Improving Modeling, Simulation, and Analysis Across the U.S. Space Force System Life Cycle

The U.S. Space Force (USSF) is pursuing different approaches to becoming more agile, responsive, efficient and effective. In 2021, Gen John Raymond, the first chief of space operations, announced an overarching vision to transform the USSF into an "interconnected, innovative, digitally dominant force."^[1] The USSF's preeminence as a warfighting "digital service" depends in part on its ability to use modeling and simulation (M&S) effectively in decisionmaking, systems development, acquisition, testing, training, and operations.

RAND Project AIR FORCE (PAF) was asked to devise a strategy that the USSF can employ to improve its use of M&S in the development of space systems. M&S figures prominently in virtually all aspects that development; however, models vary considerably in their form, application, and output, and much of the modeling performed at different phases of the process is tied to highly specific functions. As a result, modeling is often done by organizations and teams working in isolation from one another. This can sometimes lead to duplications of effort in some areas and gaps in capability elsewhere. PAF examined how the USSF could make its use of M&S more efficient and effective throughout the space system life cycle. The resulting analysis charts a path by which the USSF can create a digital engineering (DE) environment in which it can better coordinate the use of M&S across the service.

Approach

The research team's approach to this issue consisted of the following five major steps:

1. Identify the current gaps in the effective use of M&S across the USSF.
2. Define the desired future state, i.e., what effective use of M&S should look like.
3. Identify the changes needed to achieve the future state and delineate potential solutions, including best practices.
4. Assess which solutions should and can be implemented.
5. Suggest ways to effect the needed changes.

To accomplish these steps, RAND researchers gathered information from organizations across the USSF, the Secretary of the Air Force, and the U.S. Air Force that are stakeholders in the space system development life cycle. The information addressed each organization's modeling, simulation, and analysis needs as determined by each organization's role in the space system life cycle. This was followed with a qualitative analysis of the data that came out of those discussions.

In addition, the researchers held conversations with experts outside of the USSF who use M&S in the development and operation of aerospace systems. Those discussions included participants from the other services (Air Force, Navy, and Army), other federal agencies (the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Space Development Agency), and private industry (SpaceX and Northrop Grumman). The discussions yielded insights into best practices that the USSF can leverage to inform and enhance its use of M&S. The research team supplemented these findings with a literature review to explore a variety of options for using M&S effectively and efficiently. The research was completed by September 2024, and the findings do not capture any activities occurring after that date.

Findings: The Current State of M&S in the Space System Life Cycle

M&S needs and capabilities differ across the life cycle phases and among the organizations involved in those phases. Organizations involved in system design rely more heavily on M&S, and they possess more expertise in modeling techniques; on the other hand, these organizations can use lower-fidelity tools to conduct trade analyses (in this context, fidelity refers to the model's level of exactness or consistency with reality). Organizations involved in system acquisition and system use require more-specific M&S capabilities related to system definition, interoperability, and Red–Blue interaction.

A running theme that emerged from discussions was the need for more collaboration and cooperation among the organizations that use M&S in the USSF. In particular, participants cited the need for a central mechanism that can facilitate the sharing of models, data, and expertise. It is important to include contractors in this sharing because they often possess crucial expertise in systems they have produced.

A particularly pressing gap identified by USSF stakeholders was the lack of M&S at multiple fidelity levels. Different phases of the life cycle require different levels of fidelity. The ability to tailor or improve a given model's fidelity can be limited by data that are inconsistent, inaccurate, or behind a classification barrier. Another commonly identified gap was the lack of interoperability among M&S tools. Stakeholders pointed to the paucity of commonly used models and lack of consistency in how systems are represented.

A related concern was the need to develop M&S that can be executed at multiple classification levels. At present, the classification of data, information, and models often serves as an impediment to their use. Having greater flexibility would make M&S tools accessible to a wider community of users.

Another recurring theme from the discussions was the need for the USSF to cultivate DE skills in its workforce. Effective use of M&S requires a workforce that can operate proficiently in a DE environment. The service also needs such a workforce to provide greater M&S capacity.

According to USSF stakeholders, the most-important solutions to the current M&S gaps involve sharing information and data across organizations, having modeling tools that are flexible, and having effective technical infrastructure and documentation practices.

Other organizations that use M&S effectively—including other U.S. Department of Defense services, other government entities, and leaders in industry — can offer an array of best practices and lessons. Those practices include maintaining a workforce that is skilled and trained in the use of M&S techniques, fostering a culture that is conducive to collaboration and cooperation, implementing DE early in the life of a program, using digital twins deliberately for specific applications, and embracing the use of artificial intelligence in some M&S activities while ensuring that human decisionmakers maintain control over system designs.

Moving Toward a More Effective Use of M&S

The researchers note that there are already some efforts underway in the USSF to enhance the use of M&S. For example, the Space Warfighting and Analysis Center (SWAC) has developed a systems modeling language (SysML) style guide to promote the use of a common syntax in the creation of M&S tools. On a different front, the Space Systems Integration Office (SSIO) is working with SWAC and the Space Training and Readiness Command to develop standard contract language that will require contractors to provide "sim-ready deliverables." Acknowledging the importance of these individual measures, the researchers suggest ways they could be coordinated and scaled across the USSF enterprise. In addition, they note that the Department of the Air Force (DAF) Chief Modeling and Simulation Office (CMSO) has been leading an effort to determine M&S shortcomings in the DAF and has identified similar gaps to those listed in this work. The CMSO has also initiated improvements to address these gaps.

In addition, the report presents specific steps that the USSF can take to make its use of M&S more effective:

Cultivate a workforce that is skilled in M&S techniques and trained to work proficiently in a DE environment. The USSF should identify the minimum levels of DE skills that it wants its personnel to possess and should provide the training to meet those desired levels. In conjunction with this, it should ensure that personnel are conversant in the basic concepts of M&S and aware of M&S uses and limitations.

Prioritize building the capacity of the workforce to meet M&S needs. The USSF should identify the specific M&S skills that it requires to perform its mission and assess the current capacity of its workforce to meet those needs. Once those parameters are established, the USSF should prioritize staffing accordingly, through a combination of training and recruitment. This should be done in coordination with the CMSO workforce cross-functional team.

Actively promote a culture of mutual support for M&S efforts. Organizations in the USSF should be encouraged to define their M&S and data needs. Those needs can then be shared and compared across the enterprise to identify areas of commonality.

Develop a concept of operations that describes the coordinated execution of an M&S approach. Such an approach would entail defining standards and systematizing practices across the service. This includes the development of a model-based systems engineering (MBSE) style guide and a standard lexicon of core terms and concepts, such as model and fidelity. This effort should be in coordination with the CMSO standards cross-functional team to ensure that common standards are applied across the DAF.

Institute a common environment in which M&S practitioners and analysts across the USSF can share models, simulations, and data. Where applicable, the USSF should promote the use of standard or common models across the organization. The DAF M&S Gateway is expected to provide this capability.

Mandate that new programs contractually require models to be designed so that they can be integrated and shared across user communities. This involves requiring contractors to provide simulators along with physical weapon systems. It would also require them to furnish a SysML (or other MBSE) model that enables further representations of the weapon system in a variety of programming environments.

Empower a single focal organization to implement a plan for the effective use of M&S across organizations involved in the life cycles of space systems. The researchers preliminarily identify the SSIO as a good candidate for this, based on its previous work to improve the use of M&S across the USSF.

Cultivate a DE-oriented culture across the enterprise to support the USSF's transformation into a digital service. In the most basic sense, this entails identifying M&S collaboration and coordination as top priorities by senior leadership. It also involves developing the formal doctrine, policy, and mechanisms to execute the improvements outlined here. As with all organizational change management, it will be important to set concrete measures of performance and track the USSF's progress toward its goal of digital transformation.

Among these recommendations, two interrelated ideas merit particular emphasis. One is the importance of facilitating collaboration between the members of the M&S community; the other is the necessity of having an organization that is responsible for implementing and coordinating the changes described here. The researchers identified USSF/SSIO as the logical choice to do this, although they note that this responsibility could be reassessed once ongoing USSF organizational changes have been finalized.

Although the study was geared specifically toward the use of M&S in relation to the space system life cycle, its implications can be extended to M&S practices throughout the USSF. In facilitating and coordinating the use of M&S across component organizations, the recommendations provide the basis for adopting enterprise-wide solutions to the gaps and challenges highlighted by USSF stakeholders. The analysis thus offers a road map by which the USSF's use of M&S can serve to support its transformation into a digital service.

Note

• [1] USSF, U.S. Space Force Vision for a Digital Service, May 2021.

Available for Download

Download PDF

Topics

• Data Analysis
• Military Technology
• Modeling and Simulation
• Space Science and Technology
• United States Space Force
• Workforce Management