ITEA Journal 2011; 32: 452–456
Copyright ’ 2011 by the International Test and Evaluation Association
When Testing With Live Agents Is too Risky…
Computer Modeling and Simulation May Be a Valuable
and Cost-Effective Alternative
Bill Rearick
Alion Science and Technology, Alexandria, Virginia
David Godso
Joint Project Manager, Information Systems, San Diego, California
The rapid pace of advances in weaponry and tactics on today’s battlefield greatly compresses the
traditional development time available to meet the need for solutions to be placed in the hands of
the warrior. As a result, there is a more and more common need to test in conjunction with
development, training, and deployment of systems or capabilities. In this article, we explore how
recent advances in computer models and simulations are being utilized to conduct more realistic
immersive training against chemical agents in a virtual environment. The chemical agent is
generated in a virtual overlay of the selected training area. Existing Department of Defense
models and tools are used to promulgate and dissipate the plume as well as automatically
adjudicate casualties in several levels of severity based upon agent concentrations and the
protection status of the participant. An after-action review system allows playback and review
following the event and provides hard-data recording for testing purposes. There are obvious
areas in which computer modeling and simulation can be used to enhance training and testing
while capturing efficiency advantages by leveraging existing systems to meet multiple purposes
in a fiscally constrained environment.
Key words: After-action review; chemical agents; computer models and simulations;
fiscal constraint; immersive training; realism; virtual environment.
hen ground troops want to test
new Tactics, Techniques, or
Procedures (TTPs), they can
use blanks, rubber bullets, or
laser emitters to take the place
of real bullets. When testing against biological agents
or chemical weapons (aka ‘‘bugs and gas’’), there are
very few options for realistic testing, and compromises
are made often resulting in skepticism regarding test
conclusions. For example, previous efforts have relied
heavily on smoke or powder to represent the threat
‘‘cloud,’’ despite the fact that the majority of chemical/
biological threats are not visible to the naked eye.
Some progress has been made in the use of
stimulants to represent threat agents. These stimulants
cause a reaction in test strips and even provide olfactory
markers for threat compounds. The drawback with
these stimuli is the need for exercise control personnel
W
452
ITEA Journal
to interact with and, unfortunately, influence the test
participants. Control personnel must remain close to
the testers to be able to supply the necessary reactant
when testers stop to take a sample. In very short order,
testers are negatively trained that ‘‘if there is no
controller in sight, there must not be anything here to
test for’’ and deviate from the procedure they are
supposed to be following because, in effect, they
already know the outcome in that area. Personal
protective masks are hot and uncomfortable; and in
exercises, it has been shown that gear is not always
properly employed until the first controller is sighted.
The location of sampling is also influenced by the
controllers, with participants often approaching the
controller, announcing the test they are about to
perform, and looking to the controller for the ‘‘reading’’
obtained. While the impact of these constraints and
artificialities is difficult to quantify and correct for in
Testing Chemical Agents With Computer M&S
Figure 1. Models and simulations used to create the chemical,
biological, radiological, and nuclear hazard.
the data collected, there is a universal concurrence that
the results would be less ‘‘tainted’’ if it were possible to
conduct the tests without the presence of controllers in
the test area.
For a number of years, the Services and Combatant
Commanders (COCOMs) have used computer Modeling and Simulation (M&S) to train, test, and evaluate
TTPs, and to ‘‘war game’’ scenarios set in the future,
with modeling allowing the use of weapons systems
that were still in development. The U.S. Navy Warfare
Development Command utilized a computer simulation to evaluate the effectiveness of tactics and special
naval 5-inch gun munitions to combat small boat
swarm attacks. A persistent, dedicated network, the
Joint Training and Experimentation Network (JTEN),
has been established to enable Services and COCOMs
to use models and simulations to meet their training
and experimentation needs. It also allows for personnel
to participate from distributed locations (often their
home station), saving the costs normally associated
with travel. Utilization of this Joint Live Virtual
Constructive (JLVC) federation also greatly reduces
the operating expenses and wear and tear on equipment, through extensive use of virtual simulators for
flight, vehicle, and ship maneuvers. Being able to
integrate Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and
Nuclear (CBRN) incidents into Service exercises has
often taken a backseat to higher priority requirements
on conventional warfare scenarios. The end result is
that CBRN training is often left out of Joint Task
Force level training events and left to individual units
to complete during their individual unit training
periods. There has been some pioneering proof of
concept work conducted in recent years that is worth
highlighting, not so much as a complete solution or
capability, but as a means of bringing to light some of
Figure 2. Modified equipment to interface with the software.
the options that are now possible because of the
maturation of M&S technologies. One project,
developed by the U.S. Joint Forces Command,
integrated training chemical sensors with M&S
products that could predict the promulgation and
propagation of a chemical agent over the battlefield
terrain. Figure 1 provides a sample of the M&S
products that have been coupled together to provide
a capability that cannot be replicated using conventional training methods.
Coupling this system with a high-frequency testing
range that operates on the same frequency as the U.S.
Army’s Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System
(MILES) training vests would allow CBRN threats to
be integrated into the Army’s home station training
system. This coupling allows the testing/training team
to patrol through an area near a potential site in which
chemical weapons have been released. Figure 2 shows
how the standard gas mask has been modified to
interface with the MILES system, a MILES vest and
an Automatic Chemical Agent Detector/Alarm SIMulator (ACADASIM) sensor coupled with a highfrequency radio interface into the MILES system.
Personnel in the figure show the minimal impact of the
MILES gear on personnel movement and weight
loads.
The instrumented training sensors, detecting and
displaying information computed by the plume model,
alarm when the concentration of the agent in the
vicinity of the detector exceeds the detector set point.
Upon hearing the detector alarm, personnel in the
vicinity don the appropriate protective gear. A
differential pressure switch mounted inside the modified filter assembly allows for verification of proper
mask sealing (drawing a vacuum across the switch as
the tester inhales) and transmits a ‘‘mask on’’ signal to
the command and control center. Personnel who fail to
32(4) N December 2011
453
Rearick & Godso
Figure 3. U.S. Army Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and
Nuclear School students participating in the military
utility assessment.
properly employ their protective mask are adjudicated
by the software, accounting for concentration and
length of exposure and judged as either incapacitated
or killed, with the appropriate data being transmitted
to the participant through the MILES interface
readout and tones. This process works much the same
as if the participant had been ‘‘shot’’ with a laser beam
by an enemy participant and ‘‘wounded’’ or ‘‘killed.’’
Integration of this ‘‘simulation’’ with real world
command and control (C2) systems was achieved by
feeding information developed on the site into the
Joint Warning and Reporting Network (JWARN).
The Joint Project Manager Information Systems
(JPMIS), a component of the Joint Program Executive
Office for Chemical and Biological Defense, provided
equipment, training, and support for the prototype.
Standardized Nuclear-Biological-Chemical (NBC)
formatted messages, used by all U.S. and North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces, were
generated either by input received via voice reports
from the survey teams, or directly from sensors tied
into JWARN via the JWARN Component Interface
Device. JWARN is an official Acquisition Program of
Record that is now fielded. Once enough information
was received and correlated, JWARN could be used to
call up another JPMIS product, the Joint Effects
Model (JEM). JEM is able to utilize real-world
weather reports or historical weather to predict the
promulgation of the hazard plume and create an
overlay output that can be displayed on the Common
Operational Picture. From this prediction, JWARN is
able to identify the units in the path of the hazard and
issue a timely warning to allow the units to avoid the
plume or adopt a protective posture (MOPP level)
before the arrival of the hazard.
The U.S. Army CBRN School at Fort Leonard
Wood, Missouri, conducted a Military Utility Assessment (MUA) of the prototype in December 2009.
Figure 3 shows some of the students from the Army
CBRN School, who participated in the MUA, passing
an ACADASIM sensor placed alongside the road. The
findings were generally positive, with the testing
audience praising the capability as providing a much
more realistic experience than historical methods. The
Army used the assessment to provide feedback for
future capability development and implementation.
The ability to include specialized CBRN reconnaissance vehicles, and biological and radiological hazards,
as well as the ability to have officer students operate
JWARN as a higher headquarters staff were some of
the highest ranked requests.
Figure 4. (a) Prototype control van. (b) Computer workstations inside the control van.
454
ITEA Journal
Testing Chemical Agents With Computer M&S
Figure 5. Screen shot of data captured in the after-action review software.
For the prototype, the system was made portable and
self-contained, with a recreational vehicle modified to
serve as the control van (Figure 4a). Satellite uplink
capability as well as onboard power generation allows
the prototype to travel to various locations for
demonstrations. A practical benefit of the configuration is that the antenna trailer has its own power supply
and satellite dish, allowing it to be located remotely
from the control van. Instructors at Fort Leonard
Wood could execute an event that involves the
training/testing audience onsite at Dugway Proving
Ground, Utah, or in Korea. A home station training
capability could be located in an existing building on
base and not require the satellite interfaces, resulting in
greatly reduced cost of required hardware. Figure 4b
shows the computer control stations inside the control
van but could easily be set up in a building for fixed
sites.
Figure 6. Scenario development and conceptualization.
32(4) N December 2011
455
Rearick & Godso
An additional benefit of the use of computer M&S
in the testing and training arena is the ability to capture
the results of an event and play them back for review.
Figure 5 shows the after-action review capability,
which is nonexistent using current training methods.
This level of data capture for postevent analysis is an
integral part of testing but has been very hard to
capture and utilize in CBRN training events. Being
able to display, on a flat screen, the position of
personnel and equipment, superimposed over the playbox terrain along with readouts on the levels of
contamination, status of protective equipment and the
‘‘health’’ of the player, adds a quality and depth to the
events that were nonexistent previously.
Incorporation of computer programs also makes the
development of scenarios much easier to visualize and
document the initial quantities and location of agent
released as well as varying the weather and terrain to
test certain conditions or locations. Additionally,
having a means of presenting the scenario, as set up
on the range, prior to the audience taking to the field
allows for more comprehensive pre-event briefings,
enhancing participant understanding of the objectives
and training mission, as illustrated in Figure 6.
In conclusion, this article is intended to inform the
reader of capabilities whose existence may not be
known, rather than endorse any one application or
product. If, during the course of this article, you found
yourself saying, ‘‘I could use that ability’’ or, ‘‘I wonder
if this could be done,’’ then this author has achieved his
goal. Computer M&S has the ability to elevate testing
and training to a whole new level of realism and
fidelity, enabling the end user to more effectively
456
ITEA Journal
develop the next generation of tools to keep the
warfighter safe from CBRN hazards.
C
BILL REARICK is an Alion Science and Technology, Inc.,
employee who has worked for the last 8 years in the
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear community, initially for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and
more recently for the Joint Project Manager Information
Systems. E-mail: [email protected]
DAVE GODSO has over twenty years of highly diversified
and in-depth experience as an innovator, leader, and multidisciplinary engineer in complex information technology and
management systems and environments. Mr. Godso’s
experience includes technical management and program
management spanning the product life cycle, including:
research and development, architecture, requirements analysis, mission critical distributed and embedded system
(hardware, software, and firmware) design and implementation, enterprise information management and automation, information assurance, human systems interfaces, test
and evaluation, independent verification and validation,
software maturity and quality, training, configuration
management, logistics, product fielding, and user support.
Mr. Godso is a recognized leader and subject matter
expert in the CBRN community. He currently serves as the
chief engineer and chief information officer (CIO) for the
Joint Project Manager Information Systems (JPM IS). He
is a graduate of Louisiana State University (LSU) with a
bachelor of science in mathematics and was also the recipient
a Regents Award from LSU. E-mail: David.godso@
jpmis.mil