Scenario orchestration
Version mission geometry, roles, constraints, seeds, and environmental assumptions as one reviewable definition.
Simulation and trade studies
RAV SwarmSim
A proposed environment for repeatable scenario orchestration, communications stress, candidate comparison, replay, and experiment provenance.
Research question
Which autonomy approach remains explainable and useful as mission, network, and node conditions change? RAV SwarmSim is framed as an experiment environment, not an aircraft or fielded control system. It keeps scenario definitions, candidate interfaces, run configuration, observations, and replay material together so a team can review why one approach should—or should not—advance.
Decision frame
- Use when — Compare candidate approaches before selecting a platform-integration path.
- Begin with — One approved mission question, compatible candidate interfaces, and shared measures.
- Target decision output — Target outcome: a replayable comparison package with configuration, observations, and unresolved risk.
- Required reviewers — Program technical reviewers, candidate owners, and the organization authorized to accept the comparison frame.
Public concept status
Internal research concept. No government sponsor, award, contract, measured result, or operational deployment is represented.
RAV is Raven Development Operations' internal working label, not a government program name, sponsor designation, fielded system, or readiness claim.
Public, unclassified overview only. Do not submit classified information, CUI, export-controlled data, source-selection information, or proprietary interface details through this website.
- Current public state — Public experiment-frame concept with a local illustrative condition explorer
- Would require before a partner effort — Program-approved scenario, candidate interface, measures, and evidence reviewers
- Content updated — 2026-07-31
Advance a candidate, not a presentation.
Would support software-first feasibility analysis before a program commits to aircraft, radios, sensors, or other platform-specific integrations.
- Advance when — The scenario, candidate interface, measures, and run record are stable enough for independent review and repetition.
- Hold or revise when — Assumptions are still moving, candidates require different test conditions, or the evidence cannot explain a difference.
Hold the question steady while the conditions change.
The proposed SwarmSim frame would keep scenario inputs, candidate adapters, stress conditions, and observations separate so reviewers can see what actually caused a difference. Proposed scope: these responsibilities describe an intended research frame, not completed features, measured performance, or an operational capability.
Candidate comparison
Exercise multiple compatible approaches against the same conditions without changing the evaluation frame.
Network and node stress
Introduce bounded latency, loss, partitions, and node availability changes to expose brittle behavior.
Replay and provenance
Keep configuration, observations, measure definitions, and unresolved risks attached to each run set.
Stress one candidate without changing the review question.
Choose a starting preset, then adjust the bounded local controls to inspect a qualitative review posture. The panel is a planning aid; it does not execute a model or report performance.
Nominal baseline
Starts with shared mission updates available and every participating node present; the local controls may override that preset. Illustrative target posture: Shared state is available across the scenario. All five illustrative roles remain present; reviewers compare repeatability and divergence. Decision question: Does the candidate produce repeatable behavior under the agreed baseline assumptions? Reviewers inspect: Task allocation changes; Path and timing divergence; Separation or constraint events. Planned evidence: Proposed versioned scenario manifest, run configuration, observation table, and synchronized replay.
Degraded mesh
Starts with bounded communications delay and a constrained node; the local controls may override that preset. Illustrative target posture: Coordination updates are delayed or intermittent. Local behavior stays visible while the relay and shared-state assumptions are under review. Decision question: Which behaviors remain useful when coordination information is delayed or unavailable? Reviewers inspect: Local decision continuity; Coordination recovery; Assumption-sensitive failure modes. Planned evidence: Proposed communications profile, event trace, comparison notes, and an explicit unresolved-risk log.
Node loss
Starts with one participating node unavailable at a controlled event; the local controls may override that preset. Illustrative target posture: One participating role becomes unavailable. Reviewers inspect reassignment, bounded fallback behavior, and the evidence around the loss event. Decision question: How does the candidate redistribute work and surface limits after a loss event? Reviewers inspect: Role reassignment; Mission progress after loss; Safe stop or fallback behavior. Planned evidence: Proposed failure-injection record, before-and-after task state, replay markers, and reviewer conclusions.
Make every comparison reproducible after the review.
The useful deliverable is a versioned experiment record that preserves configuration, observation context, outliers, and unresolved risk.
Frame the experiment
Agree on the mission question, candidate interface, assumptions, measures, and stop conditions. Planned review artifact: Proposed scenario and acceptance-question brief
Plan repeatable runs
Define controlled run sets with pinned configuration and a proposed provenance record. Planned review artifact: Proposed versioned experiment set
Compare honestly
Review differences, outliers, and failure modes without collapsing them into an unsupported score. Planned review artifact: Proposed comparison and risk record
Package the evidence
Carry forward the scenario, traces, replay, observations, and open questions. Planned review artifact: Proposed reviewable evidence package
Proposed scenario manifest
Illustrative only · verification is not claimed.
Proposed format · synthetic values · no run executed
This synthetic manifest demonstrates a proposed way to pin study inputs and review targets before any candidate run is authorized.
Illustrative structure only. Every identifier, condition, and artifact below is synthetic or proposed; no model ran and no performance result is represented.
- Manifest — Synthetic identifier SYN-SWARM-001
- Decision question — Proposed comparison of two synthetic candidate adapters under one bounded communications-change plan
- Configuration — Proposed synthetic seed set SYN-11 / SYN-22 / SYN-33
- Synthetic baseline — Proposed condition: Proposed shared-state availability; Synthetic change: Synthetic no-change reference; Proposed review artifact: Proposed manifest and configuration record
- Synthetic delay case — Proposed condition: Proposed bounded coordination delay; Synthetic change: Synthetic marked network event; Proposed review artifact: Proposed event trace and reviewer notes
- Synthetic node-loss case — Proposed condition: Proposed controlled node unavailability; Synthetic change: Synthetic task-state checkpoint; Proposed review artifact: Proposed before-and-after state record
- Synthetic planning artifact only. It proposes evidence structure and does not establish repeatability, candidate quality, mission effectiveness, or readiness.
Separate what exists today from what a program would need next.
This register distinguishes public concept material from evidence that depends on an approved partner effort.
Public experiment-frame brief
Represented on this page. Research question, proposed scope, transition boundary, interfaces, and teaming responsibilities. What it establishes: The intended evaluation frame—not a completed simulator or performance result.
Illustrative condition explorer
Local concept UI. Three synthetic conditions that change the review question, topology posture, and planned evidence. What it establishes: How a reviewer could navigate a study—not executed autonomy or measured behavior.
Program experiment record
Partner-gated. Would require approved scenarios, candidate adapters, measures, run authority, and controlled observations. What it establishes: Nothing on this public page; no program evidence package is represented as available.
Keep candidate code portable and the comparison frame stable.
The candidate enters through an agreed adapter. Scenario inputs and review outputs remain versioned around it so an evaluation can be repeated or challenged.
- Input requiring approval — Approved mission assumptions
- Input requiring approval — Candidate autonomy interface
- Input requiring approval — Communications and node model
- Planned review output — Proposed replayable traces
- Planned review output — Proposed comparison tables
- Planned review output — Proposed configuration and provenance record
Frame: Version the scenario
Pin mission geometry, roles, constraints, seeds, and communications assumptions.
Adapt: Connect a candidate
Use an agreed software interface without changing the surrounding evaluation frame.
Exercise: Apply controlled stress
Vary network and node conditions while preserving the decision question.
Review: Replay the evidence
Retain traces, observations, configuration, and open risks for comparison.
What the experiment does not establish.
- No live aircraft, target, sensor, or effector is connected on this public page.
- Illustrative evaluation modes are not performance results or government acceptance criteria.
- A program-specific model and measure set must be approved before conclusions are drawn.
Use SwarmSim when the next decision is what to test or advance.
A bounded effort starts with one mission question, compatible candidate interfaces, controlled conditions, and named reviewers for the evidence package. Would support software-first feasibility analysis before a program commits to aircraft, radios, sensors, or other platform-specific integrations. Proposed RavDevOps scope: Scenario structure, compatible candidate-adapter pattern, local review interface, and a proposed evidence-package format. Partner supplies: Mission question, approved candidate interfaces, evaluation assumptions, measures, data-handling rules, and test authority. Closeout decision: A documented decision to stop, revise, or advance one candidate with open risk carried forward.
- Program teams defining a software-first feasibility study
- Primes or OEMs comparing autonomy candidates before platform commitment
- Research and test organizations building repeatable evaluation evidence