What is it about simulation that makes for a great
conversation about outcomes but lacks application? The business case for using
simulation, modelling and experimentation early on in the planning and
development of requirements is a relatively easy one to make. As Major General
John Caligari, Head of Capability Systems, has pointed out previously, in
simulation you can fail early, fast and cheaply with test points that can be
repeated over and over again. This message is seeping through the organisation
but it’s a slow burn.
The last Defence simulation roadmap was released in 2011
under then Vice Chief of the Defence Force Lieutenant General David Hurley (now
CDF General Hurley). And it’s still a good read.
“Whilst the demand for simulation capability has increased,
there seems to be an inertia related to extending the simulation capability,
perhaps awaiting the realisation of the capability represented in JP3028 (note:
now rescoped as JP3035) and other programs,” according to the roadmap. “More
detailed consideration and use of enabling capabilities such as simulation will
lead to a decrease in the cost of ownership and greater justification of the
expenditure on simulation to inform the decision making process. Defence users
require decision support tools that enable them to plan cognisant of the effect
a decision in one area has on another if they are to achieve true reform and
efficiency savings.”
In essence, Defence requires an integrated simulation capability
to support decision making across the capability life cycle from requirements
all the way through to disposal and everything in between. But there is still a
reticence in the ADO to actually do this.
“By 2020, application of the objective simulation capability
will assist Defence to:
- apply strategic workforce planning within an environment of national workforce estimates;
- predict and manage flow on effects of financial management strategies;
- design, develop and evaluate infrastructure options;
- manage workforce and asset lifecycle issues;
- reinforce strong experience and expertise in operating joint interagency activities;
- routinely undertake options and trade-off analysis at the force, unit, individual, platform and system level at all points in the capability life cycle from a managed model reference;
- design, test and implement complex integration activities in a networked force, including stimulation of real world command and control systems;
- improve decision makers’ understanding of future capabilities and the trade-offs necessary to reduce risk and cost across the capability life cycle; and
- provide support to the development of new weapon and sensor systems via the provision of data, models and simulations that can be re-used in support of future activities such as tactics, techniques and procedures development and integration with other systems.”
The ADO is still a long way from these stated goals but
steps are being taken in the right direction. The decision to move the Australian
Defence Simulation Office out of VCDF group into Joint Operation Command out at
Bungendore will see the office take a more hands-on approach to their domain.
There is seven years to get to the proposed 2020 state, a short and a long time
in some respects.
On the simulation and training front, the news is much more
positive. All three services and joint efforts are coming along great guns. The
biennial Talisman Sabre exercise series, which was underway at the time of
writing, has moved forward in leaps and bounds in this regard (see P46 for
more). The capabilities offered by the Joint Combined Training Centre (JCTC)
are growing year on year along with the relationship between the US and
Australia in their collective training. The range of constructed, synthetic and
virtual assets in play alongside troops on the ground, ships at sea and
aircraft in the sky is growing with every event.
Also on the exercise front, Defence for the first time will
undertake their submarine rescue exercise Black Carillon on the east coast off
Sydney (see P26 for more). This will give the personnel involved the chance to
operate outside their usual comfort zone in terms of geography and the chance
to see how the equipment can be transported into a different operational environment.
The nation’s submarine rescue capability is in better shape
than it has been for quite some time thanks to work being done by industry and
Defence. James Fisher Defence provides the LR5 system while Remora is still out
of action. Defence is currently trying to work out if it’s even worthwhile
bringing it back into service since suffering an accident in 2006 and
subsequent repair work by the OEM in Canada.
I’m going to take an educated guess here and assume that
since it’s been seven long years since Australia last used the capability,
perhaps it is time to write Remora off. The DCP has outlined the next project
to replace this capability under Sea 1354, which is being fulfilled just fine
under current lease arrangements that offer better technology than Remora ever
did.