MAGTF Tactical Warfare Simulation (MTWS) Interoperability Issues

Curtis L. Blais

VisiCom Laboratories, Inc.
10052 Mesa Ridge Court
San Diego, California 92121

curt@visicom.com

ABSTRACT

The Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) Tactical Warfare Simulation (MTWS) is a computer-assisted, multi-sided warfare gaming system designed to support training of U. S. Marine Corps commanders and their staffs. In recent years, new training and operational support requirements are extending the mission of MTWS in several directions, from participation in exercises involving individual platform simulators and live-fire ranges, to participation in joint exercises involving multiple, dissimilar warfare models, to stimulation of real-world Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Intelligence (C4I) systems. Achieving these requirements demands varying levels of interoperability, from common representation of the battlespace to exchange of data through common message formats.

MTWS development is addressing interoperability issues across these various fronts. This paper describes (1) MTWS capabilities in the Aggregate Level Simulation Protocol (ALSP) Joint Training Confederation (JTC), with particular focus on a planned approach for interfacing dissimilar ground models; (2) a proposed architecture for interfacing to the Distributed Interactive Simulation (DIS); and (3) initial capabilities and planned development approach for interoperability of MTWS with Marine Corps tactical C4I systems. In each area, technical issues are discussed, pointing out benefits and limitations of the proposed approaches.

1. SYSTEM OVERVIEW

MTWS is a warfare gaming system designed to support training of U. S. Marine Corps commanders and their staffs. MTWS primarily supports Command Post Exercises (CPX) in which combat forces, supporting arms, and results of combat are modeled by the system. MTWS can be used to plan and rehearse tactical operations involving amphibious landings, air operations, fire schedules, and ground schemes of maneuver against a variety of opposing force operations under varying environmental conditions. The system can be operated at real-time, slower than real-time, or faster than real-time as directed by the system operator.

The architecture of MTWS has been described in previous papers (Blais 1994; Blais 1995) and is illustrated in Figure 1. MTWS executes on a distributed architecture consisting of one or more simulation processors, a system control workstation, and one or more user workstations. The system provides the flexibility to be configured to meet the size and needs of the supported exercise. The initial fielded configuration consists of three Hewlett Packard model 9000/755 workstations as simulation processors, one HP 9000/755 as the system control workstation, and twenty-six HP 9000/735 user workstations. These processors were procured from the Navy's Tactical Advanced Computer (TAC-3) contract.

Current and future MTWS sites in the continental United States are shown in Figure 2. MTWS is operational at the Marine Corps Combat Development Command (MCCDC), Quantico, Virginia; First Marine Expeditionary Force (I MEF), Camp Pendleton, California; II MEF, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina; III MEF, Okinawa, Japan; and Joint Training, Analysis, and Simulation Center (JTASC), Norfolk, Virginia. A test suite is installed at the Marine Corps Tactical Systems Support Activity (MCTSSA), Camp Pendleton, California for Post Deployment Software Support efforts. A new installation at the Amphibious Warfare Training School, Coronado, California is in progress. Future planned sites include the Marine Corps Air-Ground Combat Center (MCAGCC), Twenty-nine Palms, California. The new and future sites will use HP 9000/770 workstations procured from the Navy TAC-4 contract.


2. INTEROPERABILITY CONCEPT

The Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC), General C. C. Krulak, promulgated the Commandant's Planning Guidance (CMG) on 1 July 1995. This document provides the Commandant's strategic direction for a ``Total Force Marine Corps.'' The CMG serves as the keystone document for Marine Corps planning and provides a common direction to the Marine Corps Total Force. The Total Force Marine Corps concept integrates active and reserve components into a balanced warfighting force. Paramount to force readiness is training.


"History has shown that even in an era of diminishing resources, if we stay highly trained and ready, we can survive both as individuals and as an institution. It is imperative that we never be found lacking in our capability or ability to do what is expected or asked. During previous times of fiscal constraints, the Marine Corps has always turned to its training and education systems to keep it s warfighting edge. We must do that today. The use of simulation, virtual reality, models, and various warfighting games can make subsequent field training more effective. We will pursue that kind of technology." [CMG, p 13]


During the development of MTWS over the past five years, there has been a revolutionary change in application of warfare simulation systems. No longer are such systems used solely as CPX drivers for single military branch command staffs. Instead, advancing hardware and software technologies are enabling warfare simulation to span several dimensions of training, including application to the planning and conduct of actual combat operations. These dimensions include individual, team, and small unit training, command staff training, and Joint staff training. The Marine Corps Modeling and Simulation Master Plan (MCMSMP) states: ``Marine Corps models and simulators will be interoperable with those of the other Services, allowing the Marine Corps to fully participate in joint and combined exercises.'' The goal is to create a seamless, distributed, and interoperable environment that enhances warfighting capabilities.

MTWS is a key component in the Marine Corps Master Plan. To cover the broad mission and combined arms capabilities of the Marine Corps, MTWS must provide an effective representation of land, air, sea, and littoral warfare. While MTWS alone cannot meet the training requirements across all dimensions, it can serve as a primary tool in achievement of those objectives. To do so, MTWS must be able to interact with complementing systems and technologies. The various dimensions were implied in the architectural diagram in Figure 1:

The following paragraphs describe current and projected capabilities of MTWS across these dimensions, discussing interoperability issues addressed or needing to be addressed.


3. INTEROPERABILITY WITH OTHER CONSTRUCTIVE SIMULATIONS


"We will be a Total Force, active and reserve, able to effectively integrate a full range of capabilities--ours as well as those of other services, agencies, and nations--into a unified and focused instrument of national power." [CMG, p 3]

" 'Jointness' is a key warfighting capability. It is more about headquarters and command elements than it is about the capabilities of any individual unit. With our experience in coordinating the elements of a MAGTF and the 'jointness' inherent in our relationship with the Navy, the Marine Corps possesses the resident expertise necessary to coordinate effectively ground, air, and sea forces." [CMG, p 6]


MTWS is a member of the 1996 ALSP Joint Training Confederation (JTC). Table 1 provides a summary of the data and messages MTWS shares with the other simulation systems. The current ALSP functionality supports a rich array of air, surface, and ground warfare, including Intelligence play using the Tactical Simulation (TACSIM) model and Electronic Warfare using the Joint Electronic Combat Electronic Warfare Simulation (JECEWSI). One of the most critical elements missing from the current confederation is an interface between dissimilar ground models, such as MTWS and CBS.

Table 1: Data and Messages Shared By MTWS and Other Systems
MTWS Owned Objects Ghosted Objects (from other actors) Interaction___Messages Output Reports

AIR.

  • CRUISE_MISSILE

  • FIXED_WING

  • HELICOPTER


GROUND.MANEUVER.

  • ALLRAD

  • COMBAT

  • SHORAD


SEA.SURFACE.

  • AAV

  • LANDING_CRAFT

  • SHIP




.


.



AIR.

  • CRUISE_MISSILE

  • FIXEDWING

  • HELICOPTER

  • TBM



GROUND.MANEUVER.

  • ALLRAD

  • COMBAT

  • HIMAD

  • RADAR

  • SHORAD

  • TEL

SEA.SURFACE.

  • BOAT

  • SHIP



.



ENGAGEMENT.

  • AIR_TO_AIR

  • AIR_TO_SHIP

  • AIR_TO_GROUND

  • GROUND_TO_AIR

  • GROUND_TO_SHIP

  • SHIP_TO_AIR

  • SHIP_TO_GROUND

  • GROUND_TO
    _GROUND

  • ..ARTILLERY



..






.




.



REPORT.ATTRITION.

  • AIR_TO_AIR

  • AIR_TO_SHIP

  • AIR_TO_GROUND



  • GROUND_TO_AIR

  • GROUND_TO_SHIP



  • GROUND_TO_GROUND
  • .ARTILLERY

  • .CLOSE_COMBAT


  • SHIP_TO_AIR

  • SHIP_TO_SHIP











Concepts for interfacing dissimilar ground models have been discussed over the past three years. Three alternative approaches have been evaluated. These are described in the following paragraphs, together with the advantages and disadvantages of each approach.

3.1 Standard ALSP Interactions

The standard approach to ALSP interactions is for models (``actors'') to broadcast attributes describing their own objects and to receive messages from other actors describing events that could affect their own objects. For example, MTWS broadcasts information about air missions that are being modeled in MTWS. Another actor, such as AWSIM, reads that information and can determine that the ``ghosted'' air mission can be detected and engaged. AWSIM then sends out an interaction message indicating that some number of missiles have been launched at the MTWS air mission. The owning actor, MTWS in this case, computes the losses to its own air mission. This is a straightforward rule - the owning actor computes the effects of ordnance against its own objects. The problem is, there can be fundamental differences in damage assessment algorithms and associated parametric data between two models. When firing against MTWS air missions, MTWS may compute one result, on a consistent basis, whereas when MTWS objects fire like ordnance against AWSIM aircraft, significantly different results occur on a consistent basis. The models provide various mechanisms for adjusting parametric characteristics of weapons systems, ordnance, and target vulnerabilities, but such adjustments cannot generally bring about precise commonality between the models.

With respect to ground models, the general consensus in the ALSP community is that there is too great a disparity in the level of detail represented in the different models. For example, MTWS uses terrain elevation and vegetation cover at a resolution of approximately 100 meters to determine line of sight and possible visual detection of ground forces (as well as other conditions affecting visual detection such as time of day, weather conditions, and battlefield obscuration). CBS determines visual detection based on units occupying adjacent 1500-meter hexagons (note: CBS is undergoing a transition to terrain ``squares''). In direct fire engagements, MTWS calculates losses using weapon-on-weapon hit and kill probabilities, whereas CBS uses Lanchester equations and attrition factors.

Implementation of the standard ALSP interaction approach requires that the models broadcast sufficient information describing the ground units to enable each model to perform its visual detection and engagement logic. For MTWS, such data would include the size and formation of the ghosted unit (representing the area occupied by the unit's assets), its posture (level of preparedness and concealment), and the major equipment items and dismounted troops contained in the unit. These are the items that could potentially be observed by MTWS-owned units and could come under fire based on MTWS engagement algorithms. Provision for this information would involve minor changes to existing ALSP message formats.

3.2 Gamebox-Allocated Interactions

The interoperability issue only arises when there is potential for interaction between units owned by MTWS and those owned by CBS (or any other ground model). The frequency and extent of such interactions depends greatly on the design of the exercise scenario and partitioning of the forces across the models for exercise control. If, for example, all Opposing Force (OPFOR) units are played in one model, such as CBS, and the friendly forces are played in multiple models, such as CBS for Army units and MTWS for Marine Corps units, then there will be interactions across models whenever the Marine Corps units encounter OPFOR units. In many cases, it may be possible to allocate the OPFOR units across the models in such a way as to minimize these cross-model interactions. A simple tactical situation is illustrated in Figure 3.

For purposes of discussion, assume the blue symbols (or darker, if the diagram is not in color) are Landing Force ground and air objects owned by MTWS and the red symbols with gray borders (or lighter shaded symbols, if not in color) are ghosted OPFOR units owned by CBS. This allocation creates the worst-case interaction demand.

This thinking led to an alternative approach wherein one or more geographic regions would be defined. Within the regions, a designated model--MTWS in this case--would have responsibility for adjudication of ground combat. Outside the region(s) and across the boundaries, another designated model--CBS--would have responsibility. This approach had merit from several perspectives. First, MTWS currently has a smaller quantity of game objects due to its greater detail in representation and modeling. This approach allows MTWS to deal only with its own units and ghosted units that pass its geographic filters. Second, the approach reflected a military concept of operations where the Marine Corps would generally have a more geographically-limited objective (Amphibious Operations Area) than the Army forces. Third, the approach allowed the more detailed model--MTWS-- to use its algorithms for determining detections and engagements within its area, while the less detailed model applied its algorithms elsewhere. Interactions between ground units would be handled differently, but there would be a consistency in the individual pairings. Units would detect according to a common algorithm (one model or the other) and the units would engage and inflict losses according to a common algorithm (one model or the other).

This approach adds complexity to the interaction messages. The models again need sufficient information to determine visual detection, but also sufficient information to support the decision criteria for determining when to initiate direct fire engagement and to assess the losses. For MTWS, this means obtaining from CBS information on all weaponry possessed by the unit (not just the major equipment items that can be detected, but also hand-held weapons) and a description of the readiness of the unit to commit assets to the engagement (called ``allocation of fire'' in MTWS terminology). The models also need mechanisms for defining the regions where the adjudication responsibilities are passed to a different model, messages for passing detection and engagement status, and attrition messages for passing results of the direct fire assessments. Moreover, complex situations can occur where part of the engagement is within a defined region and other participants are across the boundary. For example, if two units are engaged within an MTWS region, and one of the units comes under fire from an enemy unit outside the region, the overall engagement processing may need to be passed to CBS. These transfer mechanisms would need to be added to the ALSP repertoire of messages.

3.3 Selected Model Responsibility

The third alternative is to remove the defined regions and assign ground adjudication responsibilities to a model whenever its ground units interact with ghosted units from another model. For example, if MTWS is assigned responsibilities for adjudicating ground combat between MTWS and CBS units, then whenever an MTWS unit is in position to detect a ghosted unit, MTWS would determine the occurrence of detection for both sides, and would determine if a direct fire engagement should be initiated. MTWS would process the engagement and provide assessment results to CBS. Interactions between units owned by a single model would be processed in the owning model.

The data and message requirements for performing the ground combat would include the information described previously. In addition, a mechanism needs to be defined that indicates which model has responsibility whenever its units interact with those of another ground model. The assignment of responsibility needs to be made between each pair of ground models that are participating in the confederation. Long-term, new coordination messages will be needed to establish the responsibilities when the game is started. Initially, however, the coordination can be accomplished manually, and each model user can independently provide the information to that model.

There are again situations where a transfer of processing for an ongoing engagement must occur. Assume MTWS has been assigned adjudication responsibility. If an engagement is already in progress involving only CBS units, and an MTWS-owned unit comes into detection distance, then MTWS must assume responsibility for continuation of the engagement. Anomalies may occur in cases where the MTWS algorithms could cause the initial engagement to terminate (e.g., due to line of sight or other visual detection factors), and further actions between the units would become MTWS responsibility.

This approach--Selected Model Responsibility--has been chosen as the preferred method for initial development of a ground-ground interaction capability in ALSP. It is possible that CBS will not be able to proceed with this approach for the 1997 Joint Training Confederation due to prior funding commitments and priorities. However, the Marine Corps has committed to implementation of the capability in MTWS for the 1997 confederation. This will have several benefits to the ALSP community at large and the Marine Corps in particular:


4. INTEROPERABILITY WITH VIRTUAL SIMULATIONS


" Combined Arms Exercises (CAX). No unit training is more important to our warfighting capabilities than the CAX program. As a combined arms live-fire training area, the Marine Corps Air-Ground Combat Center (MCAGCC) provides us with a location and opportunity that are of incalculable value to our Corps. My vision is to provide intense, meaningful, live-fire training to infantry battalions at MCAGCC. While the focus is on the infantry battalion, I want the other MAGTF elements to receive equal benefit from this intense training evolution. One way to do that is to network the other MAGTF elements through the Training Exercise Evaluation Control Group to participate in a broader exercise via simulation and interactive video. ... What I do not want to see is the piling on of forces and staffs at MCAGCC itself. Use of distributed interactive simulation can provide the same type of training at much less cost." [CMG, p 17]


The best, but most costly, training environment is actual combat. Only in combat is it possible to realize the will and capabilities of the opposing force and its commanders, and the readiness and abilities of own-force personnel and equipment. The goal of peacetime training must be to replicate as closely as possible the combat conditions likely to be faced. Live-fire exercises and the use of virtual simulations are valuable methods for immersing individuals, teams, and small units into environments approaching the realism of actual combat operations. Higher level commanders and staffs, removed somewhat from low-level demands of maneuver and fire, can be placed in realistic environments through the use of constructive simulation systems. MTWS can provide representation of a large-scale operation, within which a portion of the units are live or virtual and the remainder are simulated in MTWS. This enables small unit operations to be conducted in live or virtual battlespaces, in the context of a larger operation. Even for battalion operations in a CAX, MTWS can provide the overall tactical context for the battalion commander and staff, and also provide a training environment for adjacent battalion staff, regimental staff, and higher command. The primary capability needed to achieve this goal is communication of the small unit actions to MTWS and communication of tactical context to the small units.

DIS is a standard for describing and transmitting entity state information across a distributed network of dissimilar systems, including instrumented ranges, virtual simulators, and constructive simulations. A proposed architecture for implementation of DIS capabilities into MTWS was shown in Figure 1. The concept is very similar to work performed for the Joint Precision Strike Demonstration (JPSD) program's Corps Level Computer Generated Forces (CLCGF) system (Calder, Peacock, Panagos, and Johnson, 1995). A new Computer Software Configuration Item (CSCI) is proposed, the MTWS DIS Interface Processor (MDIP), to act as an intermediary between MTWS and the entity-level DIS environment. The MDIP would monitor the developing tactical situation and determine when DIS entities might interact with MTWS objects. At that point, the MDIP would use Modular Semi-Automated Forces (ModSAF) engines to deaggregate the MTWS object into its component entities (tanks, troops, trucks, etc.) and take over responsibility for movement, detection, and engagement processing. When conditions for potential interaction with DIS entities are no longer satisfied, the MDIP would re-aggregate the MTWS object, and pass simulation control back to normal MTWS modeling. Sample criteria triggering deaggregation include (Calder, Peacock, Wise, Stanzione, Chamberlain, and Panagos, 1995):

Other interoperability issues to be addressed include (see also Pratt and Johnson, 1995):

For example, consider the tactical situation illustrated in Figure 4.


Assume the Landing Force units and air missions (indicated as in Figure 3) are MTWS objects and the OPFOR objects and air missions are owned outside MTWS. The OPFOR objects may consist of DIS entities that are displayed in MTWS in aggregate form as ghosted objects.

Within each of the two groups of objects, assume conditions exist for visual detection, whether from air-to-ground, ground-to-air, or ground-to-ground. Objects that are not included in the indicated areas do not satisfy these conditions. The MDIP would be responsible for deaggregating the units into their individual assets. Multiple ModSAF engines may be needed to handle the quantity of objects and entities, depending on the size of the exercise and the potential interactions between MTWS objects and DIS entities.

Even in the absence of external DIS entities, there is some interest in integrating MTWS and ModSAF. The approach would be analogous to the ALSP ground-ground interaction decision--the simulation processing would be passed to the model providing the higher resolution representation, in this case, ModSAF. In addition to providing higher resolution movement, detection, and engagement processing, the artificial intelligence embedded in the ModSAF models has the potential for simplifying MTWS operator actions. While we can accept that actual combat is the best training environment for all levels, it is not as readily apparent that simulation systems, such as MTWS, that create the combat environment for command staff training must model warfare down to the individual Marine and item of equipment in order to provide full realism for the learning experience. We assume that higher resolution models better replicate the tactical actions and results of combat, but there is no known data to support that assumption.

In the previous ALSP ground-ground discussion, there was an implicit idea that the higher level of detail in the MTWS ground model makes it the model of choice for adjudicating ground combat between it and CBS. However, no evaluation of the two models has been made (to our knowledge) to support that idea. Similarly, the higher resolution available in ModSAF is assumed to provide more realistic results than the MTWS algorithms, but this would need to be verified before initiating the integration effort.

Although the Marine Corps Modeling and Simulation Management Office (MCMSMO) has stated its goal to ``exercise any size Total Force MAGTF as part of combined or joint operations from home bases, aboard ship, or forward deployed through the seamless integration of live, virtual, and constructive simulations'' and has embraced Advanced Distributed Simulation as the enabling technology to achieve this end, there has been hesitation within the Marine Corps staff training community to place the requirement on MTWS. A foundation has been built in several other programs, so it will not be necessary to reinvent the capability. This is no longer a technology issue--the Marine Corps needs to address the requirements issue.


5. INTEROPERABILITY WITH REAL-WORLD C4I SYSTEMS

A preliminary interface between MTWS and real-world C4I systems was demonstrated at the Joint Warfighter Interoperability Demonstration (JWID) at Camp Pendleton in October 1995. MTWS provided unit and ship position data and detections of OPFOR ground units to the Joint Maritime Command Information System (JMCIS) using standard Over-the-Horizon Targeting message formats (OTH-Gold JUNIT and CONTACT messages). The interface demonstrated the use of MTWS as a tool for training personnel in their normal operational setting. However, this demonstration barely scratched the surface of the potential benefits available in both the training environment and the operational environment.

The most direct path to interoperability with MAGTF and Navy C4I systems is through transition to the Global Command and Control System (GCCS) Common Operating Environment (COE). MTWS is one of 15 systems identified by the Marine Corps for re-engineering to the GCCS COE (Marine Corps Tactical Systems Support Activity, 1994). Other systems include:

The following interoperability issues need to be addressed to press forward in interfacing MTWS to real-world C4I systems:

Interoperability with C4I systems will enable MTWS to transition from the training and educational environment into the operational environment. As an operational support system, MTWS will assist commanders and staffs in planing and evaluating tactical operations against different projected enemy force structures and actions. While expanding its role, overall training breadth and benefits are increased by using the system to stimulate C4I systems and by making the system available to deployed forces.


6. TOTAL FORCE EXERCISE

The Marine Corps Modeling and Simulation Master Plan states the following desired end states for Marine Corps Modeling and Simulation capabilities:

The composite capability obtained through development of interoperability across live-fire, virtual, and constructive simulations and through interoperability with real-world C4I systems can be powerfully demonstrated through a world-wide Total Force Marine Corps exercise. Possible participants in such an exercise are shown in Figure 5, including deployed Marine Expeditionary Units (MEUs) in the Mediterranean Ocean and Pacific Ocean.


Multiple host sites at MCCDC, I MEF, II MEF, and III MEF could be linked over high-speed dedicated links. Using ALSP technology, the host sites would split the simulation processing load, enabling a greater number of game objects to be represented than possible with a single system. Participants could also include joint forces, using other virtual and constructive simulation systems, extending the exercise beyond a Marine Corps/Navy-only exercise. Reserve command staffs in New Orleans (MARFORRES) could use remote user stations, tied into one of the host sites over telecommunications lines, to serve as OPFOR staff or other components of the landing force control staff or player staff. Interface to JMCIS using tactical messages or data base commonality would create a gateway for tactical message traffic over satellite links to the deployed forces. Live forces at MCAGCC could participate on live-fire ranges through DIS connectivity. To the higher level commanders, all forces could appear to be operating in coordinated action against enemy forces.

Onboard ship, MTWS could serve as a decision support tool, providing a means for defining alternative tactical courses of action and for playing out those actions, providing data that can be used to evaluate the outcomes. The timing of landing plans and preparatory air and surface strikes can be defined and rehearsed in the model. Air mission plans can be played against known and projected enemy positions to evaluate mission survivability. These are only a small sample of the possible activities that could be performed.

Interoperability is the key to vast opportunities for improving Marine Corps training. The technological challenge is great, but components are in place to enable rapid progress toward desired capabilities. MTWS is a valuable tool to help achieve the vision of improved mission performance across the Total Force.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author thanks Mac Garrabrants, VisiCom Laboratories, for his assistance in preparing the MTWS graphics for this paper and for concepts relating to C4I interfaces and the Total Force world-wide exercise. The graphics were captured from the MTWS user workstation using the Xwindows xwd command, and imported into Framemaker for annotation and inclusion into the paper. The author thanks Amos Jessup, VisiCom Laboratories, for his assistance in editing and converting this paper to HTML format.

The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and VisiCom Laboratories, Incorporated, and do not necessarily express the official position or policies of the United States Marine Corps.


REFERENCES

Blais, C. Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) Tactical Warfare Simulation (MTWS). Proceedings of ELECSIM 1994 Electronic Conference on Constructive Training Simulation.

Blais, C. Scalability Issues in Enhancement of the MAGTF Tactical Warfare Simulation System. Proceedings of ELECSIM 1995 Electronic Conference on Constructive Training Simulation.

Calder, R. B., Peacock, J. C., Panagos, J., and Johnson, T. E. Integration of Constructive, Virtual, Live, and Engineering Simulations in the JPSD CLCGF. Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Computer Generated Forces and Behavioral Representation. May 1995.

Calder, R. B., Peacock, J. C., Wise, B. P., Stanzione, T., Chamberlain, F., and Panagos, J. Implementation of a Dynamic Aggregation/Deaggregation Process in the JPSD CLCGF. Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Computer Generated Forces and Behavioral Representation. May 1995.

Commandant of the Marine Corps. Commandant's Planning Guidance. 1 July 1995.

Marine Corps Modeling and Simulation Management Office. Marine Corps Modeling and Simulation Master Plan. 29 July 1994.

Marine Corps Tactical Systems Support Activity. MAGTF C4I Transition to the Global Command and Control System (GCCS) Common Operating Environment. 15 March 1994.

Pratt, D. R., and Johnson, M. A. Constructive and Virtual Model Linkage. Proceedings of the 1995 Winter Simulation Conference ed. C. Alexopoulos, K. Kang, W. R. Lilegdon, and D. Goldsman.


AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY

CURTIS L. BLAIS is Manager of Wargaming Systems for VisiCom Laboratories, Incorporated, and Software Engineering Manager for the MTWS project. He has twenty-two years of experience in analysis and simulation of Navy and Marine Corps command, control, and communications architectures, and in design and development of combat models. He specialized in modeling of ground combat and casualty/damage assessments. Mr. Blais holds B.S. and M.S. degrees in Mathematics from the University of Notre Dame.


Postscript Version