I__. - International Military Testing Association

-Conflict Intenelty: choice of the degree of conflict intensity.
-Highest NBC Threat Level (High Intensity Only): description of the
amount of nuclear, biological, and chem:cal clothing worn.
-Attrition: the amount of critical personnel and equipment
damaged/wounded and destroyed/killed per month.
-Logistics: the amount of critical supplies required to perform the
mission which actually reach the combat area
-Environment
-- Area and Size: the size or area of operations.
-- Sub-Terrain: choice of three areas of man-made environments.
-- Terrain: choice of terrain combined with season presents a
detailed climatic description.
-- Season: choice of four seasons
-Mission Duration: the length of time the scenario will last.
-Command And Control: presents choices for particular commands or joint
operation.
-Low Intensity Conflict Only
-- LIC Situations: eight of the most common types of situations.
-- Operational Category: describes the general intent of the
military operation undertaken to el‘tt;er combat or facilitate
the LIC zitcation.
-- Threat Type: type of threat US forces are expected to face
during the LIC situation.
-- Threat Support: the type of popu!ar support the threat will
receive.
Table 2. VARIABLE CATEGORIES
The final scenarios produced by the program are short and simple as was
specified by experts in scenario design. The user has options to print the
scenario or send it to a computer disk file. If copied to a disk the scenario
can then be modified using any word processor program that reads ASCII.
The Contingency Scenario Generator User’s Manual (Dart & Guthals, 1990)
provides additional information on the variables and the use of the program.
VALIDATIOR
Evaluation involved conducting what was termed a ‘reality check’. To
perform the reality check, the program was taken to several wartime planning
offices.
The HQ ATC Technical Training (HQ ATC/TTIR?) division, HQ AFMEA. and the
School of Aerospace Medicine, Battlefield Readiness (USAFSAM/EDO) office, Brooks
AFB, were asked to review the program and provide input into its improvement.
In addition to the above mentioned sources for scenario evaluation, other
sources were contacted concerning specific aspects of the generator. ,Msa t
notable was the value for attrition given in the scenario. The Air Force
Wartime Manpower, Personnel and Readiness Team !AFW!ZRTl at Fort Riche, ,MD
provided valuable information in this regard.
The evaluation of the scenario generator by war planning experts led to
several recommendations for further development. Those that were easy and
straight-forward to implement in the time available were incorporated into the
Scenario generator. Unfortunately, to implel;ent several recommendations wculd
160