We have got to be first. 

And, Mr. Chairman, thank you for leading the charge on this, 

and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you so much. 

We have several members here and we will try to stick to the 

5-minute rule so that everybody—and if necessary, we will have a 

second round. 

Mr. Heinrich. 

Mr. HEINRICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank all of you for joining us today. I am lucky enough to 

have the Air Force’s Distributed Mission Operations Center in my 

district, which I didn’t know a great deal about before I was elected 

to Congress. I actually used to work on Kirtland Air Force Base. 

I am a mechanical engineer by training. But I was pretty amazed 

when I saw what they are doing out there. 

And it speaks to some of what you were talking about about pulling people together to work in a virtual environment at the same 

time. And I pulled up a little article on their Virtual Flag exercises, 

where—one of which included 617 warfighters in—working together in a virtual battlespace at the same time across a couple 

dozen weapons systems, 61 different distributed units, and I think 

that that is one of the things, as we move forward, that we need 

to understand and plan for, is how do we make sure that the various different simulation platforms don’t work just in isolation of 

themselves, but work together so that we can have these more complex simulations as we move forward, where numerous different 

people—you know, one—people on the ground, to somebody flying 

an HH–60, to somebody in a tanker, to a CV–22, all can sort of 

participate in a battlespace exercise together. 

How are we planning to make sure that as we move forward we 

plan ahead of time to make sure that those pieces can talk to each 

other and work together in a simulated battlespace? 

General GIBSON. Sir, I will take that one quickly. You are right: 

The Virtual Flag exercise intended to complement the former fairly 

famous Red Flag exercise, Green Flags, and others that were live- 
20 

fly events for training—now we try to accomplish most of those 

training events in a virtual environment and it helps us not only 

in those systems but to achieve what we call cross-domain integration, now we bring space, and cyber, and the other domains in and 

learn a little bit more about those relationships. 

To your question specifically, we continue to be challenged on 

making sure that everybody can ‘‘plug into the network.’’ There are 

two—really kind of three dimensions of that. One is that system 

has to be able to come on to the network. That system, as you acquire that, very rapidly then becomes dated, where the DMO [Distributed Missions Operations] network software and connectivity 

moves ahead. 

We are already—I, again, mentioned I talked—was at Fort 

Worth last week. I talked to them yesterday about the F–35 simulator and its ability because we had some challenges with the F– 

22 and its ability to plug into the DMOC [Distributed Missions Operations Center] or the DTOC [Distributed Training Operations 

Center] that the reserve component runs. 

The second piece of that, though, besides U.S. with U.S. as you 

begin to plug in this network, and it is even more critical these 

days as we use most of our fifth generation capability to train 

there, is, frankly, security and how you have multiple levels of security and be able to operate in that environment, that you are— 

you know, everybody on the network can see what everybody else 

has and how you train in that coalition environment. 

So that is kind of the—that is the last plug, that you want to be 

able to operate in a joint environment with our sister services—obviously that is the way we are going to fight—but also, then, as we 

bring in other members. And the F–35, as you know, is an international system, so how we are going to be able to do that in a 

multilevel security and make sure that we are able to protect those 

capabilities that we have. 

So it is the timeliness of what you buy that day and quickly begins to expire, and then also as you move out into the out years 

and capabilities are added, how those are brought onboard in a 

multilevel security concern. But we are aware of them, Congressman, and we try to work those very hard. 

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Franks. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank all of you for being here. This is a critically important 

subject. You know, I remember a quote that said something along 

the lines that in times of crisis we do not often rise to meet the 

occasion; we default to our level of preparation. And it seems like 

this is especially apropos to the whole subject today. 

And I really appreciate all of you, because if you do a good job, 

of course it makes our soldiers not only the most lethal but the 

most protected and safe on the battlefield, and it is always wonderful when you can have challenges or problems in the laboratory, as 

it were—in the environment where no one is getting hurt—than it 

is to actually have to learn those lessons on the battlefield. 

So I know that all of you know that this committee wants, as 

much as anything, to try to make sure that when our soldiers do 

have to go into theater that as many of them come home as safely 
21 

as possible. And with that in mind I want to take a question up 

that our Ranking Member Forbes put forth, and that was having 

to do with our infantry. 

I know, General Layfield, that is always the most difficult situation when you have new infantry going into the field and don’t 

have some of the battlefield awareness that some of the overheads 

might have there, that that is always an especially challenging environment. So I guess my first question to you is, how far off are 

we from having a state-of-the-art immersive infantry ground simulation system, and is the $285 million over the fiscal years 2011 

to 2015—is that enough to field such a system? 

General LAYFIELD. Let me take your first question first, Congressman. I agree with you that—completely—like was stated earlier, that we have to do all we can. The time is now to take an 

immersive venue to the ground fight. 

We are partnered heavily with our services, particularly very 

heavily with the United States Marine Corps, those great Marine 

fighters, and our United States Army ground soldiers out there, 

and all elements that are on the ground, to do just that, to make 

sure that they can survive and be successful in that very first firefight and not have to learn it on the fly. That is precisely what it 

is all about, sir, so I agree with you completely on that analogy. 

The requirements associated with that and how fast we can 

achieve that end are constantly under review. As we dialogue with 

the services, and work with them, and support their efforts in this 

venue, we definitely assess our requirements and we submit them 

to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and those requirements 

are being met. We have adequate resources to pursue that, but I 

have to caveat that technology is advancing rapidly and we have 

to stay with the technology advances if not ahead of it. Thank you. 

Mr. FRANKS. Mr. Chairman, I read just recently where China 

now has surpassed the United States in the use of energy. You 

know, oftentimes there is a debate in this country as to, you know, 

this country uses too much energy per capita, but they forget that 

we produce more per capita per the amount of energy we use than 

just about anyone in the world. But it does seem to me a telling 

situation that the nation of China is now using more energy than 

we are, and that seems to translate into some of the discussion 

that we are having today, that China is going to rapidly advance 

in these areas. 

So, Vice Admiral Burke, my next question is for you. In light of 

the accreditation of the air crew model of 2008 and in the ship operations one in 2009, have you noticed—you know, one of the 

things that would help us so much in this committee—I wish there 

were more people here—but if we had hard evidence, hard research 

showing that when these young soldiers have gone through systems—simulation systems—that they come home in higher numbers, that they do better on the battlefield. Do you have any data 

that would show some appreciable improvement—readiness and effectiveness in those two areas, and in the lower casualty rates? 

Admiral BURKE. Sir, in the readiness models essentially what we 

are doing is taking readiness requirements and translating that to 

cost. It sounds simple; it is pretty complex. But what we have been 

able to do with that is you can see where there may be growth in 
22 

certain areas, and we have been able to get into those areas and 

look at them, as far as why is there growth, and maybe tamp that 

down, if possible. 

As far as our simulation efforts, I can’t really say that we have 

figured out that we have saved people’s lives in the ships and aircraft, although I have to believe that the pilots that fly the aircrafts—or, fly the aircraft—and the ship operators are far better 

than they would be without them. Fortunately, we have not had a 

lot of attacks against our aircraft or against our ships to know 

whether that is true. 

Mr. FRANKS. Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield back, but I hope 

that we can move forward, especially in this whole immersive infantry simulation, because it seems to me like that we could perhaps even gain some data that we could show the rest of the world 

that would be compelling. 

Thank you all very much. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Marshall. 

Mr. MARSHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral Lewis, when you were commenting about Star Trek and 

describing, you know, the future that was predicted back then and 

exists now I found myself thinking the one thing I really want to 

be able to say from time to time is, ‘‘Beam me up, Scotty,’’ and so 

if you can just sort of hurry things along so that people like me are 

in a position to say, ‘‘Beam me up, Scotty,’’ and actually get out of 

the circumstances that we are in real quickly I would appreciate 

it. 

I wholeheartedly agree with what the chairman has said, Mr. 

Forbes has said. Research and development has been a critically 

important part of the edge that the United States has had militarily for decades. It is why, frankly, we are on top of the world. 

Nobody can come close to touching us right now. 

And this modeling and simulation is just part of that. I have just 

finished a lengthy essay on health care, which I published last 

week in the National Review Online. A challenge that we are all 

facing with regard to programs like this is funding—across DOD, 

across the government, across the country. 

And we are running up an awful lot of red ink. In this article 

I suggest that the principle problem with funding, with red ink, 

where health care is concerned is our third party payer system. 

And over the last year I have had lots of discussions with my colleagues, and I am just not able to sort of break through with my 

colleagues about the importance of looking at the impact, cost-wise, 

of comprehensive health insurance, and that model nationally, and 

what would be a better model, a different model. 

And in the article, frankly, one of the things that I say—I use 

a couple of analogies. The best one that I can think of is splitting 

the tab for dinner, and I hypothesize the entire country every night 

going out and splitting the tab for dinner, and then I hypothesize— 

I just sort of wonder, well, what happens to the national economy 

and to individual wealth over time as a result of that? 

But I specifically call for modeling. I mean, modeling is the way 

you wind up getting to the bottom line where—well, at least narrowing the range of differences of opinion concerning how much 

waste, costs, superfluous expenditures there are in the health care 
23 

system. And if we don’t do that we are going to be really challenged 

to fund appropriate research and development modeling simulation. 

Interesting, I walked in here—I am sorry I am late; I was doing 

a missile defense talk and came in and heard the last little bit 

about medical modeling. I have made a request for funding for 

medical simulation, trauma simulation, teaming up with Georgia 

National Guard and the Medical Center of Central Georgia, one of 

the very few tier-one trauma hospitals in Georgia, to use simulation as a mechanism for training troops—not just National Guard 

troops. Hopefully this center will wind up offering training that 

goes beyond the National Guard—training that will then help these 

folks where—actually dealing with trauma events, whether they 

are overseas or here in the United States, multiple casualties, and 

how do you handle that? And that takes money. It is a $3.5 million request. Well, you 

know, multiply that over all the different things that you are doing, 

and I guess I find myself wondering whether or not it is your impressions—and I guess you will have to rely somewhat on your 

predecessors, as well—is it your impressions that, through the different administrations, our commitment to simulation and modeling, and the development of simulation and modeling, has remained fairly consistent and funding has been stable, if anything 

it has been increasing in an appropriate way? 

Or do you have the impression that as one administration comes 

in and replaces another all of a sudden the programs change, the 

funding levels change, and we are on this rollercoaster ride with 

regard to this critically important aspect of national defense that 

makes it very difficult for industry to plan how to partner with government to actually effectively develop the kind of simulation and 

modeling programs that we need? 

Are we sufficiently stable, gentlemen? 

Admiral BURKE. Let me start with that—— 

Admiral LEWIS. May I—— 

Admiral BURKE. Go ahead. 

Admiral LEWIS. May I start, Bill? 

Okay. Thank you, Congressman. Those are great questions related to the private sector, and certainly in the health care situation that we currently face in the United States now. Health care 

itself is certainly out of my lane, but in terms of the utilization of 

simulation in training of health care professionals, it is exploding 

within the country, I think partly because of the support that we, 

in the private sector, have—and then the health care industry, specifically—have received from the Congress of the United States. 

The M&S Caucus—Modeling and Simulation Caucus—the inception of that organization—the interest that was shown by the 

House of Representatives was a watershed event for the nation in 

terms of modeling and simulation is concerned—a watershed event 

in the sense that it gave the community the status that we have 

so long desired to achieve. But because of that and the interest 

that is developing here in this hearing this morning, for example, 

is—I think it is truly significant. 

It has caused many throughout the nation in different domains 

within our economy—specifically in health care—to focus a lot 
24 

more attention and their own resources—not federal resources, but 

their own resources—on the development of simulation centers 

within hospitals and clinics across the nation. Mayo Clinic has a 

first-rate simulation center. There are hospitals in the Northeast 

that have first-rate simulation centers. 

The Medical College of Virginia, in Hampton Roads, has a simulation center. There is one now in Central Florida, as part of the 

new medical facility down in the Central Florida region. So it is 

growing by leaps and bounds. 

There is a new organization which stood up about five years ago 

in the country. It is called the Society for Simulation in Healthcare. 

It began with four people: an anesthesiologist, two nurses, and an 

obstetrician. It has now grown to total about 2,500 people. 

Mr. MARSHALL. I find that very helpful. Do you mind if I—I am, 

though, specifically interested in your impressions concerning the 

sort of steadiness, administration to administration, of the program 

and the funding within DOD for modeling and simulation. 

I know that there has been an explosion of interest nationally in 

this, and I am just wondering, are we—it is so difficult for a private sector to partner with government when government is on a 

rollercoaster ride from administration to administration. How do I, 

as an entity, partner with somebody who is flaky and can’t be relied upon? 

So my question specifically is, are we being consistent? Are we 

predictable with regard to our investments and our programs? 

Admiral BURKE. Thank you, sir, for the question. I don’t detect 

any change from administration to administration in funding. 

What I do detect, however, is that there are a bunch of things driving the desire for simulation now. 

And as an example of the first point I made, I said earlier I grew 

up in the submarine force. I remember reporting to my first submarine and going right to the submarine simulator, or the attack 

center simulator, and working with the crew to get proficient in 

that arena. So that was some 30 years ago, so we have been using 

these for a long time. 

Now, what I think is happening is recognition of fuel costs, and 

so recognition that fuel costs are going to go up, and so that is certainly a driver for simulators. If you use simulators your operating 

costs will go down, you will have less wear and tear, therefore less 

maintenance, therefore greater operational availability at less cost. 

So all those things are working together. 

But I would say that the other thing that has happened is it 

used to be, in the Navy, for instance, community-specific. Some 

communities would be more interested in simulators than others. 

And that is a cultural change that is occurring, and now I know 

I work for a Chief of Naval Operations that is pushing simulators. 

I know I work for a Secretary of the Navy that is very interested 

in simulators. 

I don’t think it is because of a political bent; I think it is because 

of the time. I think the technology is exploding, and so the combination of the technology overcoming some of the cultural barriers 

and the requirement to save both fuel costs and produce operational availability at less cost are driving the explosion in military 

use of simulators. 
25 

Mr. MARSHALL. Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Wittman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Members of the panel, thank you so much for joining us today 

and thank you for your service to our nation. I do want to get a 

sense of how our modeling and simulation is being applied, and I 

know that there is one dimension that it can assume, but I want 

to make sure, too, that there is—or understand that there is a balance there. 

And obviously modeling and simulation can help, but it can also 

take us down the road of more of a test-taking, outcome-based effort than it is to really simulate the realism of what our men and 

women in uniform will face. So just to ask the panel collectively, 

how are you all seeking a balance in the full training regimen and 

using modeling and simulation to meet those needs and making 

sure that there is a balance, that we are not in a ‘‘test-taking 

realm,’’ but that we are in a mix of simulating reality, but also 

making sure that there is a mixture of that hands-on element, that 

while modeling and simulation can do a lot it is not the be all and 

end all. 

So I would like your perspective on how you all see that balance 

being attained in integrating modeling and simulation into the 

force structure needs. 

Admiral BURKE. Thanks for the question, sir. 

I think we were probably there a couple years ago. By our own 

internal work we figured out that maybe we had become overreliant on computer-based training, if you will, particularly at some of 

our basic levels. So we have been striving to achieve balance in 

that area. 

I would say today we have got about—in that school environment 

we have about 8,500 instructors, and that results in a one to six 

instructor to student ratio, which we would love to have at our 

schools today. But we believe in this blended learning concept, and 

so a mix of computer-based training and live instructor. 

I think one of the benefits of computer-based training is we find 

that the people will dig into areas on their own where they are not 

comfortable. They will quickly pass by areas where they do have 

a comfort level and dig into some of those more challenging levels 

for them, and that may be different than what you find in a full 

classroom environment, so there are positives there. 

Now, we have shifted to hands-on training for things like valve 

repairs, and then we also have developed some front panel simulators, which look like a diesel engine, or look like an oxygen generator, and you can go and push the buttons and you get the noises 

and actual indications of a real simulator or of the real platform, 

but it is a simulator. So I think it is a step in the right direction, 

but we do, as you suggest, recognize there is a need for balance, 

and we are striving to achieve that balance today, sir. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Good. 

General Layfield. 

General LAYFIELD. Thank you, Congressman, and thank you for 

your support to the military and their families, as indicated. I 

would like to specifically talk about computer-based training as we 
26 

know it today—our virtual training, our online training, and our 

models and simulations. 

I do believe that the early days of computer-based training may 

have been somewhat test-oriented. It may have been programmatic 

and lockstep. However, today’s computer-based models and all of 

our learning has grown so fast—our methodologies and how we 

learn—and that our modeling and our simulations associated with 

that are also growing, and we are learning from advancements in 

technology. 

I will give you a specific example. We have online, in conjunction 

with our services, developed a course that is called Virtual Cultural 

Awareness Training. It is called VCAT for short. It is a place you 

can go; it utilizes modeling and simulations. You can go to it online 

from home station or forward deployed, for that matter. 

But it immerses you in a set of challenges, a set of scenarios. It 

takes you to a place where you have to make decisions and it provides you feedback. And it allows you to see what happens when 

you maybe make the wrong decision. 

And it doesn’t give you a test, and it doesn’t give you a score. It 

gives you very clear feedback on how you are performing in this 

particular environment. And we find that to be very valuable. 

Thank you. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you. 

General Gibson. 

General GIBSON. Sir, I apologize. I may have misunderstood your 

question initially. I thought you meant the balance between tests 

through modeling and simulation versus using it in an experiential 

training method. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Well, that can certainly be one dimension of the 

question. If you would like to answer that dimension that would be 

great. 

General GIBSON. Sir, and I will touch on the other in the sense 

that, yes, we use computer-based training throughout and strike a 

balance with the hands-on training before final evaluation all the 

way through OJT [on the job training] and supervision. 

But coming back, we are organized, obviously, as we bring new 

systems onboard from corporate to developmental testing, which we 

explore how that better applies with the blue-suit operator, and in 

our scenarios, then to operational test and evaluation, where again, 

we take it to the next level of application of new systems—introducing new systems, weapons, software. And finally, obviously, we 

use a lot of simulation in—from steps of par task training, where 

you just repetitively begin at the beginning, as it were, to where 

we do these networked operations that we talked about in a virtual 

environment. 

And as I have mentioned earlier in my testimony, especially 

today in many of our fifth-gen [generation] aircraft and systems, 

that is the only place that we will choose to operate and use all 

those weapons and systems that are available to us. So a very expansive into the mission testing capability. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you. 

Admiral Burke, this subcommittee is much aware of challenges 

that the Navy is facing in regard to manning, training, and mainte-
27 

nance of surface fleet ships. Could you please explain how the 

Navy’s response to those challenges would be reflected in the readiness models? 

Admiral BURKE. Yes, sir. 

The way the readiness models work is they take a bunch of different inputs, and so all of them consider the force structure, they 

consider the schedule, they consider the training requirements and 

what happened in previous years, and then dependent upon which 

portion you are talking about—and in this case I think we are talking about ship readiness models—then they take specific steps to 

figure out what the cost requirement would be. 

So the model simply responds to the database that we would 

have entered into it. So if we said, in the case of surface ships, that 

we would now want to—we now recognize that we have not been 

doing enough maintenance on them and we raise the maintenance 

requirement then that will raise the cost of doing business. Now, 

that is easy to understand but it is not simple to figure out how 

much that cost requirement will change. 

So additionally, if you put more people on board then that will 

change the amount of maintenance that is being done by the ship— 

by the ship’s force—and consequently should reduce the maintenance that is being done off the ship. So there are competing pieces 

in that and the model will take all that information in once we tell 

it what the new requirements are and it will give us a cost. 

Does that get at your question, sir? 

Mr. ORTIZ. Yes. But let me ask you, now, when you take the retakes some steps to figure out that how long does this step that you 

have to take—how long does it take to get to the bottom of the 

problem that you are looking at? 

Admiral BURKE. From a model perspective, sir, it is very simple. 

It is changing a few inputs. 

The more challenging piece to this is determining what the actual requirement is. So if you decide that you now need to do much 

more maintenance on the ship you have to figure out what that 

specific maintenance is. Does that maintenance mean we are going 

to open up some tanks and we are going to do some repairs to 

those tanks? Does it mean we are going to do additional maintenance on pumps, valves, et cetera? 

That is the more challenging work, and that is the work that the 

Naval Sea Systems Command is doing now as they have completed 

several inspections of ships to know better what areas will need additional work. Once they have done that work it is—very rapidly, 

inside a day, we can generate new cost requirements, sir. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Because I know that throughout some of the hearings 

that we have had in the past one of the problems I see is that even 

when we get new ships coming aboard some of them are rusted, the 

doors don’t close, you know what I am talking about. So we also 

need to see how we can correct that, because the taxpayers are 

paying a heck of a lot of money, you know, and we hope that we 

get what we are paying for. And sometimes I think that maybe we 

are not—maybe we don’t have enough personnel. 

But this is something that we need to look, you know, forward 

to, to correcting all this. And I know that you are doing your best, 
28 

but we are here to see—how we can help you to reduce some of 

this. 

Now, the next question that I have is, what type of facts or 

events would require you—and I know you got into some of them— 

to require you to modify the readiness models? How quickly can the 

models respond to changing operational requirements? 

Admiral BURKE. Yes, sir. 

Once again, the models will respond very rapidly to changing 

operational requirements. So what would happen in this case is 

COCOM X would require additional forces; we would—once that 

demand signal was adjudicated then we would—we could easily determine what it would take to generate that requirement and what 

it would cost to do that. 

Now, you know, there is only so much you can do. I mean, you 

can’t get blood out of a stone, but within reasonable parameters of 

the same force structure and the same training requirements it is 

relatively easy to generate that new cost requirement, sir. 

Mr. ORTIZ. And I will ask another question before I yield to my 

ranking member here, but your testimony stated that there was no 

direct connection between program steaming days and what was 

actually required to prepare for and execute the operations schedule. How have the models changed this, and how is the change reflected in the Navy’s annual budget submission? 

Admiral BURKE. Sir, I am not sure I heard the first part of your 

question. Could you repeat it, please? 

Mr. ORTIZ. Yes, sir—your testimony there was no direct connection between—and this is what you stated—between programs 

steaming days and what was actually required to prepare for and 

execute the operational schedule. How have the models changed 

this and how is that change reflected in the Navy’s annual budget 

submission? 

Admiral BURKE. Yes, sir. 

In the past there was no real connection between—there was— 

I guess I—maybe I was too strong. There was a connection, it just 

wasn’t as obvious as it is today with the model. So what we would 

essentially say was, ‘‘Here is what worked last year. We need to 

generate about the same amount of presence, so therefore we need 

the same amount of steaming days or flying hours to do that.’’ 

Now what we do is we start from the demand signal and we— 

once that is adjudicated—and then we use our FRP, our Fleet 

Readiness Program, to figure out—let’s talk ships for a minute— 

to find out how much time the ship is going to be in the basic 

phase, the intermediate phase, the sustainment phase, and the 

maintenance phase to produce that level of presence at a particular 

readiness. 

And then from that we go into the specifics of how much the fuel 

costs, how much the utilities cost, how much training costs, et 

cetera, and then that generates the number of steaming days and 

the cost to do that. 

So it is more than steaming days because some of that time is 

spent alongside the pier doing other training, and we don’t—so that 

output at the end is based on all those different pieces for the force 

that we have. 
29 

It is pretty complicated, sir, and I know we have taken some of 

your staff through it and shown them how it works, but it is not 

real easy to explain. I am trying to do my best here. 

Mr. ORTIZ. I know, I know. And I know that you always try to 

do your best, but—and the reason I ask this is because in prior 

budget requests we have seen where the Navy has cut steaming 

days. 

Admiral BURKE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ORTIZ. You know that. But I think that this is a very—part 

of the training that needs to be done—— 

Admiral BURKE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ORTIZ [continuing]. But I hope—you know, we are here today 

because we are working together and we hope that with this simulation modeling can help us get to where we want to go by not 

only protecting our sailors and Marines and soldiers, but also, you 

know, giving the equipment that we utilize longer life because— 

and save the taxpayers as much money as we can, because I know 

that Secretary Gates came down not too long ago and said, ‘‘We 

need to cut down.’’ 

Admiral BURKE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ORTIZ. You know, it is not easy. You know, it always comes 

to mind that we are concerned for the lives of these young men and 

women who are serving. We want to be sure that they have what 

they need so that they can survive these horrendous two wars that 

we are involved in. 

But I know that you are doing your best and we want to work 

with you at any idea that you come to us so that we can help you, 

let us know. 

Let me yield to my good friend, Mr. Forbes. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be brief. 

I want to kind of follow up on what Mr. Marshall asked. And 

Jim, your question, I think, a lot was on the funding rollercoaster 

that we have had, but it is more than funding. 

And so the question that I would leave to all of you to respond 

to is, how can DOD be kind of a national leader in the preemptive 

use of modeling and simulation so that we can respond to crisis situations? Is our current DOD governance such that it maximizes 

our modeling and simulation investment? 

But then the third thing—and this is what I was listening to as 

Jim was asking his question—are we giving the right signals to the 

industry as to what DOD needs in terms of modeling and simulation, because it is not just the funding stream, but sometimes it is 

that the industry is sitting out there saying you want one thing on 

Monday and another thing on Wednesday. Do we have a mechanism—to be able to give a clear picture to industry—this is what 

we need and this is what we think we are going to need over the 

next several years? 

And so I will throw that out to any of you who want to take a 

stab at that. You know, how do we become that preemptive leader 

and are we sending the right messages out to the private industry? 

General LAYFIELD. Congressman, let me take a stab at that from 

a Joint Forces Command and training angle. The bread and butter 

of what we do for an exercise when we deliver a mission rehearsal 

exercise to the combatant commander for him to train on is rel-
30 

evance. And with respect to that, our modeling—our models and 

our simulations need to deliver. They need to deliver relevant simulations that replicate the battlespace that they are operating in. 

With respect to that, we have to spend and focus all of our efforts 

in the right direction, and there is no room for waste, of course. 

Therefore, the requirements systems that we have inside Joint 

Forces Command, with the services, and with the Office of the Secretary of Defense do, in fact, provide us adequate oversight to lay 

out those requirements on the table and match the appropriate resources with it, and I want to thank you for supporting the President’s budget in that respect. 

I have to say that subordinate to that, at the flag officer and general officer level, where we meet in forums like a training community of interest or an executive board for the application of the 

$285 million for immersive training, we meet frequently to make 

sure that our requirements are in balance and that they are delivered to the Office of the Secretary of Defense appropriately. As a 

matter of fact, today I will attend the meeting specifically with that 

in mind where I will gather with other flag officers and general officers and SESers [Senior Executive Service] at OSD to discuss, are 

we getting after immersive training with the resources we were 

given? 

So thank you very much for the opportunity to discuss that from 

Joint Forces Command. 

Mr. FORBES. Anyone else want to take a bite at that? 

General GIBSON. Sir, just briefly, I think, not to necessarily address the rollercoaster but as budgets come and go, obviously I 

heard the term earlier ‘‘culture.’’ We have that in our Air Force and 

DOD as we do anywhere, but as you begin to prioritize, as resources become constrained obviously we put a priority towards 

maintaining the aircraft and the actual systems because in the end 

that is what you will go to war with. 

And so there is a tendency sometimes, and those difficult challenges in the times that the simulation budgets will shrink or you 

will delay some of that concurrency that we talked about, keeping 

them relevant, and then that has a negative impact on the trainers’ 

perceptions of the value. 

So I would just offer that as you begin to have budgets that become constrained, the first priority goes to the live-fly and the actual systems and the maintenance of those, and then the simulation and the virtual environments sometimes take a second tier, 

and that is where I have seen the impact. 

Mr. FORBES. And, General, one thing I would just throw out to 

all of you—and I think we are united on saying this but I don’t 

want to speak for my colleagues—it seems, almost, we should be 

doing the reverse. It seems like modeling and simulation of everything that we are utilizing, when budgets get tighter and things 

are tougher, modeling and simulation is the one vehicle that helps 

us navigate through those tight budgets, also helps us become more 

efficient and make sure that we have the readiness that we need. 

And so we need help from you as to how we continue that to 

make sure that we are not having that trimmed and cut. 

And, Admiral Lewis, do you have any comments on—— 

Admiral LEWIS. Yes, sir. Thank you, Congressman. 
31 

One comment, and that is, as you described and were looking at 

is the relationship between and government, specifically with DOD. 

For the most part industry has a fairly good understanding of the 

requirements as they emerge from the different services and from 

the joint apparatus that we work with. 

However, there is always room for improvement. And so we 

strive and work very hard on both the industry side and on the 

government side to have a continuing dialogue between the two, to 

ensure that both sides understand the art of the possible, as far as 

the government is concerned, and that, as far as industry is concerned, we have a full and complete understanding of the requirement. 

Now, that dialogue ebbs and flows over time, and it depends on 

a number of different factors, but sometimes we find the dialogue 

is hindered by regulation, restrictions, and so forth, and then there 

are periods when there is complete open and honest and forthright 

communication between the two sides. But that is something we 

have to live with. We know that occurs and we have to deal with 

it. 

So I would say that for the most part, because of that dialogue— 

the interchange—and the bridge that is provided by industry associations like mine ensure that that communication is enhanced and 

continues to flow. I think that overall, though, we have an understanding of the way this system works and we go forward from 

there. 

Mr. FORBES. Well, I want to thank all of you for your work. I am 

going to yield back the balance of my time, but I also want to encourage you that even though the hearing technically will end in 

a few minutes the record is still open, so we would love to have 

your responses or thoughts if you would like to put anything in 

there that we can utilize to help with this industry and the great 

work all of you are doing. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MARSHALL [presiding]. Thank you, Randy. 

Mr. Wittman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just have one quick question. I want to kind of follow up on 

Congressman Forbes’ question to Admiral Lewis. 

I know as we talk to folks in the modeling and simulation industry we talk about encouraging innovation, encouraging creativity, 

encouraging them to kind of push the envelope. Do you think 

that—number one—that the capacity is there for them to push the 

envelope, and do you think that they are doing that in such a way 

that precipitates thought amongst our service branches on what 

the future capabilities of modeling and simulation bring to the 

table? 

In other words, I see it kind of as a two-way street, not only as 

a clear demand signal, but also the industry pushing the envelope 

so that the service branches can understand potentially what is out 

there and what the capabilities might be in the future, and that 

hopefully that spawns innovation and creativity. 

Admiral LEWIS. Well, thank you, Congressman, for that opportunity. But very briefly, just let me say that the stimulation of innovation and creativity, I think, is alive and well within the mod-
32 

eling and simulation industry and the companies and corporations 

that are involved in that kind of activity. 

I will give you an example. I know you have been to ITSEC. 

Thank you, sir, for your participation. We look forward to you returning again later on this year. 

But at that event we have about 500 exhibitors, and typically we 

have 100 new—100 to 150 new exhibitors every year. So what happens between—to those 100 to 150 that are replaced each and 

every year? Well, most of them are small companies, small—20 to 

25 personnel within a company. They have got one idea. 

This is America at its best when we see this kind of activity occurring, these people, these entrepreneurs with one good idea. They 

showcase that idea at an event like ITSEC, for example, and they 

either succeed and they go on, they get bought up, or, sadly, some 

of them probably fail. 

But that is alive and well. The ability—the capacity is there. The 

desire is there. And the intellect is there to go forward and develop 

these new things that the services do find of value even though 

they may not have had a, you know, an overt requirement for that 

particular piece of capability. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Admiral Lewis. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. MARSHALL. All of us have experienced your simulators. I 

have been in a couple of Air Force simulators, done one Army simulator. 

But I have to say, Admiral, that the naval simulator up at Annapolis was very helpful to the Navy, at least in one instance. A 

group of us from Congress went up there on a CODEL [Congressional Delegation]—pretty easy. You just drive up to Annapolis, no 

big deal—with the idea that we were going to be playing faculty 

and staff in baseball after the CODEL. And right before we were 

going to go out and play the baseball game you put us in a simulator and half the team was seasick for the game. So I thought that 

was actually a pretty good strategy in the use of simulators. 

I want to thank you all for what you do. It is terribly important 

to national defense. We need to fund you adequately, give you the 

kind of support that you need in order to do this. 

And with that, we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
A P P E N D I X 

JULY 20, 2010 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

JULY 20, 2010 

(37) 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

JULY 20, 2010 

(103) 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. FORBES 

General GIBSON. The Air Force relies on modeling and simulation (M&S) for predicting the structural integrity and reliability of its fleet. This is critical since many 

aircraft remaining in the Air Force inventory are far exceeding their design service 

life and being operated at more severe levels than those for which they were designed. To keep the fleet flying, numerous aircraft systems and major components 

require replacement, such as wings and airframe structural elements. 

In response to numerous fatigue-related structural failures in the 1950s, the Air 

Force established the Aircraft Structural Integrity Program (ASIP) in 1958. ASIP 

established a systems engineering framework to develop, certify, and maintain the 

structure of an air vehicle with the least possible economic burden throughout its 

service life and is required on all aircraft weapon systems per Air Force Policy Directive 63–1 with requirements documented in Military Standard 1530C. 

The Aircraft Structural Integrity Program has proven instrumental in controlling 

the loss of aircraft due to structural failure. In fact, the probability of loss due to 

structural failure is now approximately 50 times lower than all other causes. Since 

ASIP’s inception in 1958, M&S has been integral to achieving this demonstrated 

structural reliability. Structural models (e.g., finite element models) and analytical 

tools are widely used to predict the aircraft structure strength, stiffness, service life, 

etc. During development, models are calibrated using data from ground and flight 

testing. During sustainment, models are updated to reflect configuration changes 

and are calibrated through additional ground and flight testing when required. 

Structural models are also updated and refined with real world usage and maintenance data. In addition, structural models are updated to reflect unanticipated 

events such as the November 2007 crash of a 25-year old F–15C. [See page 17.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

JULY 20, 2010 

(107) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. ORTIZ 

Mr. ORTIZ. How might the Department of Defense serve as a national leader in 

the pre-emptive use of modeling and simulation to develop responses to various national crises scenarios? 

Admiral BURKE. The Department of Defense conducts joint and collaborative analyses, synchronized with the Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution 

(PPBE) System, to support the development and evaluation of defense strategy. This 

is accomplished through the Analytic Agenda initiative which develops the processes 

and products—including planning scenarios, concept of operations, and analytic 

baselines—that form the basis for strategic analysis and assessments. Modeling and 

simulation is used in developing and assessing the Analytic Agenda, its planning 

scenarios, and in the detailed follow-on analyses and assessments used for the 

PPBE. 

The majority of the planning scenarios are contained within the analytic agenda 

and focus on potential future crises where the military is expected to be the lead 

agency. These scenarios include full-scale warfare campaigns; foundational defense 

activities such as presence and engagement; defense of the homeland; and irregular 

warfare and security operations—all of which leverage modeling and simulation. 

Several national crises scenarios, which leverage modeling, are focused on crises 

where the Department of Defense supports other departments and agencies. For example, the Enhanced Protective Posture (EPP) scenario examines a variety of potential homeland security concerns that arise in conjunction with overseas contingencies. In this effort, modeling assists in determining how to prepare for, mitigate, 

and respond to those concerns. The EPP includes the Assistant Secretary of Defense 

for Homeland Defense (ASD–HD), National Guard Bureau (NGB), Coast Guard, as 

well as the normal DOD analytic agenda participants. Other examples that leveraged modeling and simulation which supported inter-agency crises scenarios include 

the Homeland Defense Analytic Baseline which examined a range of natural and 

man-caused homeland crises as well as Defense Support to Civil Authorities for 

Consequence Management (DSCA–CM) studies. 

Thus the Department of Defense is active in using models and simulations in the 

pre-emptive planning and assessment of a variety of national crises scenarios. These 

efforts within the Department of Defense could be used as a template for other departments and agencies to follow and perhaps form the basis for collaborative interagency planning and crises response. 

Mr. ORTIZ. How does the expansion and technological advancement of surface ship 

and aviation training simulators fit within each of the department’s energy conservation goals? 

Admiral BURKE. The use of surface ship and aviation training simulators facilitates the reduction of fuel consumption. Consumption reduction is critical to the 

achievement of Navy energy goals. Navy is drafting a plan outlining the competencies that can be effectively accomplished within the training simulator environment. Simulation use is being assessed for current levels of utilization to ensure 

that available simulators are being used to the maximum extent possible. Additionally, fidelity assessments will ensure that each module is an effective reflection of 

‘‘real-time’’ operating environments. Navy recognizes that maximizing simulation 

use will require significant culture change. However, given the technology that is 

currently available, Navy is confident that increased simulator use will help meet 

the Navy’s fuel consumption reduction goal. 

One recent example of the expansion and technological advancement of Navy simulation is the MH–60R Seahawk simulator installed April 13, 2010, at Naval Air 

Station (NAS) Jacksonville, the first of its kind on the East Coast. The MH–60R 

Seahawk simulator was also approved to support Helicopter Sea Combat Wing U.S. 

Atlantic Fleet in training pilots. The ability of the new simulator to create multiple 

training environments and situations will enhance readiness and enable MH–60R 

Seakhawk pilots to complete a greater percentage of training requirements in the 

simulator, reducing fuel consumption and contributing to the Navy’s energy conservation goals. 
108 

Mr. ORTIZ. In your opinion, does the existing governance in the DOD maximum 

M&S investments to enhance readiness? If not, what changes can be made to improve the management structure to add value and increase return-on-investment? 

Admiral BURKE. The existing DOD and Navy Modeling and Simulation governance is designed to support the effective generation of Navy units and battle groups 

ready to support the Combatant Commanders. DOD, working with the Combatant 

Commanders and individual Services, has developed the Joint National Training 

Capability which provides a standard infrastructure to support interservice and 

interagency training while remaining flexible enough to respond to Service and 

Community specific needs. While interoperability might potentially be increased by 

more central authority, the responsiveness to the end-user, i.e., Service and Community specific needs, may be reduced. The current, flexible and cooperative approach 

strikes an appropriate balance for all. 

Mr. ORTIZ. What is the relationship between the M&S industry and the DOD? 

Does industry have a clear demand signal for the types of M&S capabilities DOD 

is seeking to improve readiness? 

Admiral BURKE. We believe industry is keenly aware of DOD M&S needs and requirements for Readiness. Individual programs work closely with vendors to ensure 

system level requirements are understood, and at a broader, enterprise level, the 

core technology and standards have been adopted for at least the last four years. 

We are focused on our need to ensure the ability of the government to exercise M&S 

building blocks and achieve reuse where appropriate. We continue discussions in 

multiple venues with our industry partners to move toward a more open, standardsbased environment to facilitate integration and reuse of M&S while taking into account industry’s sensitivities to sharing products across industry partners. 

One such venue is the annual Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation and 

Education Conference which provides an opportunity for significant interchange and 

dialogue between government and industry. The 2009 conference had approximately 

19,000 registrants, roughly half of which were government. This venue provides a 

technology showcase that drives discussion and ideas, as well as both government 

and corporate leadership panel discussions and sessions to review subject matter experts’ papers on all our requirements, goals and needs of the community. 

Mr. ORTIZ. What led the Navy to recognize that it needed accredited models for 

determining its readiness resourcing requirements? What contact has the Navy had 

with the other services about adapting the Navy’s models to their requirements? 

Has Military Sealift Command approached the Navy about adapting the readiness 

models for its own use? 

Admiral BURKE. The Navy’s Performance Pricing Model initiative was started in 

2003 after Resource Sponsors and Budget Submitting Offices were unable to: (1) relate desired readiness outputs to specific funding levels, and (2) clearly articulate 

the impact of budget reductions to Fleet Readiness due to a lack of clearly defined 

output metrics. 

The purpose of the Performance Pricing Model initiative is to provide senior Navy 

leadership quantitative tools that would allow them to have confidence in the requirements being submitted for funding as well as visibility in how that funding requirement was developed, the readiness risk associated with not funding to that requirement, and/or at various funding at levels. By shifting to a process where the 

elements of Fleet Readiness can be quantified in a modeling process the leadership 

debate shifts away from a pure resource level discussion to a more productive conversation of the risk associated with each output level which can then be tied to 

the overall planning and programming process. 

Mr. ORTIZ. What contact has the Navy had with the other services about adapting 

the Navy’s models to their requirements? 

Admiral BURKE. There have been numerous readiness model briefings by Navy 

personnel to DOD and other service personnel. Recently the Flying Hour Program 

Team briefed USAF personnel on the Flying Hour model/methodology and readiness 

metrics. On 12 August, the Aviation Depot Maintenance Team briefed representatives from the USAF on the Aviation Depot Maintenance models and requirement 

determination. We have also routinely briefed members of the OMB Staff on our 

Readiness models. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Has Military Sealift Command approached the Navy about adapting 

the readiness models for its own use? 

Admiral BURKE. While MSC and Navy operations have significant differences, 

many similarities in ship material readiness modeling exist. Both have maintenance, fuel, parts and other operational requirements in common. In an effort to 

take advantage of these similarities and find efficiencies in operations, there has 

been an ongoing exchange of information and expertise between MSC and the Navy. 

MSC participates in the Navy’s Fleet Readiness Enterprise, an initiative to improve 
109 

understanding of business practices to better manage the efficient and effective production of current readiness and future capability. MSC also utilizes established 

models from the commercial maritime industry, and shares its experience in this 

area. Currently there is no formal program for adapting Navy readiness models for 

use by MSC. 

Mr. ORTIZ. What type factors or events would require you to modify the readiness 

models? How quickly can the models respond to changing operational requirements? 

Admiral BURKE. Typical factors or events that require changes to the readiness 

model inputs include changes in: 

• Global Force Management Schedule 

Æ Presence & Surge requirements 

• Force Structure 

Æ Number of ships and airplanes by Class and Type Model Series 

• Pilot crew seat ratio (required number of pilots per aircraft) 

Æ Homeport assignments 

Æ Flight Student Training requirements 

• Class/Type Model Series Maintenance Plans 

Æ Maintenance schedules 

• Fleet Response Training Plan (FRTP) requirements 

Æ Basic and Intermediate Phase steaming day requirements 

Æ Training and Readiness Matrix requirements 

• Cost data: 

Æ Labor cost 

Æ Material cost 

Æ Fuel cost 

Æ Escalation (inflation) guidance 

Mr. ORTIZ. How quickly can the models respond to changing operational requirements? 

Admiral BURKE. There is a virtually unlimited capacity to produce model variations based upon ‘‘what if’’ scenarios of OPTEMPO and FRP/Ao configurations. Adaptation of the models to scenarios that do not require significant changes in force 

structure or operational practices is relatively easy. Adaptation of the models to scenarios that require significant force structure changes or assume different operating 

practices are significantly more difficult. 

Mr. ORTIZ. How might the Department of Defense serve as a national leader in 

the pre-emptive use of modeling and simulation to develop responses to various national crises scenarios? 

General LAYFIELD. DOD uses modeling and simulation to develop, refine, and adjust response plans for a multitude of national crisis scenarios. These efforts account 

for the complex nature of the operating environment and challenges of integrating 

with a full range of mission partners. These capabilities are currently used to support interagency and multinational exercises and experimentation. Given DOD’s 

unique ability to create complex scenarios supported by modeling and simulation, 

it is ideally suited to serve as the national lead, if so designated. 

There are some areas where DOD is already using modeling and simulation to 

support our Inter Agency partners. For example, DOD’s Joint Knowledge Online 

(JKO) is an online training capability that continuously and rapidly adapts to meet 

emerging training needs by leveraging simulation technology. The Small Group Scenario Trainer (SGST) application is a JKO-hosted, Web-based exercise application 

for multiplayer, small group teams, cells and battle staff training exercises. The system uses interactive capabilities to teach creative thinking skills, addressing problems encountered during virtual, mission-based, simulated scenarios. Most recently, 

U.S. Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM) teamed with JKO to create two SGST 

scenarios that provided training in a Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief (HA/ 

DR) environment. 

Mr. ORTIZ. How does the expansion and technological advancement of surface ship 

and aviation training simulators fit within each of the department’s energy conservation goals? 

General LAYFIELD. Surface ship and aviation simulators are an important component of the military services’ training regimen. Because the military services have 

primary responsibility for surface ship and aviation training simulation, they are 

appropriately positioned within the Department of Defense’s energy conservation efforts. Accordingly, we have contacted my colleagues within the U.S. Army, U.S. Air 

Force and U.S. Navy to assist in answering this question and will report back to 

you upon receiving their inputs. 
110 

U.S. Air Force: HQ USAF/A3/0—Operations, Plans and Requirements 

Given that the Air Force is the largest user of fossil fuels within the DOD, it is 

paramount for us to continually look towards capitalizing on M&S tools to ensure 

our requirements for both aircraft and training simulators are in step and complement one another. We continue to make great strides in level of fidelity of our 

immersive combat trainers and we have found several ways in which training can 

be accomplished in simulators or with simulation to reduce the energy consumption 

footprint. Examples include: 

• In 2009, Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) crews conducted 

1,968 training events in Virtual Flag, and the Joint Surveillance and Targeting 

Attack Radar System (JSTARS) accomplished 760 training events in their mission simulators. 

• No fuel is used during the check-out of a C–17 copilot. All of his training is accomplished in the schoolhouse using immersive tools such as simulations so 

that his first sortie in a C–17 is actually transporting personnel and materiel 

in support of our world-wide operations. 

• In line with the commercial airline industry, Air Mobility Command uses full 

motion simulators with six degrees of freedom providing realistic training that 

permits us to decrease the number of live training flights. KC–10 air refueling 

aircraft simulators have allowed us to decrease the number of flights required 

to produce a mission ready pilot. The initial qualification syllabus prior to 2005 

consisted of 17 simulator lessons and nine flights. The current syllabus increases the simulator lessons to 23 and decreases flights to six. 

We will continue to evaluate which tasks must be accomplished in the cockpit 

versus which can be completed in simulators to ensure the training and readiness 

of our forces is not compromised. With continued advancements of high fidelity, 

immersive simulators, we will be able to train for additional mission tasks. The use 

of mission certified simulators reduces fuel consumption by shifting the balance between live and simulated flight with the objective of producing combat capable aviators through maximum, cost-effective training. 

U.S. Army: HQ USA/G–8—Programs 

The Army’s increased use of aviation simulators has led to energy conservation. 

The task of maintaining the proficiency of experienced and trained pilots is a necessary task that would consume many more gallons of fuel if not for the use of aviation simulators. Pilots require an annual robust training program that uses both 

live and virtual methods to maintain proficiency. 

The table below is the FY10 HQDA G–3/5/7 Aviation Directorate estimate of fuel 

cost avoidance due to simulation use. Lastly, the Army did not program to purchase 

fuel for live flight training in FY10 due to simulator use. 

Flight Simulator 

Fuel Cost Avoidance 

Army (-) USAACE $61.9M 

USAACE $37.3M 

Army Total $99.2M 

U.S. Navy: HQ USN/N–4—Material Readiness & Logistics 

The use of surface ship and aviation training simulators facilitates the reduction 

of fuel consumption. Consumption reduction is critical to the achievement of Navy 

energy goals. Navy is drafting a plan outlining the competencies that can be effectively accomplished within the training simulator environment. Simulation use is 

being assessed for current levels of utilization to ensure that available simulators 

are being used to the maximum extent possible. Additionally, fidelity assessments 

will ensure that each module is an effective reflection of ‘‘real-time’’ operating environments. Navy recognizes that maximizing simulation use will require significant 

culture change. However, given the technology that is currently available, Navy is 

confident that increased simulator use will help meet the Navy’s fuel consumption 

reduction goal. 

One recent example of the expansion and technological advancement of Navy simulation is the MH–60R Seahawk simulator installed April 13, 2010, at Naval Air 
111 

Station (NAS) Jacksonville, the first of its kind on the East Coast. The MH–60R 

Seahawk simulator was also approved to support Helicopter Sea Combat Wing U.S. 

Atlantic Fleet in training pilots. The ability of the new simulator to create multiple 

training environments and situations will enhance readiness and enable MH–60R 

Seahawk pilots to complete a greater percentage of training requirements in the 

simulator, reducing fuel consumption and contributing to the Navy’s energy conservation goals. 

Mr. ORTIZ. In your opinion, does the existing governance in the DOD maximum 

M&S investments to enhance readiness? If not, what changes can be made to improve the management structure to add value and increase return-on-investment? 

General LAYFIELD. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology and Logistics (USD AT&L) is the designated focal point for coordinating 

all matters related to DOD modeling and simulation. USD AT&L has established 

a Modeling and Simulation Steering Committee which is the centralized organization to coordinate and synchronize efforts across the DOD. This committee, working 

with the designated communities of interest within DOD, develops a Modeling and 

Simulation Corporate and Crosscutting Business Plan. That plan guides the investment and management priorities for DOD modeling and simulation efforts, fostering 

coordination of the Services, as well as other communities. 

As the Secretary of Defense recently articulated, the DOD must continue to align 

itself and refine its processes to improve efficiency. Within the area of modeling and 

simulation there may be room to improve the coordination and establishment of a 

DOD-wide approach to further reduce duplicative efforts and increase synergy 

through collaborative and transparent business processes, incentivizing Services to 

deliver ‘‘born joint’’ models and simulations. 

Mr. ORTIZ. What is the relationship between the M&S industry and the DOD? 

Does industry have a clear demand signal for the types of M&S capabilities DOD 

is seeking to improve readiness? 

General LAYFIELD. DOD components participate in forums such as the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation and Education Conference, MODSIM World, 

Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Advanced Distributed Learning Implementation Fest and the International Training and Education Conference. DOD does this 

to demonstrate its capabilities; collaborate on challenges; and solicit partnership opportunities with industry, academia and international partners. DOD elements also 

author articles on initiatives and challenges in publications such as Military Simulation and Training and Military Training Technology magazines to communicate to 

industry. These forums have enabled positive engagement and brought together 

subject matter experts across the community to address readiness issues as related 

to modeling and simulation (e.g., small unit immersive training, human social cultural and behavior modeling). 

Mr. ORTIZ. How does JFCOM collect feedback from users of your virtual/simulated 

training regarding its realism and effectiveness? How long does it take to implement 

changes that such feedback might produce? 

General LAYFIELD. USJFCOM collects feedback from combatant commands on the 

realism and effectiveness of its virtual/simulated systems by conducting event after 

action reviews at the conclusion of each training event, as well as staff assistance 

visits in theater approximately 90 days after the headquarters is deployed. 

USJFCOM also has event surveys which are conducted at the end of each event, 

which include specific questions on how the modeling and simulation systems performed in support of combatant command goals and training requirements. 

USJFCOM also conducts a series of conferences with the combatant commands and 

Services to gather joint training related modeling and simulation requirements. Required changes to the suite of modeling and simulation systems can be delivered in 

days or weeks, if identified as a critical need, but normally updates are provided 

on a semi-annual software release cycle, which has saved money for USJFCOM and 

its service partners, while also reducing the risk of systems or database failures. 

JKO Joint Courseware Facilitators (JCF) are key contributors to the operational 

relevance of courses and exercise support development for JKO. JCFs work directly 

with the exercise Observer/Trainers to coordinate JKO support for OIF and OEF 

Mission Rehearsal Exercises and content for online courses. The JCFs attend MRX 

planning conferences with the Observer/Trainers in order to capture ever-changing 

and up-to-date JKO courseware content that originates from deployed or soon to deploy JTF headquarters, identifying ways in which JKO can be integrated with early 

exercise planning. 

Mr. ORTIZ. How might the Department of Defense serve as a national leader in 

the pre-emptive use of modeling and simulation to develop responses to various national crises scenarios? 
112 

General GIBSON. The Department of Defense already serves as a national leader 

in the pre-emptive use of modeling and simulation to develop responses to various 

national crises scenarios. In the Air Force, we do this through the use of constructive simulations such as Air Warfare Simulation (AWSIM), Information Operations 

Suite (IOS) and Air Force Synthetic Environment for Reconnaissance and Surveillance (AFSERS). Additionally, we federate with other DOD Joint simulations currently sponsored by JFCOM, the Navy, the Army and others creating a joint environment that shows the proper representation of Air, Space, Naval and Land power 

that can be, and are, used to train for humanitarian crisis at home or abroad. The 

command and control tools we use to prepare our staffs for major crises during a 

large scale exercise can also be used to support national crises scenarios at varying 

levels and intensity. As a department, we do this around the world, at COCOM 

sponsored events such as Austere Challenge in EUCOM and Ulchi Freedom Guardian in USFK. In preparing for defense of the United States, the DOD and its accredited Joint Task Force Commanders and Combatant Commanders are uniquely prepared to respond in case of national crises at home and abroad. Modeling and simulation is a powerful enabler that allows us to train to a variety of national crises, 

at varying intensities, to assure the DOD is prepared for any contingency it is called 

to support. That robust training prepares not only DOD, but other Inter-Agency personnel, to assure trained, certified personnel who have experienced the pressures 

and challenges of national emergencies. 

Mr. ORTIZ. How does the expansion and technological advancement of surface ship 

and aviation training simulators fit within each of the department’s energy conservation goals? 

General GIBSON. Given that the Air Force is the largest user of fossil fuels within 

the DOD, it is paramount for us to continually look towards capitalizing on M&S 

tools to ensure our requirements for both aircraft and training simulators are in 

step and complement one another. We continue to make great strides in level of fidelity of our immersive combat trainers and we have found several ways in which 

training can be accomplished in simulators or with simulation to reduce the energy 

consumption footprint. Examples include: 

• In 2009, Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) crews conducted 

1,968 training events in Virtual Flag and the Joint Surveillance and Targeting 

Attack Radar System (JSTARS) accomplished 760 training events in their mission simulators. 

• In line with the commercial airline industry, Air Mobility Command uses full 

motion simulators with six-degrees of freedom providing realistic training that 

permits us to decrease the number of live training flights. KC–10 air refueling 

aircraft simulators have allowed us to decrease the number of flights required 

to produce a mission ready pilot. The initial qualification syllabus prior to 2005 

consisted of 17 simulator lessons and nine flights. The current syllabus increases the simulator lessons to 23 and decreases flights to six. 

We will continue to evaluate which tasks must be accomplished in the cockpit 

versus which can be completed in simulators to ensure the training and readiness 

of our forces is not compromised. With continued advancements of high fidelity, 

immersive simulators, we will be able to train for additional mission tasks. The use 

of mission certified simulators reduces fuel consumption by shifting the balance between live and simulated flight with the objective of producing combat capable aviators through maximum, cost-effective training. 

Mr. ORTIZ. In your opinion, does the existing governance in the DOD maximum 

M&S investments to enhance readiness? If not, what changes can be made to improve the management structure to add value and increase return-on-investment. 

General GIBSON. The current governance structure in DOD is effectively used to 

assure M&S investments used to enhance readiness are leveraged across the Services. The Air Force has many agreements with the Army to assure our simulations 

are integrated to assure the best possible training for our combat forces. The constructive simulations federated within the JFCOM exercise program are adding valued support to our COCOM command and control exercises while eliminating duplication of effort. 

The Services have cooperated in integrating many of our virtual simulators to assure an immersive training environment utilizing the latest technologies available 

on the battlefield. The Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC) training the Air 

Force does in concert with the Brigade Combat Teams (BCT) of the Army assures 

experienced personnel are deployed in support of OEF. That training assures our 

JTACs are proficient on the latest battlefield procedures, equipment and rules of engagement prior to deployment. The success of that program is a testament to the 

cooperation in DOD to maximize M&S investments across the Services. 
113 

The Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) is currently 

processing the Enterprise Architecture for Live, Virtual and Constructive Environments (EA–LVCE) effort. This Joint program, led by the Air Force, will continue to 

build on the previous M&S investments. The continued Congressional support of 

DOD M&S integration efforts will help ensure the readiness and combat capability 

of all our DOD forces. 

Mr. ORTIZ. What is the relationship between the M&S industry and the DOD? 

Does industry have a clear demand signal for the types of M&S capabilities DOD 

is seeking to improve readiness? 

General GIBSON. Industry deserves a good understanding of the DOD requirements and that should be a priority of all acquisition organizations. Within the Air 

Force, we have periodic ‘‘Industry Days’’ where our acquisition community addresses 

the anticipated future requirements with its industry partners. There are other 

events where the Services join together to present their needs to industry in open 

forums and the Services are available to answer questions from industry both as 

a group and in smaller settings with more limited participation. 

DOD also has a need for industry to provide information on the state of technology in the private sector. We continue to strengthen and foster that integration, 

as the Air Force regularly receives updates on the state of M&S as it affects the 

virtual-constructive technologies and the Distributed Mission Operations that the 

Air Force relies on for training its combat forces. We incorporate those technologies 

as appropriate to meet training requirements. 

Mr. ORTIZ. What is the practical impact of OMB’s rejection of the unique industrial classification code? How is this affecting industry’s ability to bring greater modeling and simulation capability to the Department of Defense? 

Admiral LEWIS. The repeated rejection of our proposal to create new NAICS codes 

for modeling and simulation has a direct negative impact on our industry and community of practice in a number of areas. Firstly, it greatly impedes, if not stifles, 

any ability to quantify the considerable and growing contribution the modeling and 

simulation industry is making to the national economy. We know, for example, that 

modeling and simulation is a commanding economic and technological presence in 

areas such as Orlando and Hampton Roads, Virginia, as well as in a growing number of other centers around the country. Creation of NAICS codes for M&S would 

allow us, for the first time, to measure the economic contribution being made by our 

industry on a nationwide scale—a measurement that would be vital to public understanding of the significance of this technology to our present and future. Such recognition would also enable DOD to gain an understanding of the importance, growth 

and health of modeling and simulation as a component of overall industrial support 

of national defense. Understanding of modeling and simulation as an industrial 

component of DOD support would enable more accurate estimations of the value of 

its contribution to be made, in the context of comparison with other elements of 

readiness. 

Mr. ORTIZ. How might the Department of Defense serve as a national leader in 

the pre-emptive use of modeling and simulation to develop responses to various national crises scenarios? 

Admiral LEWIS. In my view, the Department of Defense is already playing a significant national leadership role through its use of modeling and simulation in a 

number of critical national security areas. In recent years, for example, we have witnessed DOD harnessing M&S to address the challenges of COIN and other asymmetric threats. Through synthetic, immersive environments, our warfighters are 

now exposed to training, which, with ever increasing fidelity, mimics those situations they will face in Iraq, Afghanistan and other potentially hostile environments. 

This ability to create convincing synthetic battlespaces for counterinsurgency warfare training is a comparatively recent development, and testimony to the flexibility 

and adaptability of the modeling and simulation industry in response to rapidly 

shifting DOD training requirements. 

Even more recently, we have witnessed heightened awareness of the grave threat 

to our national infrastructure posed by cyber aggression. The Department of Defense, along with other national security agencies, is utilizing simulation technology—in particular, constructive simulations—to depict large-scale cyber attacks 

against elements of our national energy grid, satellite and internet communications 

and other critical components of our infrastructure critical to continued functioning 

of our national security apparatus. 

Turning to the Defense Department’s role in responding to natural disasters, 

again we see a variety of simulation training regimes in play. We can now replicate 

disaster consequences with great fidelity, enabling elements of DOD to design and 

test responses to ensure maximum effectiveness. This translates directly into amelioration of human suffering and more rapid recovery. 
114 

In all these areas, the Defense Department is playing and will continue to play 

a leading role, having pioneered the use of simulation training technologies in the 

first place. I think it is important to note, however, that DOD must be careful to 

integrate its efforts where appropriate with those of other agencies involved in national security enhancement, such as DHS and the civilian intelligence community, 

to maximize the effectiveness of our overall efforts to prepare the nation for events 

we all hope will not occur. 

Mr. ORTIZ. How does the expansion and technological advancement of surface ship 

and aviation training simulators fit within each of the department’s energy conservation goals? 

Admiral LEWIS. Simulator training on all platforms, be they surface ships, aviation, or land systems, contributes directly and measurably to DOD energy savings, 

as well as savings in other critical areas. The ‘‘man-machine’’ training interface is 

now a very mature technology, with simulation very closely replicating the sights, 

sounds and feel of the real thing. This fidelity allows these virtual environments to 

supplant, to a great extent, live training. Each hour thus spent in a simulator is 

an hour’s fuel saved, as well as lubricants, and even use of land, in the case of surface vehicles. But simulation training’s benefits extend even further. Simulation 

dramatically reduces wear and tear on our increasingly taxed equipment, as well 

as its ‘‘down time’’ and even personnel savings, as less maintenance means fewer 

man hours dedicated to turning wrenches. So—simulation training contributes directly to reductions in both the Operations and Maintenance and the Personnel accounts—savings that can be redirected to other critical DOD budget categories such 

as RTD&E and procurement. 

Mr. ORTIZ. In your opinion, does the existing governance in the DOD maximum 

M&S investments to enhance readiness? If not, what changes can be made to improve the management structure to add value and increase return-on-investment? 

Admiral LEWIS. Until fairly recently, I sensed some reluctance in some DOD sectors to recognize the full potential of modeling and simulation to contribute to economies and efficiencies in important areas. This is rooted, I believe, in reservations 

about the payback of time spent training in artificial environments and away from 

the ‘‘real thing’’. Now, this reticence is being reduced by the undeniable attributes 

of simulation training in many areas. But—reservations remain in some important 

areas. Our member corporations point out, for example, that some DOD elements 

have yet to embrace as fully as they might the use of simulations in MOUT environments, preferring to rely on live training to prepare warfighters. This reluctance follows the pattern of lag between the maturation of simulation capabilities in given 

environments and the full realization of their utility in that context on the part of 

DOD operators. It has only been in the last several years that M&S has reached 

the point that it can play a useful role in small unit training, and therefore we are 

again seeing a gap between attainment of this capability and its full utilization by 

DOD. Several of our corporate members are ready and able to provide such environments, but are waiting for DOD elements to provide major impetus to this capability. 

Mr. ORTIZ. What is the relationship between the M&S industry and the DOD? 

Does industry have a clear demand signal for the types of M&S capabilities DOD 

is seeking to improve readiness? 

Admiral LEWIS. In general, our corporate membership thinks that DOD requirements—the ‘‘demand signal’’—are usually clear, realistic and conform to industry 

capabilities. The problem lies with the contracting cycle, which is viewed as far too 

drawn out and cumbersome. This of course touches on the wider issue of acquisition 

reform, which is being properly accorded priority attention within the defense establishment. Our membership reports that, by the time the contractual exercise has 

run its course, in many cases the original requirements have been rendered obsolete 

by advancing technology and inherently involve too many corporate resources to satisfy. In addition, our membership reports that DOD needs to be willing to contract 

for longer periods—for ten years at least, rather than the typical five. After a contract is finally let, it takes the winners some time to get up to speed on the requirements—a period during which disproportionate resources are dedicated. Once the 

work settles into a mutually satisfactory pattern that brings on economies of scale 

for the producer, the contract typically has little more time to run, often reducing 

profit margins still further after the initial out of pocket expenditures during the 

protracted contracting cycle. Some of our members note that their international customers typically contract for much longer periods, realizing that a given system will 

be in the inventory for decades, and the need for training on that system will therefore exist for a long time period. While there is some merit in the inherent flexibility 

built into shorter contractual timeframes, this appears to be largely negated by the 

factors cited by our membership. 
115 

The OMB assertion that modeling and simulation is a ‘‘specialized regimen’’ and 

that the attributes of the industry—production of simulators, elaboration of software—are separate and distinct activities, not components of an industrial whole— 

is patently false. Such reasoning could be applied to any high-tech industry. Symptomatic of the illogic of the Economic Classification Policy Committee is the fact that 

the latest judgment is based on guidelines elaborated in 1992. We submit that stipulations of nearly two decades ago are wholly inadequate to the classification of most 

high technology industries that have exploded onto the scene in the intervening 

years. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WITTMAN 

Mr. WITTMAN. If carried out, how would the Defense Business Board recommendation to eliminate Joint Forces Command impact modeling and simulation 

efforts underway or planned within DOD? 

General LAYFIELD. No decisions have been made about how functions will transition based on the Secretary of Defense’s decision to disestablish USJFCOM. The 

current Unified Command Plan assigns USJFCOM the responsibilities to lead the 

development and operation of joint training systems and architectures, develop new 

concepts, test them through experimentation and, in collaboration with other combatant commands, services and agencies, recommend solutions to better integrate 

joint and combined warfighting capabilities. These responsibilities require the development, integration and sustainment of a joint modeling and simulation environment for training and experimentation. The joint modeling and simulation training 

environment supports force preparation for deployment to Iraq, Afghanistan, and 

the Horn of Africa, readying combatant command staffs and joint task force headquarters. This training addresses command and control of joint operations; Service 

tactical level units executing Joint tasks; and preparing individual augmentees to 

join a deployed joint staff. In concert with Office of the Secretary of Defense, the 

services and coalition partners, USJFCOM currently develops and maintains interoperability standards and protocols for Joint training systems in order to integrate 

partner simulations into a collective/seamless joint training environment. The joint 

modeling and simulation experimentation environment is used to address warfighter 

challenges submitted by the combatant commanders and services, focusing on the 

most pressing challenges and issues. USJFCOM also integrates requirements and 

facilitates development efforts across the combatant commands and services for 

modeling and simulation in order to replicate the evolving joint operating environment. USJFCOM is also currently chartered to provide an integrating role across 

the Services training modeling and simulation programs in order to moderate and 

facilitate the Joint requirements, and design solutions across and with the Services. 

OSD would ensure the proper transition of the modeling and simulation functions 

currently performed by USJFCOM if the disestablishment action is executed. 

Mr. WITTMAN. What advances in modeling and simulation has Joint Forces Command contributed to? 

General LAYFIELD. USJFCOM develops and maintains an all Service Joint modeling and simulation training federation, integrating joint, inter-agency and service 

models to create a seamless joint training environment. When tasked to address deficiencies in the Joint Simulation System (JSIMS) program, USJFCOM developed 

a federation of models that addressed JSIMS requirements. This was accomplished 

through sound systems engineering practices, with service collaboration, and at a 

fraction of the cost of the JSIMS program. 

USJFCOM also develops, integrates, and sustains both the Joint Theater Level 

Simulation (JTLS) system and the Joint Live Virtual Constructive (JLVC) federation, which provided training support to 16 separate combatant command events in 

FY10, and multiple Multinational and Service led training events. These unique 

modeling and simulation systems have allowed combatant commands to analyze 

courses of action and provide training in preparation for potential operation plans 

(OPLANS) and contingency plans (CONPLANS). These systems have also allowed 

for expanded training with partner nations and with other DOD Service training 

programs. 

DOD’s Joint Knowledge Online (JKO), managed by USJFCOM, is an online training capability that continuously and rapidly adapts to meet emerging training needs 

by leveraging simulation technology. Two simulation-based training applications 

available via JKO in 2010 are the Virtual Cultural Awareness Trainer (VCAT) and 

the Small Group Scenario Trainer (SGST). VCAT uses advanced learning techniques 

to help students quickly and efficiently develop operational cultural knowledge, and 

acquire cultural skills. As previously described, the SGST application for scenario- 
116 

simulating training exercises is a JKO-hosted, Web-based exercise application for 

multiplayer, small group teams, cells and battle staff training exercises. The system 

uses interactive capabilities to teach creative thinking skills and address problems 

encountered during virtual sessions using mission-based, simulated scenarios. 

JKO is developing two use cases for the USJFCOM Joint Advanced Concepts Division’s NEXUS Virtual World capability. NEXUS is a collaborative project between 

the Defense Acquisition University (DAU), the Army Research and Development 

Command (RDECOM), Joint Advanced Distributed Learning Co-Lab (JADL Co-Lab) 

and Engineering and Computer Simulations (ECS). It is avatar-based, synchronous 

classroom training for government users. The overarching goal is to give user’s access to a blended curriculum that uses virtual, avatar-based environments, providing both synchronous and asynchronous learning opportunities that can be integrated with JKO. NEXUS enables key virtual world instructional and functional capabilities, including student and classroom management, media sharing, and voice/ 

text communications, linking to external content and other features. 

USJFCOM, in conjunction with the Services and Agencies conducts Joint Concept 

Development and Experimentation (JCD&E) for the DOD, developing the synthetic 

environments within which assessments are made to determine the viability of the 

numerous concepts and solutions that address the Warfighter Challenge defined by 

COCOMs and Services. These synthetic environments are critical to forming the 

data required to support analytic rigor—essential for effective JCD&E. USJFCOM 

has been successful in driving change within the DOD in the form of improved technical and operational architectures, new tactics, techniques and procedures, and materiel solutions, enabling the current and future joint warfighter. USJFCOM developed a simulation environment capable of scaling more than 10 million entities to 

enable experimentation within large population centers, leveraging supercomputers 

capacity provided by the DOD High Performance Computing Modernization Program (DOD HPCMP). 

USJFCOM has provided the initial test environment for modeling and simulation 

initiatives within DOD, such as the evolution of protocol which enables the federation of more than 40 different simulations into a singular joint warfighting environment (known as the High Level Architecture or HLA). 

USJFCOM routinely supports deployed combatant command and NATO efforts to 

‘‘reach back’’ to technical modeling and simulation capabilities and analytic support. 

USJFCOM was the first organization to implement those capabilities, by examining 

the impact of a region’s political and economic systems, as well as culture, infrastructure and information systems. It also addresses how warfighters might influence those regional systems through diplomatic, informational, military and economic actions in order to achieve combatant command objectives. 

USJFCOM habitually uses and improves upon the best modeling and simulation 

capabilities produced by the services as well as agencies such as the Defense Threat 

Reduction Agency (DTRA), producing and providing environments rich in joint context for joint training and experimentation. 

Mr. WITTMAN. What enhancements to military readiness through modeling and 

simulation efforts has Joint Forces Command played a role in? 

General LAYFIELD. USJFCOM has enhanced and sustained readiness levels at all 

of the combatant commands, across several service training programs, and with 

many of our multinational partners through the use of its unique modeling and simulation capabilities. We have enabled joint training across the DOD through the development of a globally distributed Joint training environment, integrating Service 

and combatant command training sites, facilities and systems. By accurately portraying a joint operating environment, USJFCOM has provided a realistic synthetic 

playing field from which training audiences can analyze options, train on specific 

tasks, sustain readiness on critical skills and be better prepared as a whole for the 

operations of tomorrow. We do this by conducting intense, high quality training 

today. There is a direct correlation from the modeling and simulation development 

efforts led by USJFCOM to enhancements in military readiness. 

The Geospatial Analysis and Planning Support (GAPS) Toolkit is a collection of 

capabilities developed through experimentation by USJFCOM Joint Urban Operations Office (JUOO) and JCD&E (J9), which models sensor coverage and improves 

sensor placement for infiltration analysis in border regions. The GAPS toolkit was 

initiated as a response to Commander USCENTCOM’s request for assistance in 

Pakistan-Afghanistan border Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) 

planning. GAPS toolkit and training provides operational units in Operation Iraqi 

Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom with sensor visibility analysis, pathfinder analysis and other optimization capabilities. In September 2009, U.S. ForcesAfghanistan requested our continued support to GAPS toolkit for combat deployed 

units. After Action Reviews with the 82nd Airborne Division and Joint Improvised 
117 

Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) highlighted GAPS utility to the 

warfighter. 

Some additional highlights regarding VCAT and SGST use and advancements include: 

USJFCOM JKO Enabling the US Army. Partnering with the U.S. Army Training 

Support Center (ATSC) at Fort Eustis, VA., JKO is assisting the Army in developing 

one of its top training enablers, the Persistent Learning Capability (PLC). JKO collaboration supports individual training components as the Army attempts to replace 

resident New Equipment Training (NET) Fielding Teams via online venues. It supports the collective brigade/battalion staff training component by leveraging existing 

JKO SGST technologies. Additionally, the Army Center of Excellence for Professional Military Ethic (ACPME) is collaborating with JKO focusing on developing a 

truly Web-based immersive ethics training simulator. ACPME plans on leveraging 

JKO’s success with Virtual Cultural Awareness Trainer (VCAT) technologies. 

USJFCOM JKO VCAT Support. Personnel deploying to augment HQ CJTF–HOA 

in 2010 represent the first staff rotation exposed to VCAT prior to initial deployment in theater. JKO Joint management Office provided login and access information to Commander, 2nd Fleet staff, hosting the individual augmentation replacements, as well as to members of the HOA core staff replacement group. Approximately 47 personnel took the VCAT course, including five core staff members of 

varying ranks and billets. The overall reaction was extremely positive. Those surveyed judged VCAT as much superior to the cultural awareness provided by any of 

the other courses taught in their training program (including an instructor-led cultural awareness briefing). Recipients were especially impressed with the videos presented in the course. VCAT scenarios are also being developed for USCENTCOM 

(Afghanistan), USAFRICOM (North Africa), USSOUTHCOM (Andean Ridge region). 

SGST Scenario Development. Since its operational availability in 2009, JKO has 

received several requests for scenario simulations in response to specific Combatant 

Command training requirements, including U.S. Transportation Command 

(USTRANSCOM) Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief Environment Exercise; 

JIEDDO Joint Training Counter-Improvised Explosive Device Operations Integration Center Afghanistan, USSOUTHCOM Pandemic Flu and Humanitarian Assistance and USJFCOM Special Operations Command procedures scenarios. 

Æ