75th - apps.dtic.mil · 1. report date 01 jun 2007 2. report type n/a 3. dates covered - 4. title...

Surface Warfare Center of Excellence

A u th o r R e q u e s t (T o b e c o m p le te d b y a p p lic a n t ) - T h e fo llo w in g a u th o r (s ) re q u e s t a u th o r it y to d is c lo s e th e fo llo w in g p re s e n ta t io n in th e M O R S S F in a l R e p o r t , fo r in c lu s io n o n th e M O R S S C D a n d /o r p o s t in g o n th e M O R S w e b s ite .

Name of Principal Author and all other author(s):_______________________David E. Gilbert________________________________________________________________________

Principal Author’s Organization and address: Commander, Surface Warfare Development Group 2200 Amphibious DriveNorfolk VA 23521-2896

Original title on 712 A/B:____”Summary of SHAREM Exercise Lessons Learned”_______________________________________________________________

(Please use the same title listed on MORSS Form 712 A/B. If the title was changed please list the revised title below.) Revised title: Title on PowerPoint slide is “SHAREM – 37 Years of Lessons Learned”

Presented in: WG(s) #_33 ____ CG_________, Special Session _________________________________________________________,

Demonstration, ___________________________________, Tutorial, ________________________________ or Focus Session # ___________

75th MORSS 712CD Cover Page12-14 June 2007, at US Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD

If you would like your presentation included in the 75th MORSS Final Report CD it must:

1. Be unclassified, approved for public release, distribution unlimited, and is exempt from US export licensing and other export approvals including the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22CFR120 et.seq.),

2. include MORS Form 712CD as the first page of the presentation and3. a MORS form 712 A or B must be in the MORS Office no later than 14 June 2007.

The following presentation is believed to be: unclassified, approved for public release, distribution unlimited, and is exempt from US export licensing and other export approvals including the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22CFR120 et.seq.)

Report Documentation Page Form ApprovedOMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering andmaintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, ArlingtonVA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if itdoes not display a currently valid OMB control number.

1. REPORT DATE 01 JUN 2007

2. REPORT TYPE N/A

3. DATES COVERED -

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE SHAREM 37 Years of Lessons Learned

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) Commander, Surface Warfare Development Group 2200 AmphibiousDrive Norfolk VA 23521-2896

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONREPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release, distribution unlimited

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES See also ADM202526. Military Operations Research Society Symposium (75th) Held in Annapolis,Maryland on June 12-14, 2007, The original document contains color images.

14. ABSTRACT

15. SUBJECT TERMS

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

UU

18. NUMBEROF PAGES

35

19a. NAME OFRESPONSIBLE PERSON

a. REPORT unclassified

b. ABSTRACT unclassified

c. THIS PAGE unclassified

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18

Commander,Surface Warfare Development Group

(SWDG – 21)

“SHAREM – 37 Years of Lessons Learned”

David E. Gilbert – SWDG TD


3

Background/OverviewImproved-SHAREM ProcessMetricsLessons Learned

SHAREM37 Years of Lessons Learned


4

Naval Warfare Center of Excellence

Develops, improves, tests, validates, and evaluates fleet doctrine and platform- and mission-specific TTPSecondary roles in enhancing the capability of the Navy forces to operate effectively in unilateral, joint, and coalition operationsAdditional Duties Include:

Responsibilities in the areas of operational test and evaluation,Research and development, Experimentation, Modeling and simulation, War gaming, Requirements definition, Joint and allied doctrine and TTP development.


5

The Readiness Effectiveness Measuring (REM) Program(s)Technical …

How well does it work?

Technical …How well does it work?

Tactical …How is it employed against the threat ?

Tactical …How is it employed against the threat ?

Systems

Sensors

Weapons

Command and Control

Systems Integration

Tactics, Techniques & Procedures

Empirical Data

Training …Do we know how to

operate it ?

Training …Do we know how to

operate it ?

Systems

Sensors

Weapons

Command and Control

Systems Integration

SWDG-21


6

High Level Assessment vs. REM

High Level Assessments conducted at the integrated or Warfare Commander & above level

Primarily ascertains Staff’s ability to effectively plan & implement a campaign at the operational & tactical levelPlanning considerations are driven by expected unit performanceAsset allocation driven be performance trade-offs

REM analysis conducted at the unit level down to the individual unit, sensor package & weapon

Empirical data collected provides critical performance feedback to tactical & operational plannersAllows individual units to ascertain innate capabilities and adjust operational plans at the tactical levelIdentifies performance levels and sets operational capabilitiesProvides optimal asset mix for various tactical considerationsIdentifies potential game changer systems or weaponsIdentifies and provides capability gap non-materiel solutions


7

REM ProgramWhere is the Focus?

Fundamentally unit performancedetermines IPCLs & Gaps

REM programs analyze unit performanceSensor performance Weapon effectivenessHuman factorsOverall system effectivenessCausality factors

Integrated assessment is the Monday morning Coaches debate

What could have been done differently?How well did we execute the plan?

Individual units make the plays on the battlefield – not the staff

Unit performance determines where gaps existGaps determine integrated priority capability lists

Find – Fix – Track – Target – Engage – AssessAll Unit Level Functions – Regardless of Warfare Area


8

REM ProgramWhat does it Measure?

Find – sensor capabilities against known targetsStructured events establish optimal performance – “as good as it gets” –involves ability to correctly classify Exceptions: National Sensors and other programs

Fix – ability of sensor system to localize TOIsFunction of sensor’s collective errors in range and bearing

Track – ability of sensor system to maintain contact and establish course and speed informationTarget – ability of sensor-weapon system pair to achieve targeting quality solutionEngage – sensor-weapon system ability to consummate the kill chainAssess – ability of sensor-weapon system pair to ascertain engagement success

May be some staff functions in this area

Generally Broader in Scope ... Than pure experimentation


9

REM ProgramWhat does it Provide?

Acquisition CommunityProvides legacy system performance feedback – identifies potential upgrade pointsEarly evaluation of developmental systemsIdentifies human factor issues Operational capability vs. engineering assessment

Research & Development CommunityFocuses R&D efforts in capability gap areasVenue for evaluating developmental efforts

Training CommunityAt-Sea Operational Feedback loopData for FST-U implementation Identifies NCEA requirements

Real World – Operational Environment – Representative ThreatsSystems Tactically Employed – ROC & POE Validation – Fleet Operators


10

REM ProgramWhat does it Provide?

WarfighterHot Wash-up Rapid feedback on exercise results – 90% solutionWhat happened – may not have answers to why it happenedCurrent capability assessment in areas of immediate interestFeedback for MCO planning

Doctrine & Tactics CommunityTactical development, validation, verification & refinement venueIdentifies and develops non-materiel solutions to mitigate or resolve current capability gaps

Real World – Operational Environment – Representative ThreatsTactically Focused – Areas of Interest - What it takes to win…


11

REM ProgramWhat makes It Effective?

Annual Goal End State established Objectives agreed upon up & down Chain of Command

Prioritized to achieve End State GoalsAnalysis Plan developed that supports objectivesExercise/Experimentation Time & Assets Allocation

Determined by assessing the objective data collection requirementsPost-ex Analysis – Levels of Granularity

Participant Feedback Determine progress towards end-state goalsAssess key performance parametersUpdate trend analysis

Review, Revise & Refine Annual Plan to attain GoalsCompare to hypotheses – make corrections as necessaryFeedback to Sponsor & Stakeholders


12

Established by CNO in 1969 to quantitatively assess surface ship ASW performance (circa UPTIDE Experimentation)

COMSURFWARDEVGRU: Executive AgentAssess surface ship and ASW force performance Identify fleet deficiencies and shortfallsInforms Fleet Investment Strategy - identifying requirements and guiding procurement processProvide test bed to evaluate new technologies, systems, and prototypesMaintain database on ASW sensor & weapon performanceSite specific areas of interest shift in 1992 – more tactically relevant/representative – response to C5F request

SHAREM History

Ships’ ASW Readiness, Effectiveness Measuring (SHAREM) Program


13

Originally purely an engineering evaluationASW systems were groomed Performance evaluated against established acceptance metrics

Gradual shift to tactical evaluationExercises limited, primarily, to East Coast assetsTypically regarded as goal-post to goal-post events

Area of interest shift in early 1990s Conduct exercises in forward deployed, tactically significant areasParticipants on deploymentRepresentative threats and/or threat tacticsAssess current state expected performanceCombination structured and freeplay evaluations

SHAREM Evolution


14

Think Again…


15




16

Improved SHAREMAnalysis Thread

ObjectivesStandard Detection

-Classification-Localization

-AttackSpecific

FLT CDRsDESRONs

System Tests

Analysis Plan-Define COI-AnalyticalProcedure

-EvaluationCriteria

-Specifiesdata to be collected

Test Plan-Detailed

Procedures forConducting

EventsData Collection

PlanData collected

supportsobjectivesand R&A

Conduct Exercise(ADCE/Observers)

Reach Back CellProvide in-stride R&A and

Event Replay (AVI’s)

Out Products-Hot Wash Brief-Quicklook MSG-Flag Brief-R&A Report

Improved SHAREM TimelineCOMEX(-6 mos)

IPC MPC Analysis Plan FPC

Test Plan/Data Collection Plan

(6 weeks prior to COMEX)

Hot Wash Brief

COMEX(-5 mos)

COMEX(-4 mos)

COMEX(-3 mos)

COMEX(-2 mos)

COMEX(-1 mos)

ConductExercise

FINEX(+1 mos)

FINEX(+2 mos)

FINEX(+3-6 mos)

Quicklook MSG (7 working days)

Flag Brief (45 days)R&A Report

Reach Back Cell Stands Up

Process Management PlanProvides processes/proceduresfor SHAREM Program execution

We do the work!

Rapid Warfighter

Assessment & Feedback

Desired


17

Provide a tactical development and validation vehicle Realistic, tactically significant environmentsMulti - platform USW force: ships, aircraft, submarines, SURTASSCoalition partner involvementGround truth track reconstructionExtensive analysis & meteorological impact assessmentValidated results for training, doctrine, and programmatic decisionsIdentify and provide non-materiel solutions Mitigate current gaps and optimize fielded systems with TTP Address Warfighter concerns and provide rapid feedback

Sensor & Weapon System performance assessmentEmployed in tactical areas of interestRepresentative threats & tactics (or emulations thereof)Performance across the ‘kill chain’Identify materiel performance shortfalls

I-SHAREMProgram Specific Goals


18

Acoustic & non-acoustic sensor detection & classification effectiveness ASW localization procedures & tactics; accuracy & timelinessASW attack procedures, weapons & tacticsASW C4I and data fusion in Task Force operations Acoustic and non-acoustic vulnerability to detection and attack by (diesel) submarinesAbility of ASW forces to exploit the environment

I-SHAREMMeasurements & Evaluations


19

I-SHAREMHot-Wash Products


20

Multi-Static ASWPhysics Experiment/Test

E

A

B

C

D

F

G

H

J

K

M

N

P

Q

R

S

Longitude (deg min E)

Latitude(deg min N)

SX/RX Sensor-5 Sensor-1Sensor-2 Target-2 Oparea Target-1SX Safety Box Sensor-3 Sensor-4


21

0

2

4

6

8

1 0

1 2

1 4

1 6

1 8

2 0

2 2

2 4

2 6

2 8

3 0

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

1 1

1 2

1 3

1 4

1 5

1 6

1 7

1 8

1 9

2 0

2 1

2 2

0.9-10.8-0.90.7-0.80.6-0.70.5-0.6

22 nm

30 nm

Multi-Static ASWTactical Experiment


22




23

Probability of Detection as a Function of Lateral RangeProper implementation requires imposing course and speed restrictions on the target.

Cumulative Probability of DetectionAccounts for target distance regardless of target movement.

Hold TimeAssumes the presence of a target in the area. Difficult to normalize size and shape of the target OPAREA.

Time Expended Tracking Invalid ContactsIndependent of submarine location or size of the target operating area “cost of doing business”concern relatively independent of other factors.

Contact Validity RatioAssumes the presence of a submarine in the operating area and is a function of target operating area and target density.

False Contact RateConsiders invalid contacts only. Submarine location and OPAREA size do not matter.

Improved SHAREM Analysis

Best metrics are independent of platform actions or exercise design

Improved SHAREM MetricsLegacy SHAREM Metrics

“An exercise without analysis is, at best, a demonstration...”


24

Improved SHAREM Metrics

Detection and ClassificationCPd

CPd&cFalse Contact Rate

Probability of False Contact

TrackingPercent Time Tracking Invalid Contacts

Ability to maintain track

LocalizationLocalization Probability

Attack EffectivenessInvalid Attack Rate

Invalid Attack ProbabilityValid Attack Probability

Find

Fix

Track

Target Engage

Assess

Independent & Defensible Measures


25

What’s Reported – Vice QuotedPresentation Matters

8223:56:2829:03:2450891762.814Total

726:48:009:26:593829774.113F-P

8717:08:2819:36:256160990.891Struc

190:09:0500:49:11319292.1315100

1001:10:161:09:48507144314100

N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A0012800

998:44:408:50:55829110012500

811:55:112:23:00100220012100

7842

5:02:180:26:21

6:26:471:02:00

3850

121

322

771090012

703:02:564:23:00100220010400

863:25:413:59:305647843109100

Hold/Exp(%)

HoldTime

ExpTime

Det/Exp(%)

DetExpFalseAlarm

per Day

FalseAlarm

Event


26

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Range (kyd)

Prob

abili

ty o

f Det

ectio

n

I-SHAREMOne Exercise – One Day


27

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Range (kyd)

Prob

abili

ty o

f Dec

tect

ion

I-SHAREMSame Exercise – Another Day

Judging overall performance based on data from one event = Danger!


28

Background/OverviewImproved-SHAREM ProcessMOEs & MOPsLessons Learned



29

Exercises designed to objectives - Sequence is criticalStart with objectives – limit the number or acknowledge failureDevelop analysis plan to support objectivesIdentify data requirements based on objectives and analysis planDesign exercise (experiment) to support objectivesDetailed data collection and analysis plan up-front!

Expanded use of Limited Objective Experiments (LOEs)Smaller scale easier to manage, Better ensures goal attainment

Trade-offs between exercise and experiment requirementsRequires early “buy-in” on priorities by all concernedPrioritization of events to ensure realization of objectivesIncorporation of desires requires deconfliction

SHAREM IPT sets objectives and schedules venues

Lessons LearnedEvolving to Match Environment…

SWDG remains the honest broker for Surface Warfare Capabilities


30

Lessons LearnedTechnologies - Only part of the solution

Unrealized potential remains when systems are used without complete understandingNew systems require different thinking & TTP

Systems lacking TTP will be sub-optimizedNew systems may not perform as advertised – but will definitely be sub-optimized without accompanying TTP

Technology inserts are not silver bullets and may only have niche applications

Systems need to be integrated & interoperableImproved SHAREM analysis provides comparable answers between disparate technologies

“Any order of magnitude change requires completely new thinking – old methods may no longer be applicable...” – Richard Hamming


31

Lessons LearnedTraining & Proficiency

Training provides basics – practice yields proficiencyEstablishing training & proficiency levels key

Assesses training/proficiency impact on overall performanceInforms training community on knowledge gapsEstablishes ‘remedial’ and/or ‘refresh’ training requirementsGuides synthetic trainer developmentsInforms Fleet Response Plan requirements

Feedback for acquisition and research & development communitiesConsistent & coherent metrics needed


32

Lessons LearnedMetrics

Metrics ‘musts’ :TranslatableDefensibleComparableUnderstandableReproducibleObjective basedIdentify KPPsPass Independence test

Introduction of new metrics will meet resistanceSingle point evaluations are suspect

"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts." - Einstein (attributed)


33

Lessons LearnedKitchen sink…

Quicklooks are always inaccurateHuman factors and memories can skew resultsPiggy-backed evolutions will generally fall shortTrue Freeplays yield little insight - often result in “no tests”

Freeplays with objective focused instructions can produce insight

All results scrutinized – especially those contrary to perceptionsRepeat Lessons Learned are Ongoing Discrepancies!Rapid warfighter/participant feedback critical

Best practices may only apply to given circumstancesDocumentation is key to moving forward and not forgetting…

QuestionsQuestions??


35Surface Force Programmatic Input… Tactical Development… Analytical Feedback

FLEET LIAISON(C2F/C3F/C5F

C6F/C7F)Scheduling

Conferences

SHAREMMIREMADREM

SUWREMEWREM

GWOTREM

Exercise Planning Process (IPC/MPC/FPC)CSG, ESG, DESRON, PHIBRON, Ships, CSFTL/P, TTGL/P & ATGL/P

ImmediateFeedback

OPNAV NWDCCFFC PEOPA Surface Force ONR (FNC)Theater OPTEVFOROA Sea Shield Joint (ACTD)OA Sea Strike

10-Day Quicklook

OPSResearch

NWTSNWDC

OAsPA

OPSAnalysis

CFFC OPNAV/PEO

Exercise

Executive Steering Group(s)

Fleet Collaborative Team (Surface)Sea Trial/STIMS

Tactics

AnalysisSystems

Final Report

Sea TrialSTIMS

FCT

Global Influence

InternationalLiaison

Event OPAREADates RangesAssets Weapons

SURFREM … The Future Of The SHAREM / MIREM Process

FCT

I-SHAREM -> SURFREMExtension Across All Warfare Areas

75th - apps.dtic.mil · 1. report date 01 jun 2007 2. report type n/a 3. dates covered - 4. title...

Documents