Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

2 Human Behavior Representation: Military Requirements and Current Models
Pages 19-50

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 19...
... Yet presentations made at three workshops held by DMSO, formal briefings to the panel, and informal conversations among panelists, Department of Defense (DoD) representatives, and DoD contractor personnel all suggested to the panel that users of military simulations do not consider the current generation of human behavior representations to be reflective of the scope or realism required for the range of applications of interest to the military.
From page 20...
... Authoritative behavioral representations are needed at different levels of aggregation for different purposes. At various times, representations are needed for the following: · Individual combatants, including dismounted infantry · Squad, platoon, and/or company · Individual combat vehicles · Groups of combat vehicles and other combat support and combat service support Aircraft Aircraft formations The output of command and control elements · Large units, such as Army battalions, brigades, or divisions; Air Force squadrons and wings; and Navy battle groups Representations are needed for OPFOR (opposing forces or hostiles)
From page 33...
... In the final section we examine efforts to create models that can be used to introduce human behavior into military simulations. Definitions As noted in Chapter 1, we define a model as a physical, mathematical, or otherwise logical representation of a system, entity, phenomenon, or process and a simulation as a method for implementing a model over time.
From page 34...
... The level of human behavior representation in these systems varies widely, but even the best of them assume ideal human behavior according to doctrine that will be carried out literally, and rarely take account of the vagaries of human performance capacities and limitations. Within the military today, constructive simulations are the largest and most broadly applied type of simulation.
From page 35...
... The Army uses constructive simulations such as JANUS and Corps Battle Simulation (CBS) to train leaders and other decision makers.
From page 36...
... is an example of the blending of constructive and virtual simulations for joint and combined training. STOW-Europe was the first operational demonstration of the concept of linked constructive simulations, with Army ground force players at remote sites being linked to the Air Force Air Warrior Center.
From page 37...
... , several Air Force analysis organizations, such as the RAND Corporation, and DoD joint task force study organizations, all of which research new defense threat issues or future service structures/requirements. While such organizations may develop new simulations through civilian contracts, they use or adapt many of the same constructive simulations used in the research, development, and acquisition area.
From page 38...
... But these training simulations and the standardization of procedures incorporating potential coalition forces and the differences in respective decision processes have not received the same level of attention as other development areas. CURRENT MILITARY MODELS OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR AND THEIR LIMITATIONS This section reviews existing military models that have been developed to represent human elements in computer-generated forces.
From page 39...
... 39 ;^ ·-4 ca · - ~ ca ;^ ˘ cq o vO cq a' a' In In ˘ :~ Eat .~ o in 4~;)
From page 40...
... , the human behaviors represented in ModSAF include move, shoot, sense, communicate, tactics, and situation awareness. The authoritative sources of these behaviors are subject matter experts and doctrine provided by the Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC)
From page 41...
... According to Downes-Martin (1995) , the CCTT SAF human behavior representations work reasonably well for small-unit tactics, but because there is no underlying model of human behavior, it is difficult to increase the size or scope of the simulated operations.
From page 42...
... , and the current task. Perception is based on simple visual and aural detection and identification of enemy forces.
From page 43...
... The net effect of the postexercise evaluation of FWA-Soar was to encourage the possible addition of computational capabilities. However, the proposed additions were not tied to modeling of human behavior at the basic level, but were focused on developing a simulation that was capable of executing subtasks omitted from the original program (Laird et al., 1997~.
From page 44...
... Thus it is fair to say that, in terms of models in active use, the introduction of human behavior into military simulations is in its infancy. However, because of the wide range of potential uses of these kinds of models, it is badly needed to create more realistic and useful evaluations.
From page 45...
... Combined Arms Task Force Effectiveness Model The combined arms task force effectiveness model (CASTFOREM) is a large-scale model focused on tactics and employment of forces at the task force and brigade levels.
From page 46...
... , tactical simulation model (TACSIM) , combat service support training support
From page 47...
... commanders and staff officers for all unit command and staff organizations in the scenario task organization being represented. Close Combat Tactical Trainer CCTT is a family of virtual simulations and simulators currently under development by the Army and TRADOC.
From page 48...
... Air Force Models and Simulations Advanced Air-to-Air System Performance Evaluation Model The advanced air-to-air system performance evaluation model (AASPEM) 4.1 is a comprehensive tool for performing air combat analysis in a realistic fewon-few engagement environment of up to 75 aircraft and missile combinations for six different aircraft and six different missiles at a time.
From page 49...
... is a family of constructive and virtual simulations linked together to support joint training and theater contingency exercises. STOW-Europe (STOW-E)
From page 50...
... Currently, no human behavior representation is included, and all tactics and play are specified by the human players. However, efforts are under way to incorporate an optimal route-planning algorithm developed by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to support route planning for individual and unit entities.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.