CONTEXT FOR THE WORKSHOP
Simulators currently provide an alternative to aircraft when it comes to training requirements, both for the military and for commercial airlines. For the U.S. Air Force, in particular, simulation for training offers a cost-effective way, and in many instances a safer way in comparison with live flying, to replicate real-world missions. Current technical issues related to simulation for training include simulation fidelity and multi-level security, among others, which will need to be addressed in order for the Air Force to take full advantage of this technology.
In this context, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Science, Technology, and Engineering requested that the Air Force Studies Board of the National Academies’ National Research Council (NRC) undertake a 3-day workshop to (1) examine how simulation is currently used in military services, private industry, and other government agencies, such as the Federal Aviation Administration and NASA; (2) compare alternative uses to current Air Force practices to identify areas where the Air Force can benefit by adopting such practices; (3) examine how current and future technologies will allow the Air Force to gain even more benefit from simulation; and (4) examine how the combination of live training, virtual training in simulators, and constructive/computer generated entities can improve aircrew training. Regarding topics 2 through 4, the areas where the Air Force can benefit will be grouped into two categories: (1) areas that enhance and/or augment the learning process and (2) areas that may be used as a substitute for some training requirements with operational systems.
A committee of experts was appointed by the NRC in October 2014. The workshop was held on November 17-19, 2014, in Dayton, Ohio. Speakers were asked to respond to the following questions:
1. What are you doing now with simulation?
2. What are your current limitations?
3. What would you like to be able to do?
4. What technologies, approaches, and techniques do you think have promise to help make your desires in #3 possible?
The scope of the workshop focused on technologies and practices that could be applicable to high-end aircraft simulations. Thus, representatives of the U.S. Navy were invited to present on the uses of simulation for training by the Naval Aviation Enterprise, while the representatives of the U.S. Army, which is a fairly sophisticated user of simulation, were not present.
RECURRING THEMES ARISING DURING THE WORKSHOP
During the course of the 3-day workshop, common messages, or themes, appeared as a result of various presentations and resulting dialog among the participants. These themes are listed below along with the names of the participants who identified the common message. Details underlying each theme are found in the body of the report. The report summarizes the views expressed by individual workshop
participants. While the committee is responsible for the overall quality and accuracy of the report as a record of what transpired at the workshop, the views contained in this section and in the rest of the report are not necessarily those of all workshop participants, the committee, or the National Research Council.
1. For current and future warfighters to be operationally ready on a continuous basis, realistic training in a simulated environment is critical. For Air Combat Command, in particular, training in the live (L) construct linked to Virtual Constructive (VC) is imperative for mission success. For Air Mobility Command training, VC is critical, but its requirements are somewhat fewer with regard to linking to the L environment. With respect to live, virtual, and constructive training (LVC), Air Force Special Operations Command’s requirements are between Air Combat Command and Air Mobility Command (Ray Johns, John Corley) (see Chapter 1).1
2. Establishing stated requirements for live, virtual, and constructive training as well as implementing a LVC training strategy, capability, and governance model could greatly benefit the Air Force across its full range of missions. This undertaking will likely mean establishing a durable understanding of LVC training’s relative worth compared to other components of readiness (Ray Johns, Donald Fraser) (see Chapter 1).
3. Currently, LVC training efforts are evolving in a largely ad hoc, stovepiped, and somewhat inefficient fashion. This situation suggests Air Force consideration of a different architectural approach that would be world-centric—open, pluggable, and playable—rather than platform- and contractor-proprietary-centric. This world-centric construct would contain common elements and live data, such as weather, terrain, threats, with an array of specific simulation platforms around the periphery drawing information from the common databases as opposed to utilizing their own proprietary database (Pamela Drew, Harry Robinson) (see Chapter 3).
4. There are indications that some elements of the Air Force simulation architecture currently have these world-centric enterprise characteristics, so continued pursuit of an enterprise-level solution to LVC training could be very beneficial (Pamela Drew, Harry Robinson) (see Chapter 3).
5. Advances in technology and increasingly complex user needs have led to LVC training as the primary way to train for some missions (Robert Allardice) (see Chapter 3).
6. Substantial benefits could accrue to the Air Force if it relied on open systems and acquired data rights as the model when procuring new systems. Enforcing compliance to more interoperable, related standards could lead to a “plug and play” environment (Pamela Drew, Michael Zyda) (see Chapter 3).
7. Research into the “science of learning” is indicating that young people, who have considerable computer skills compared to previous generations, learn in very different ways compared to older generations. Future architectures and systems would benefit by taking this knowledge into account (adaptive learning) (Donald Fraser, Steve Detro) (see Chapter 3).
_________________
1Simulation is a method for implementing a model over time. Live simulations are simulations involving real people operating real systems. Virtual simulations are simulation involving real people operating simulated systems or in simulated environments. Constructive simulations are simulations that involve simulated people operating simulated systems. (Real people may simulate the simulation by inputs, but they are not involved in determining the outcome) (see Old Dominion University, Modeling & Simulation Course MSIM 695-JAN 2003, Introduction to Combat Modeling and Simulation, Norfolk, Va.).
