Fred Lewis, USN (Ret.) President, NTSA

On July 20, the President of the National Training and Simulation Association, RADM Fred Lewis (USN-Ret.) was invited, along with representatives of the Armed Services, to give testimony before the House Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee on the contribution of modeling and simulation to operational readiness. Following is the text of his remarks, which have been entered into the Congressional Record:

MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE:
It is a pleasure for me to appear before you today to discuss one of America’s most exciting and promising enterprises — the modeling and simulation training industry. My name is Fred Lewis, and I am the President of the National Training and Simulation Association, 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 real-world situations. Now we train in virtual environments that uncannily replicate those we will face in combat, in terrorist attacks, and in the emergency 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 and certification programs, sponsorship of extensive research, and annual events such as the recently-concluded Congressional Modeling and Simulation Expo, held in the Rayburn House 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/Industry Training, Simulation and Education Conference, or I/ITSEC, held annually in late fall in Orlando. This event, which, like the industry as a whole, is enjoying healthy growth despite an uncertain overall economy, now attracts well over 500 corporations, government and research organizations from the United States and from over 60 countries around the globe. Over one hundred research and scientific papers are presented and discussed, making I/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 the amazing panoply of modeling and simulation, I/ITSEC is truly a phenomenal sight. 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 our future.
  During my time at the National Training and Simulation Association, I have seen the modeling and simulation industry not only grow exponentially, but undergo rapid and in some cases unexpected change. The explosion in computer 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 do not believe this level of technology will be achieved while we pursue our objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we will see it in the not 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 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, 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 other vehicles.
  My confidence in the modeling and simulation industry’s technological capabilities is unshakable 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 concerted action by all interested parties. Specifically, the Economic Classification Policy Committee (ECPC) 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 requests, granting such stature would not only bestow deserved formal status and recognition on our industry, but would also greatly facilitate tracking of economic data pertaining to modeling and simulation, at present an elusive goal. While we have some economic data for certain geographic areas where the simulation industry enjoys a pervasive presence: Orlando, Florida; the Hampton Roads area in Virginia, and others—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 all those with an interest in furthering the growth of the modeling and simulation community of practice to join with us. 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 U.S. 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 standing since about 1990 – have begun to focus public and private organizations upon the urgent need to re-kindle 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 is the need to provide enhanced instruction and a clear, viable path from classroom to careers. President Kennedy’s challenge to reach the moon by the end of the 1960’s motivated several generations of Americans to great achievement in the sciences and in 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 fractional and only affect the margins. We must do more to enhance STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) 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.

Following the hearing, the Subcommittee submitted a list of follow-up questions. The NTSA responses, below, were also entered into the Record.

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

1. 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 crisis scenarios?
A.
 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.
  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.

2. How does the expansion and technological advancement of surface ship and aviation training simulators fit within each of the department’s energy conservation goals?
A.
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.

3. In your opinion, does the existing governance in the DOD maximize 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?
A.
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.

4. 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?
A.
 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 obsolescent 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.

5. 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?
A.
 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.
  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.