OneSAF: A Next Generation Simulation Modeling the Contemporary Operating Environment Doug Parsons Program Executive Office-Simulation Training and Instrumentation (PEO-STRI) 12350 Research Parkway, Orlando, FL 32826 407-384-3821 Doug.Parsons@peostri.army.mil LTC John Surdu Program Executive Office-Simulation Training and Instrumentation (PEO-STRI) 12350 Research Parkway, Orlando, FL 32826 407-384-5103 John.Surdu@peostri.army.mil Ben Jordan Office, Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence-Threats (ADCSINT-Threats) 700 Scott Ave, FT. Leavenworth, KS 66027-1323 913-684-7918 Benjamin.Jordan@leavenworth.army.milKeywords: Computer Generated Forces (CGF), Semi Automated Forces (SAF), Contemporary Operating EnvironmentABSTRACT: The world has changed since the days when most of today’s entity-level simulations were initially beingdeveloped. Incidents of terrorism and criminal activities dominate the daily news. While threats from traditionalmilitary opposing forces remain relevant, the U.S. Army must prepare for a contemporary threat that is less predictableand not based on the fighting doctrine of any particular country. As the U.S. military must be flexible and adaptive, sotoo must the simulations that drive training, experimentation, mission rehearsal, and course of action analysis. The U.S.Army’s OneSAF Objective System (OOS) is uniquely suited to provide the contemporary operating environment (COE)with the necessary flexibility. While distributed with a robust set of COE entities and behaviors, the OOS will befielded with a set of GUI tools that allows the user to create unique entities, units, and behaviors. In addition, the OOSwill provide for a minimum of 25 unique sides operating with asymmetric relationships. This paper discusses theplanned COE capabilities, implementation of sides and forces, plus the OOS composition toolkit. The paper alsodescribes PM OneSAF’s involvement with the modeling and simulation community, such as the Training and DoctrineCommand (TRADOC) Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence (ADCSINT) Threat Support Directorate and theUrban Operations Functional Area Collaborative Team (UO FACT), to develop appropriate simulated behaviors andcreate the synthetic natural environment in which they will run. effectively, the U.S. military must be flexible and1 Introduction adaptive. Therefore, the tools that enable such a force must include training aids, devices, simulators,The contemporary operating environment (COE) is and simulations that support experimentation,the environment in which our soldiers are fighting mission rehearsal and mission planning, course oftoday. It involves civilians (non-combatants, action analysis and development. These tools mustcontractors, and non-governmental organizations) on reflect the lethal, unpredictable, ambiguous andthe battlefield, pick-up trucks armed with machine asymmetric environment our soldiers are fighting inguns and rocket launchers, roadside bombs, using today and expect to fight in the future.children as weapons, enemies shielding themselvesbehind pregnant women and within historic or The U.S. Army’s OneSAF Objective System (OOS)religions sites, and an absence of clear battle lines. is uniquely suited to provide the contemporaryWhile engaged in combat operations, U.S. forces operating environment (COE) with the necessaryfind themselves simultaneously conducting peace flexibility. OOS was designed with user tailorabilitykeeping and humanitarian assistance. To respond in mind through the use of an open architecture, open
source methodology and a robust set of GUI tools morphed into asymmetric conflict constructs. Theythat allows the user to create unique entities, units, are characterized by widely differing arrays ofand behaviors. conventional and paramilitary forces. Some of these forces respond to state authority, while others fightThough the simulation can be modified by users, against the state. Still others effect transnationaloften without writing or recompiling the software, insurgency (e.g., Al Qaeda) or operate criminalOOS will be fielded with a robust set of COE enterprises.entities, units, and behaviors. OOS represents thefirst time that many of these behaviors have been These forces may work together as an amorphoussimulated before. In addition, OOS will provide for alliance and typically have extra-statea minimum of 25 unique sides operating with sponsors/patrons (some may be political, commercialasymmetric relationships. or both, e.g., Abdul Qadeer Khan’s nuclear black market efforts). In many cases, they will respond toThis paper discusses the planned COE capabilities, culturally driven objectives that dovetail together forimplementation of sides and forces, plus the OOS a time, disconnect and dovetail again. They maycomposition toolkit. The paper also describes PM have access to sophisticated lethal and non-lethalOneSAF’s involvement with the modeling and niche technologies—including weapons of masssimulation community, such as the Training and destruction ( MD). They will use multiple and WDoctrine Command (TRADOC) Assistant Deputy redundant information systems; operate in the midstChief of Staff for Intelligence (DCSINT) Threat of noncombatants (many of whom provide passiveSupport Directorate and theUrban Operations FunctionalArea Collaborative Team (OUFACT), to developappropriate simulatedbehaviors and create thesynthetic natural environmentin which they will run.2 Primer on the COEThere is substantial discussiontoday in many forumsconcerning the asymmetricchallenges that reflects changein the OperationalEnvironment (OE) (seefigures 1and 2). The OE isthe compositecircumstances, conditions,and influences that affectmilitary planning,operations, and decision-making. The“contemporary” OE (COE)includes thosecircumstances, conditions,and influences extant todayand for the foreseeablefuture.The more symmetric ColdWar constructs, that posedrisk to the US, have
and active support), and they will likely stage from are relevant to each warfighting echelon and trainingan urban environment. domain. All variables have some impact at each warfighting echelon; some have enormous impact atGeneral Krulak (former Commandant of the US each echelon (e.g., physical environment, militaryMarine Corps) captured the essence of our challenge. capabilities, and time). Figure 5 shows the relationship of these COE variables. “In one moment in time, our service memberswill be feeding and clothing displaced refugees—providing humanitarian assistance. In the next Most variables however, have varied effect bymoment, they will be holding warring tribes echelon and training domain—ultimately informingapart—conducting peacekeeping operations. military capabilities. For example, the nature of theFinally, they will be fighting a highly lethal mid- state may have considerable impact in Joint Taskintensity battle. All on the same day, all within Force (JTF) planning/execution within anthree city blocks—It will be what we call the interagency and coalition context. On the other hand,“Three Block War.” it may be a marginal consideration for brigade-level planning/battle (see Table 1).These changes have enormous implications forstrategic, operational, and tactical warfighting. Thepreeminent concern is thatmulti-polar, amorphous,and adaptive forces nowpose the major threat toUS regional securityinterests and an ever-increasing threat to theUnited States itself (seefigure 3 and 4).The geographic distancebetween the United Statesand second or third tierbelligerents may no longerprovide adequateprotection to prepare forcombat. Neither can weexpect to deploy to aregion unchallenged.There are few sanctuaries.All of these factorscoalesce into the COE andthe COE, in turn, drivestraining.We express the COE aseleven variables to providea training and educationcontext. These variablesinform training strategies,correspond to warfightingechelon (e.g., tactical,operational, and strategic),and span all trainingdomains (e.g., live, virtual,and constructive (LVC)).The variables representdistinct considerations that
may replicate certain capabilities (e.g., UAV NATIONAL streaming information to a ground station) WILL incorporated at echelons at, or above, division. REGIONAL AND GLOBAL RELATIONSHIPS NATURE AND The following definitions explain the color code MILITARY STABILITY OF TIME CAPABILITIES THE STATE PHYSICAL crosswalk to modeling fidelity underpinning CONTEMPORARY ENVIRONMENT behavioral, physical, equipment, and organizational OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENT models: SOCIOLOGICAL TECHNOLOGY DEMOGRAPHICS • Essential -- requires high resolution; is an INFORMATION explicitly modeled variable ECONOMICS EXTERNAL ORGANIZATIONS • Required -- requires medium resolution; is an explicitly modeled variable • Informs -- requires medium or low resolution; is an explicit ly or implicitly modeled • Marginal -- requires low resolution; is an Figure 1. COE Variables. implicit modelEach variable is color coded in the Table 1 to show OOS is a constructive simulation portraying brigadethe resolution/fidelity required to accomplish and below battle; therefore, while OOS correspondssatisfactory training (i.e., COE compliance). The to all variables, five of the eleven require explicitblank cells at the division, corps, and JTF show there high or medium resolution models , as shown inis no live or virtual training at echelons above Table 2.brigade. Constructive simulations are the primarytraining vehicles. That notwithstanding, virtual tools Unfortunately, quantifying significant aspects of the COE is a difficult prospect because the COE is inherently qualitative. An example of dynamic side changes within a tactical shielding context and rationalized by effects follows. Dynamic side change of noncombatants and combatants requires metrics be derived from non-existent data. Therefore a “what is reasonable” approach in collaboration with subject matter experts (SME) is the heart of the Knowledge Acquisition / Knowledge Engineering (KA/KE) process. Tactical shielding, where irregular forces (or even regular forces) infiltrate and attack from within no fire areas (e.g., hospitals, schools, places of worship) stress or nullify normal rules of engagement. The number of indirect fire and direct fire impacts within the shielded areas rationalize side change.
Insurgent and regular forces may use terrain as aweapon (e.g., dropping a building/barracks on its 3 Incorporating the COE into aresidents , causing chemical or hazardous waste Combat Simulationspills, or poisoning the water supply). A robust,well-trained tactical force may avoid the directlyresulting hazards, but how are the second- and third- 3.1 Seemingly Contradictory Requirementsorder effects measured? These effects impact thestaff estimate process, tactical movement, and battle OOS is unique among combat simulations in that isplans. They require a commander to overcome has been designed for use across many domains. Theunexpected humanitarian challenges in the midst ofcombat operations. Defining the appropriate metrics analysis domain has two major users: 1) Advanced Concepts, and Requirements (ACR) and 2) Research,is an enormous challenge and the “what is reasonable Development, and Acquisition (RDA). The otherapproach” is used to determine what to model. Heretoo the data is subjective. major customer of OOS is the Training, Exercises, and Military Operations (TEMO) domain.Our principal challenge to integrating the COE into The TEMO community is generally interested inOOS is translating a qualitative and asymmetric exercises with many entities that have just enoughoperational context into multiple quantitative resolution to stimulate real-world battle commandconstructs. For this reason, ADCSINT-Threat SMEs systems. TEMO has a number of use cases forcontinue working closely with the OOS development higher-resolution entities, including the stimulationteam to provide robust COE behaviors and effects. of virtual simulators. The ACR and RDA communities are generally more interested in
resolution so that they can collect detailed data for • Accredit OPFOR forces in application ofpost-exercise analysis. that model.The OOS Team was able to build a simulation to The TRADOC DCSINT and the director of themeet these disparate requirements by building a TRADOC Analysis Centers (TRAC) allocatedmodular architecture, supporting multiple levels of resources to provide ADCSINT Threats personnel toresolution. This allows the users to “dial up” the participate in the knowledge acquisition (KA)level of resolution where it is needed. Regardless of development, validation, and verification of OPFORthe level of resolution, however, all three domains representations in the COE within OOS. ADCSINThave an immediate need to be able to represent the Threats personnel work with the OOS conceptualCOE in multiple levels of resolution. In order to modelers, systems engineers, and KA team todevelop validated representations of the COE, Team develop architecturally consistent and validated COEOneSAF has been working with a number of external representations. They then participate in theagencies. verification of those COE behaviors through user testing. The ADCSINT Threats personnel coordinate3.2 Engaging with Subject Matter Experts their activities with the Center for Army Lessons Learned (CALL) and the Joint Readiness TrainingRecognizing that the program office is not the Center. ADCSINT has been a great asset forsubject matter expert (SME) in the COE, the program ensuring the threat representations are as accurate asoffice has sought the assistance of organizations possible and based on current lessons learned fromdesignated by the Army as authoritative. These the field.organizations include: 3.2.2 UO FACT • Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff The purpose of the UO FACT is to direct the Armys for Intelligence Threats Office (ADCSINT modeling research pertaining to urban operations Threats), (UO). The mission of the UO FACT is to facilitate • Urban Operations Functional Area UO modeling and simulation (M&S) by developing, Collaborative Team (UO FACT), and publishing, and distributing a plan of research that • Research Development and Engineering highlights Army M&S priorities as they pertain to Command (RDECOM). urban operations. Coordinated and coherent Army research for urban operations M&S will reside inEach of these organizations brings a different three main areas: physical models, behaviors, andperspective and set of skills to modeling the COE in terrain. The UO FACT maintains a prioritized list ofOOS. research topics and coordinates all Army modeling and simulation efforts related to urban operations. [ref: https://www.moutfact.army.mil/ ] The OneSAF3.2.1 TRADOC ADCSINT Threats team keeps an open line of communication with the UO FACT to facilitate technology transfer from theADCSINT Threats has a variety of missions. The technology base to OOS.ones germane to this discussion are: The UO FACT sponsors a number of research efforts • Provide and approve/validate all threat each fiscal year. Three that are nearing maturity for portrayal in the context of an Operational integration into OOS are the Structure Weapons Environment (OE) for studies, training, Effects (SWE) API, the Standard Mobility API, and modeling, and simulations for TRADOC, RF propagation in an urban environment. The SWE • Assess regional military and security issues API will allow OOS to more realistically simulate as they apply to developments and training building rubbling. The Standard Mobility API will of Army and Joint Forces, allow OOS to model entity movement (both urban • Develop and approve threat portrayal for all and non-urban movement) in a manner that is testing of Army materiel, consistent with other simulations also using the standard API. Modeling radio propagation in urban • Create the threat model for training Army environments is typically expensive. The UO FACT forces in an OE, including authoring effort in this area will allow OOS to better model OPFOR Field Manuals, and communications networks in urban environments.
3.2.3 RDECOM • A bomb going off in a crowded area. Those near the bomb run away. Those far from theRDECOM is a technology base organization focused blast run toward the blast.on integrating emerging technologies and • A crowd gathering to receive food andtransitioning them to programs as quickly as possible water supplies.to get them into the hands of soldiers. The OneSAF • Bus routes with non-combatants getting onprogram has worked closely with a number of and off the bus at certain stops.RDECOM projects to transition the technology into • Idle crowd behaviors in which civiliansOneSAF Testbed Baseline (OTB) and OOS. window shop, move from place to place, follow roads and/or sidewalks, etc.The OneSAF program office has been involved insupporting a number of RDECOM initiatives. This work will be incorporated into the main OOSSeveral of those initiatives are directly related to baseline before OOS is fielded.representing the COE in simulation. RDECOMproduced a variant of OTB with enhanced 3.2.5 Base Program Execution Enhanced bydismounted infantry capabilities, known as DI SAF. FCS SupportThe infantry enhancements to OTB have now beenre-integrated into the main OTB baseline, beginning Responding to the current environment in whichwith version 2.0. More importantly, DI SAF has soldiers find themselves, the OneSAF program officeinformed the ongoing development of OOS. worked with the TRADOC proponent (a.k.a., Combat Developer) to modify program requirements.Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) has sponsored The representation of conventional force formationsresearch on crowd modeling being conducted by and behaviors was pushed into the pre-plannedRDECOM. This work is being implemented in Joint product improvement (P3I) phase of development soSAF (which shares the same ModSAF ancestry as that developers could add COE representations priorOTB). The OneSAF program office trained one of to fielding. Most of these COE representations arethe researchers on this effort in the OOS knowledge described in OPFOR FM 7-100 series manuals, andacquisition (KA) processes. The intent of the the implementation of some of these in OOS isprincipal investigator on this effort is to be able to discussed in Section 4.rapidly re-implement these crowd behaviors as OOSnears fielding. The researchers are also developing The Future Combat System (FCS) program iswhat they refer to as “occupational behaviors” into interested in using OOS, when it matures, for FCSOOS. These occupational behaviors are intended to experimentation and analysis. Consequently, theround out the urban battle space with unique entities, FCS program has funded the inclusion of FCS-such as taxi drivers, hotel clerks, and sellers in street specific representations in OOS. In addition, theymarkets. It is unclear whether these behaviors will have supported additional efforts to model the COEbe integrated into the OOS v. 1.0 baseline, but they in OOS. Some of these representations will bewill certainly be integrated into the baseline at some described in Section 4 as well.point. 4 OOS Capabilities Supporting COE3.2.4 SAIC Internal Research and Development Supporting the Contemporary Operating Environment requires today’s simulations to not onlyResponding to a challenge by a general officer in provide a unique set of units, behaviors, physicalJFCOM that current simulations are too difficult to effects, and supporting environment, but also exhibitmodify, (Science Applications International a high degree of flexibility to change as the nature ofCorporation) SAIC asserted that OOS was COE changes. By its very nature, asymmetricspecifically designed for rapid enhancement by users. warfare exploits the weakness of opponents andTo back up this assertion, SAIC assembled a small continually changes to remain effective. Models andteam and gave them two months to implement some simulations must keep pace in order to providecrowd modeling in OOS. Two of the developers had timely and relevant training and analysis. Theno previous knowledge of OOS. In two months, this remainder of this section will discuss OOSteam was able to use all the OOS design paradigms capabilities supporting the COE. OOS providesto implement the following interesting behaviors: leap-ahead capabilities through the supported
environment, modeling capabilities, and the significant. Tradit ionally, two sides viewed eachcomposable product line architectural framework other in the same way; friendly, hostile or neutral.(PLAF). The COE now changes those views. As an example, a given conflict may involve the following sides:4.1 Sides and Forces Side 1 – Coalition Forces Side 2 – Urban ResidenceRecent experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq has Side 3 – External Forcesclearly shown the complexity for soldiers to Side 4 – Para-militaryunderstand and react to who might be friendly andwho might be a threat. In the past, identification of Table 3 shows notional relationships between thesefriend or foe may have been as simple as recognizing sides. Note that Side 3 external forces view Side 4a uniform or identifying the type of tank seen Para-military as neutral, whereas the Para-militarythrough sensors. Conflicts in the COE involve many view the external forces as hostile. If these twodifferent sides and forces, where several sides and groups were to meet on the battlefield, the externaltheir affiliated forces may agree on the enemy, but forces would be taken unaware when fired upon bycannot agree on how they view other sides. the Para-military.Regularly, new events occur and new information isavailable, that cause relationships between these Table 3. From/To Sides Relationships Example.sides to change. Side 1 Side 2 Side 3 Side 4To support training and analysis, the OOS provides Side 1 Friendly Friendly Hostile Friendlyfor multiple-sided engagements with changing Side 2 Friendly Friendly Neutral Friendlyrelationships across the full range of military Side 3 Hostile Hostile Friendly Neutraloperations. During both planning and execution, the Side 4 Friendly Hostile Hostile FriendlyOOS provides the capability to: • Create and remove sides A significant capability planned for OOS is the • Modify the relationships between sides ability to change side and force information during • Create and remove forces under sides simulation runtime. The user will be able to change • Create units under sides or forces the side or force for which a unit or entity is • Change the side a unit or force belongs associated. The ability to change a unit or entity’s • Create at least 25 sides1 force or side will also be available for behavior models to support specific behaviors/orders thatOOS tools provide the capability to create, delete, support defections. What this means is that the OOSmodify and view the forces, sides, relationships, and modeling infrastructure will allow the creation ofstructure. In addition, the tools support the ability for behaviors that may automatically change a sidethe user to assign units and entities to forces and relationship. For example, the urban residence thatsides. Sides and forces are modified both during has been viewed as friendly or at least neutral canplanning where the sides, forces, structure, and become hostile when an event occurs, such as therelationships are defined within a military or destruction of a religious or cultural symbol.simulation scenario and also during simulationexecution where modifications are injected directlyinto the ongoing run-time simulation database. 4.2 Key Units, Behaviors & SupportingSymbology will be displayed in accordance with Physical EffectsMIL-STD-2525B. Team OneSAF has worked closely withThe distinction of relationship between sides representatives of the ADCSINT TSD to furtherbetween the traditional battlefield and the COE is develop the COE in OOS. As Subject Matter Experts, they have provided, and continue to provide,1 valuable COE information regarding military The OOS Operational Requirements Document capabilities, physical environment, information, and(ORD) requires the capability to support at least 25 social demographics. This information is beingsides. However, OOS services provide no provided in the form of Knowledge Acquisition (KA)restrictions on the number of sides and forces that documentation. Not all of the KA will becan be created.
implemented as entity, unit, or physical models by 4.3 Enhanced Environment Representationthe OOS Full Operational Capability (FOC)milestone in September 2005. The remaining KA The OOS provides a wide range of enhanced terrainwill be implemented as part of Pre-Planned Product features that will be useful in supporting COEImprovements (P3I). The planned COE-related scenarios. Some of these features include thecapabilities available for FOC are shown below. following: • Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) • Multi-resolution terrain databases • Ambush • Entity reasoning and movement planning in • Raid an urban environment • Wall/Building penetration • Ray-trace Line-Of-Sight through terrain, • Improvised Obstacles features, and building apertures • Improvised weapons • Multi-resolution NBC, Smoke, and • Technicals Obscurants • Decoys • Support for subterranean structures • Migration • Riots The urban environment in OOS is also enhanced • Tactical shielding through the ability to conduct operations in and • Infiltration (Al-Qaeda template) around Ultra High Resolution Building (UHRBs). Some features of UHRBs include: • Mouse holes • Dynamic Side Change • Advanced features: anteroom, atrium, • Sniper Employment balcony, closet, elevator shaft, escalator, • Reduced Profile shooting hallway, fire escape, ramp, stair, ventilation • Indirect Fire as Direct Fire weapon duct/shaft • Control Mines • Apertures: breach hole, door, skylight, • Detect VBIED trapdoor, ventilation opening, loophole • Enhanced attribution: length, width, height,The planned COE-related capabilities to be lighting characterization, railing type,developed during P3I are shown below. aperture state, interior wall construction, floor construction, exterior wall • Shielding Tactics (additional variant) construction • Caches • Enhanced route planning within building to • Improvised Weapons (additional variant) include routes through apertures • Attack from Civilian Vehicle (technicals) • Ray-traced line of sigh through apertures (additional variant) • Bullets passing through walls • Environmental Hazards & Obstacles • Underground structures • Field Fortifications • Building damage and rubble of building • Expedient Breach (additional variant ) • UHRB editor • Expedient Obstacles • Infiltration (additional variant) 4.4 Composability Toolset • Weather Effects • Mass Migration (additional variant) The ability for a simulation to allow for the rapid and • Stand off attack easy creation of new and unique entities, units, and • Info Ops and PSYOPS associated behaviors is critical to support COE • Battle Command and C2 training and analysis. OneSAF is providing a toolset • Spalling that allows users to independently create new OOS • Decoys (additional variant) battlespace compositions. The tools use Graphical • Terrain as a weapon User Interfaces and support processes to remove, to a • NBC Operations large extent, the dependency on software experts to • Emplace Roadblock develop new unit, entity, and behavior model compositions. The composition tools use and build on existing primitive and composite models to develop new and unique entities (e.g., individual combatants, helicopters, tanks, sensors, weapons,
etc.), units (e.g., organizations of entities that behaveaccording to certain sets of rules or doctrine), andbehaviors (e.g., move tactically, defend position,etc.) that are associated with units and entities. Theconstruction of these models may include modelcomponents that vary across a range of physical andbehavioral fidelity (e.g., low, medium, and high).The following list describes each of the modelcomposition tools.Entity composition is handled by the EntityComposer Tool. Figure 6 shows the EntityComposer Graphical User Interface (GUI) as of build18 of the OOS softtware. The composer provides theuser with a drag-and-drop capability to develop new Figure 7: Unit ComposerOOS entities. For example, a user might need tocreate an entity model of a terrorist suicide bomber. The Behavior Composer Tool allows users to createThe basic idea is to attach the appropriate physical new behavioral representations that are thenmodels (mobility, vulnerability) to a platform (body associated with units and entities. For example, onceor hull) and then associated specific weapons, a suicide car bomber entity is created, there wouldsensors, and communications devices to that need to be an associated model that would dictateplatform. Once saved, the entity can be modified and how it might behave when approaching a particularassociated within a unit structure and have behaviors target, such as a military checkpoint. Figure 8allocated to it. The tool supports the ability to create shows the behavior composer. This tool allows therepresentations of existing equipment as well as to creation and/or modification of behaviors thatcreate experimental entities. entities and units will use to guide their interactions within the simulation. At the top level the behavior composer allows parallel and sequential process flows to be defined. It also support continuous processes that act as background tasks such as “look for enemies” and tasks that are triggered by specific events such as “find cover when fired upon.” Figure 6: Entity ComposerUnit Composition is supported with the UnitComposer Tool. Figure 7 shows the Unit ComposerGUI as of build 18 of the OOS software. This toolallows entities to be combined to form asymmetricalfriendly, enemy, and neutral type organizations. Apossible user of this tool would be the creation of aterrorist cell. Both doctrinally correct organizationsand new organizations can be developed to support Figure 8: Behavior Composerexperimentation and concept development efforts. These composition tools intend to provide users the ability to extend, enhance, and share OneSAF models without direct interaction and/or support from the OneSAF software developer or the OneSAF Project
Management organizations. In many cases this  OIF/OEF Operational Assessments, ADCSINTextension of OOS can be done without writing any Threatssoftware or recompiling the source code.  “The Strategic Corporal: Leadership in the5 Conclusions Three Block Ware”, Marines Magazine, January 1999, GEN Charles C. Krulak.The recent conflicts in Iraq confirm the enormousimpact for strategic, operational, and tacticalwarfighting. Today’s military simulations have Author Biographiesfocused on traditional combat and combat supportelements; however, there is a growing need to DOUGLAS J. PARSONS is the Lead Engineer ofimplement units, behaviors, and effects to account the Intelligent Simulation Systems Team at the U.S.for a more flexible and adaptive threat. This threat Army Program Executive Office for Simulation,uses tactics that are unpredictable, ambiguous, Training, and Instrumentation (PEO STRI). In thisasymmetric, and highly lethal. Unless military role his primary focus is toward the successfulsimulations develop accurate representations of the development of the One Semi-Automated Forcesthreat, they risk becoming irrelevant in support of (OneSAF) Objective System. Mr. Parsons holds atraining and analysis. Team OneSAF is working B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from North Dakotawith subject matter experts throughout the army to State University, a M.S. in Systems Managementdevelop a robust set of COE units and behaviors from Florida Institute of Technology, and a M.S. inoperating within a high resolution environment for Industrial Engineering from the University of Centralthe OOS. The OOS open architecture is being Florida.developed with a high degree of composability ande xtensibility to enable the software to flex and LTC John “Buck” Surdu is the Product Managerevolve, just as COE most certainly will. Since OOS for OneSAF, both OneSAF Testbed Baseline (OTB)will be released with source code, the modeling and and OOS. Originally commissioned as an infantrysimulation community will not only be able to apply lieutenant he served in operational assignments in thethe COE capabilities but to extend them as well. 82nd Airborne Division, Europe, and Korea. He worked as a research scientist at the Army Research Laboratory and a senior research scientist and6 Refe rences assistant professor in the Information Technology and Operations Center (ITOC) within the Gugel, S. & Miller, G., “Side and Forces in Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer OneSAF Objective System”, Science at West Point. He holds a Ph.D. in computer Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and science from Texas A&M University, an M.S. in Education Conference (I/ITSEC) 2003. computer science from Florida State University, an MBA from Columbus State University, and a B.S. in OneSAF System Technical Notes, “Sides and computer science from the United States Military Forces”, 2 August 2002, www.onesaf.net. Academy, West Point. Parsons, D. & Wittman, R., “OneSAF: Tools Ben Jordan is a retired army officer, who served in and Processes Supporting a Distributed intelligence, security assistance, and special Development Environment for a Multi-Domain operations assignments. He is the ADCSINT-Threat Modeling and Simulation Community”, Euro representative responsible for COE integration into SIW 2004. OOS and the Army Constructive Training Federation. Mr. Jordan holds a B.S. in Physical FM 7-100 series manuals, ADCSINT Threats Geography from the University of Wyoming and an M.A. in Southeast Asian Studies from Cornell University.