Simulation for training has long been a central part of U.S. aviation. Pilots were first trained on the famous Link Trainer starting in 1934, when the Army Air Corps bought six Link Trainers to assist in training pilots to fly at night and in bad weather relying only on instruments. The World War II era brought orders for thousands of Link Trainers from the United States and many foreign countries. Although Army Air Forces aviation cadets flew various trainer aircraft, virtually all took blind-flying instruction in a Link Trainer.1
Today, commercial airline pilots are trained and certified by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for flight operations almost exclusively on simulators. Advances in computer technologies, particularly virtual reality used for gaming, have provided new opportunities for using simulation to approach reality. Simulation techniques known as live, virtual, and constructive (LVC) have been under study by Air Force researchers since the early 1990s. During a visit by the National Academies’ Air Force Studies Board (AFSB) in 2011 to Scott Air Force Base, General Ray Johns, then commander of the U.S. Air Force’s Air Mobility Command (AMC), suggested, as one of several study topics, a look at migrating additional aircrew training to simulators in a resource-constrained environment. Later actions by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Science, Technology, and Engineering and the AFSB led to National Research Council approval of terms of reference (TOR) for this workshop and subsequent appointment of the members of the Committee on Opportunities for the Employment of Simulation in U.S. Air Force Training Environments: A Workshop (see Box 1-1).2
The workshop opened with introductions of the large number of participants and guests, several dozen in all. The committee co-chairs thanked the many attendees and noted that this workshop represented both a challenge and an opportunity to assist the Air Force in moving forward with simulation capabilities that could benefit the service in all aspects of its mission. They also established that the greatest benefit of a workshop like this would be the dialog, discourse, and discussions resulting from the numerous presentations over the next 3 days. During and after the meetings, almost all attendees expressed gratitude to the co-chairs, committee members, and the National Academies for enabling this workshop (e.g., “Thank you. This far exceeded expectations. Good to continue this collaboration.” [Maj Gen Post, during day 3]).
The committee’s process was to look at what is being done now in the Air Force based on current Air Force requirements, to look at what is being done elsewhere, and to compare these, as well as use discussion and committee expertise to identify the areas that can offer further benefit, including items beyond flight crew training. With a few exceptions, the speakers were asked to organize their talks to present what they are doing now, identify the limitations of what they are doing now, identify what they
_________________
1 U.S. Air Force, “Link Trainer,” Fact Sheet, Posted July 29, 2009, http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=3371.
2 Appendix A provides short biographies of the committee members. The committee reflects extensive expertise in computer science, modeling and simulation, gaming, military operations, and human behavior in stressful environments.
BOX 1-1
Terms of Reference
An ad hoc committee will plan and convene one 3-day public 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 #2-4, 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. The committee will develop the agenda for the workshop, select and invite speakers and discussants and moderate the discussions. The workshop will use a mix of individual presentations, panels, breakout discussions, and question-and-answer sessions to develop an understanding of the relevant issues. Key stakeholders would be identified and invited to participate. One committee-authored workshop report will be prepared in accordance with institutional guidelines.
would like to be able to do, and offer their thoughts on how they can achieve this, particularly in use of technology. The speakers were also asked to frame their presentations in light of needs for simulation expressed by the Air Force using commands.3 The committee considered all Air Force aircraft types, but fighter aircraft and their missions had the most demanding training requirements and became the main focus of the workshop.
After user needs (requirements) and Air Force supporting activities are addressed in Chapter 1, the remainder of this report is organized around the four numbered items in the TOR, namely, examining how simulation is currently used outside the Air Force (Chapter 2) and how the Air Force might benefit from alternative uses and technologies, especially LVC (Chapter 3). A discussion of (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, as specified in the TOR, is found in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 as part of the participant dialog. Finally, 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. Listed next to each theme are 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 the report are not necessarily those of all workshop participants, the committee, or the National Research Council.
During the course of the workshop, three Air Force major commands (MAJCOMs)—AMC, Air Combat Command (ACC), and Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC)—presented their needs with respect to LVC training. AMC trains, organizes, and equips the Mobility Air Forces (MAF); ACC does the same for the Combat Air Forces (CAF); and AFSOC’s responsibilities for its forces are similar. The abstracts for the MAJCOM presentations are reprinted in Boxes 1-2, 1-3, and 1-4. The leaders of the commands and their staffs, committee members, and many guests spent much time over the 3 days
_________________
3 Appendix B provides a list of workshop speakers and the topics that were addressed during the 3-day workshop.
BOX 1-2
Air Mobility Command
Lt Gen Brooks Bash, Vice Commander
Air Mobility Command is the lead command for rapid global mobility (RGM) and is responsible for guiding the Mobility Air Forces (MAF) community in concept development and force structure. The MAF optimizes the active duty, Air Reserve Component, and Civil Reserve Air Fleet to achieve a cohesive system for RGM effects. RGM, through three core mission areas—Airlift, Air Refueling, and Aeromedical Evacuation, is the key to maintaining global presence and a timely response capability that is the backbone of expeditionary operations, such as supporting strike operations with air refueling or moving forces from the continental United States directly to points of effect.
Maintaining the proficiency of our aircrew is essential to the successful accomplishment of RGM, but sequestration and budget cuts have put flight training time at risk. AMC is looking for more efficient ways to effectively train our crews and align training requirements with the appropriate device. Beginning in 1992, the command began an extensive upgrade of its simulators. All AMC pilot simulators are now the equivalent of FAA Level C (or better), allowing the use of flight simulators for many training events that were previously performed in the aircraft. Currently, an average of 61 percent of MAF pilot flight training requirements is accomplished in a simulated environment. The training is good, but we can make it better.
AMC is upgrading visual systems, improving fidelity, and networking simulators through Distributed Mission Operations (DMO) to capitalize on the efficiencies of live, virtual, constructive (LVC) training. Through DMO, AMC will be able to connect non-collocated receivers, tankers, and Boom Operators to conduct virtual air refueling. By putting a human in the loop, the suspension of disbelief is greatly enhanced; crewmembers are held accountable to entities outside of the box and must work together for successful mission accomplishment. DMO is used by the MAF for daily, persistent training and AMC is looking to expand that capability.
There are several mission sets where simulation is not optimal and aircraft training flights remain essential. Tactical events, such as assault landings, airdrop, and air refueling are not yet fully replicated. Also, as we have already migrated over 60% of our training to simulation, any further migration gives us concern for our ability to gain experience in the mission management aspects of our global mission such as enroute support, aircrew management, Air Traffic Control, C2, and ground support interaction that are crucial for the development of our aircraft commanders. (See second attachment.) Flight training for Loadmasters, Boom Operators, and Aeromedical Evacuation Crewmembers also represent an opportunity as their flight training devices are not as mature as the pilot simulation devices. Indeed, heretofore Loadmasters and Boom Operators gained training as an outcome of required pilot/AC in aircraft flight training, but as we have decreased pilot flight time these crew positions require increased simulator capacity and fidelity to achieve requisite training.
AMC is keenly interested in garnering an expanded awareness of cutting-edge simulation in the aviation industry; ready to capitalize on synergies that will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of aircrew training system.
discussing these needs, their policy and technical implications, and how they could be satisfied. Understanding these needs fully was essential to progress toward identifying how a range of alternative uses of simulation and a variety of simulation technologies could benefit the Air Force.
SPEAKER COMMENTS RELATED TO AIR FORCE NEEDS FOR LIVE, VIRTUAL, CONSTRUCTIVE TRAINING
LVC is an opportunity for the MAF; but a necessity for the CAF.
—Lt Gen Brooks Bash, AMC
Although Lt Gen Bash’s focus was more on efficiencies, which could be gained by moving additional flying hours to simulators, he did recognize that some LVC simulation for training could be very helpful to prepare those MAF elements needed for actual combat, such as refueling and some airlift
BOX 1-3
Air Combat Command
Maj Gen James Post III, Vice Commander
Air Combat Command is the primary force provider to America’s warfighting commands to support global implementation of national security strategy. ACC operates fighter, bomber, reconnaissance, battle-management and electronic-combat aircraft. It also provides command, control, communications and intelligence systems, and conducts global information operations. In order to adequately prepare warfighters for future operations across the Air, Space, and Cyber domains, the Combat Air Force (CAF) needs the capability to train and test in a highly realistic and contested environment. This environment can best be replicated using a combination of LVC assets. Advancements in digital technology are enabling the Air Force and Joint communities to integrate the LVC environment into a holistic and realistic training environment where future generations of warriors can be trained. Current training in the Virtual-Constructive (VC) environment is well advanced, but the CAF has a great deal of work to do to integrate VC entities into the live training environment.
Training Advantages of Combat Air Forces (CAF) LVC Capability
Live training will remain a critical and irreplaceable part of CAF training to ensure the entire “system” (aircrew, aircraft, maintainers, supply chain, support functions) is prepared for war. Aircraft must be flown against live targets, surged regularly and subsequently “broken,” to validate what works and what doesn’t work. CAF aircrew needs to train in real-world conditions/limitations. Examples include: wingtip vapor trails that give away a stealth aircraft’s position, altitude block and training rule limitations, high-G environments, inoperative radars or radar warning receivers, and real-world radio communication interference/confusion.
Future VC training will be a critical enhancement to Live training. Once integrated into the live environment, VC will enable a robust, complex, and more cost-efficient threat environment than could ever be replicated by live assets alone. High-end adversary threat capabilities will be replicated in a secure VC environment that is then integrated with live adversary threats. Live and virtual aircraft will engage Live, Virtual and Constructive threats over a secured training network without divulging their full combat capabilities. Live blue air will be integrated with VC support assets (service, Joint or Coalition) to practice synchronized operations that are difficult to replicate in the live environment alone. CAF assets will virtually practice OPLAN missions against constructive Integrated Air Defense Systems that accurately replicate realistic Enemy Orders of Battle. The result is training in a realistic domain where simulated versus live training is only a matter of physical location of the cockpit, and the stimuli of the physical environment.
LVC Operational Needs/Requirements
The CAF LVC environment will exist to provide “expert level” training to operational warfighters and provide an integrated readiness training environment in which warfighters solve dynamic mission execution problems. Today, CAF VC utilizes Distributed Mission Operations (DMO) to connect multiple simulators at varying locations throughout the world for daily team training scenarios—from unit-level package-sized tactics, to large scale exercises among Service, Joint and Coalition warfighters. Tomorrow, the CAF must inextricably link the “VC” to the “L.”
In addition to high fidelity concurrent simulators, the CAF requires access to suitable training ranges, airspaces, and training assets for realistic aircrew training. Because the military’s training requirements reflect changing technologies, capabilities, and global threat estimates, the AF must continuously review its training requirements and fund for required changes that keep pace with warfighter requirements.
missions. Lt Gen Bash was also interested in ways to help him know where to best spend the next dollar on training. Maj Gen James Post III, ACC, was emphatic about the need for linking VC to L, which is necessary to prepare CAF for the high-end fight. “The CAF wants to evolve to a high fidelity training
BOX 1-4
Air Force Special Operations Command
Col Steven Breeze, Chief, Operations Training
Air Force Special Operations is the air component for United States Special Operations Command and the second largest of the five components behind United States Army Special Operations Command. AFSOC is organized into 3 Wings, the 1ST, 24th, and 27th Special Operations Wings. We also have 2 Direct Reporting Groups, the 352nd and 353rd, the Air Force Special Operations Air Warfare Center, one Reserve Command Wing…the 919th SOW, and a single gained Air National Guard Wing with the 193rd SOW. In many cases our Air Commandos and weapon systems are not assigned to just a single mission set. We frequently execute missions that span across multiple core mission areas, almost always in conjunction with our Army, Navy or Marine special operations partners. Those mission sets range from specialized air mobility to precision strike to ISR.
This past summer, the new AFSOC Commander refocused and reviewed the Commands priorities and highlighted the need to improve our training. Out of those extensive reviews, the Command deemed the importance of transforming our training to optimize human performance. Multiple lines of effort were developed to improve our training and refocus standards on excellence. To reach those standards, our goal is to leverage the synthetic environment and state-of-the-art training methods. While all of our simulators are now the equivalent of FAA Level C or better, we do not have simulators collocated with each operational squadron. We are “late to need” programming simulators for our next generation aircraft. While our training systems are not broken, we need to take advantage of the synthetic environment to eliminate the obsolescence of our training systems.
As part of our training transformation, we have systematically reviewed all currency requirements in all of our MWS’s refocusing continuation training to include the simulator. We determined multiple events can be better trained or more safely trained in the simulator. Through this process, we hope to free up aircraft time to increase the amount of joint training we can conduct with our partners and provide more combat power downrange. While we have not reduced the flying hour program, we are setting conditions to absorb a future decline.
Due to our diverse mission sets and the importance we place on crew resource management, there are several areas where simulation is not optimal. While we have not reached the max amount of simulator events capable of being logged in the simulator, we are quickly reaching the limit due to several factors. (1) While the visual systems in our simulators are excellent, they are showing their age (8-10 years) and therefore we cannot replicate the full tactical environment. (2) AFSOC rapidly upgrades aircraft; simulator programs and funding are frequently left behind (late or unfunded). (3) Most of our MWS’s heavily incorporate the “crew concept”; however the simulators and fuselage trainers or back-ends are not linked. (4) The aero models in some of our simulators rely on engineering data and not flight data limiting flight fidelity. (5) Complex databases include six or more layers (imagery, elevation, material, features, light, 3-D models, and radar) and are extremely time consuming and expensive to build manually.
AFSOC is still in the infancy stage taking advantage of Distributive Mission Operations (DMO). Currently, each crewmember participates in one DMO event per semi-annual period. Challenges remain leveraging the capabilities of networked simulation efforts. We have a lack of manpower and simulator capacity to ensure every crew in AFSOC is capable of training in the DMO environment. Also, our threats are not validated or centrally monitored to ensure fidelity. Finally, there is no standardized Multi-layer Security Solution to enable training with 5th generation fighter aircraft.
environment through integration of dynamic L, V, and C.”4 Maj Gen Post was adamant about not cutting live flying hours: “VC is outpacing L … but L is a necessity for the CAF. We need to focus on the ‘dash’ between L-VC so we can connect the VC to L.” Col Nathan Hill, Chief of ACC Flight Operations, then added several comments. Col Hill stated that realistic training is a requirement for the CAF to ensure that
_________________
4 The level of simulation fidelity required for training tasks is a topic that recurred during the workshop. The discussion would often refer to the need to understand the level of simulation fidelity required for training effectiveness. The value in doing this was to avoid the cost and technical risk associated with developing a greater level of fidelity than necessary for training effectiveness for a particular mission. The importance of ensuring correct “muscle memory” for controlling the vehicle through training in addition to higher-level decision making was also emphasized during discussions.
the Air Force is prepared for all contingencies across the range of military operations. In addition, Col Hill believed that the desired end state for CAF is full LVC: putting virtual and constructive into live aircraft. He further noted that CAF needs to determine the right balance of live fly and simulation (the equation will likely be changed every 1-3 years) and needs to resolve security concerns as we put more and more onto various networks (an ongoing concern). Finally, Col Hill stated that CAF also needs technology advances to ensure full LVC (e.g., What waveform will live aircraft use? and How will the VC be put into each type of aircraft?). Many participants pointed out that AFSOC’s requirements fell between AMC and ACC with respect to LVC.5
COMMITTEE COMMENTS RELATED TO AIR FORCE NEEDS FOR LIVE, VIRTUAL, CONSTRUCTIVE TRAINING
Robert Allardice, former vice commander of AMC, noted that complexity and advances in warfare have moved to the point where legacy training platforms are inadequate in producing operationally ready aircrew. Therefore, according to Mr. Allardice, the Air Force must undertake LVC training methods to integrate 5th-generation aircraft [red and blue] into its “simulation” training portfolio because the current construct is inadequate. “Operationalize” LVC and have acquisition programs address that. Recent advances in technology allow for investments in distributed training with a very favorable return on investment (due to cost avoidance). Mr. Allardice submitted that this is the efficiency side of the argument that seems to be the focus of AMC. Advances in simulation must have the following common attributes: concurrent, dynamic, realistic, and degraded operations.
John Corley, former ACC commander and former Air Force vice chief of staff, noted that the Air Force needs both a more effective and efficient approach for the training environment. He went on to say that ACC’s demands tend more toward the effectiveness imperative while AMC sees the greatest benefit (while not exclusively) in efficiency, especially given the severity of fiscal constraint. Mr. Corley offered that both commands can benefit from the development of a realistic training domain where simulated versus live training is only a matter of physical location of the entity and the stimuli of the physical environment; an approach that potentially yields this realistic domain is through a properly constructed LVC capability. Finally, he noted that development of the above can include a process to demand compliance with requirements and funds for required changes that will keep pace with warfighter requirements.
Steve Detro, a business development lead for Lockheed Martin Mission Systems and Training, noted that, since 1986, MAF, and AMC specifically, has operated under the policy of using FAA Level C and FAA Level D equivalent flight simulators to train for 100 percent of transport aircrew certification. He went on to say that this policy has generated tremendous savings and continues to do so due to the fidelity of the aircrew produced. Mr. Detro believes that some elements of aircrew experience development have been identified as needing additional focus of training (e.g., airmanship, judgment development, and overall seasoning of aircrew) and would benefit from a higher level of virtual environment fidelity in simulation. LVC could provide more efficiencies and cost savings for high-risk mission training tasks. Finally, Mr. Detro noted that LVC could provide higher-level skill development, such as “edge of the envelope” training for missions like air refueling, air assault, airdrop, etc. Pertaining to CAF, and ACC specifically, Mr. Detro stated that since the development of Distributed Mission Operations (DMO) networked simulators in the early 1990s, ACC has fielded and is using simulation to do team training between disparate air platforms in progressively more complex operational environments—for example, training for multi-ship tactical, joint service operations, coalition exercises,
_________________
5 There were several comments from participants on the importance of LVC in training/mission rehearsal for integrated Strike packages. It was mentioned that individual components of a package could be trained on simulators, but combined packages were trained using actual aircraft, which is expensive and risky. Effective use of LVC to train combined packages for ACC is critical.
and large force exercise work-up (i.e., Virtual Flag and Red Flag). He noted that ACC has moved to using high-fidelity simulation for a larger percentage of its training versus live fly, but does so under the philosophy of using the simulation sortie to complement the quality of the live fly sortie. The ratio of simulation to live fly is different for each aircraft type, due in part to the different levels of fidelity of each simulator. The newest fighter flight simulation technologies are enabling the F-35 pilot training center to move more than 50 percent of flight training sorties out of aircraft live fly into the virtual reality flight simulator. Other fighter training programs are also being enabled, through simulation fidelity improvements, to move a portion of their training sorties to virtual simulation as the fidelity of each aircraft simulator permits. Mr. Detro observed that LVC is an imperative for both 4th- and 5th-generation fighter operations, a must-have to complement current levels of live flight operations. DMO, the predecessor technology to LVC, currently supports approximately 25 percent of the high-end training and tactics training in the Air Force. Mr. Detro believes that sustained funding is required to fully realize the benefits.
AFSOC, Mr. Detro noted, uses distributed (networked) simulation for a very large percentage of its crew training due to high dependence on total crew proficiency in high-tasking mission scenarios; there is 100 percent linking of simulators across AFSOC. Further, Mr. Detro observed, AFSOC requires all crews to use simulation for 30-40 percent of all training. AFSOC, as he noted, has the near-term goal of fielding flight simulators at all operating bases to be utilized for continuation training and continued mastery of high-fidelity aircraft equipment (e.g., night-vision goggles, electronic warfare, and terrain following radar, weapons, sensors, communications, and navigation systems).
Ray Johns, former AMC commander, noted that the strategic environment has changed—we are not at war, so there is no choice but to put red missions in some kind of virtual environment. Harry Robinson, SimLEARN National Program Manager at the Veterans Health Administration, offered that the demands of 5th-generation aircraft do not afford a full spectrum of training for aircrew in a live simulation domain. Mr. Robinson went on to say that use of simulation is critical to ensuring that warfighters are ready on day 1 of combat operations; there are little resources, time, or tolerance to support learning during battle. Mr. Robinson added that there are significant differences between training for currency (based on periodicity) and proficiency (based on competency); just because a pilot drops a bomb once every 3 months, it does not mean that pilot can hit the target. Determining the amount of funding for training based on periodicity is a much easier problem to solve than proficiency. Mr. Robinson submitted that some training is accomplished during actual mission performance (e.g., combat missions, search and rescue, command and control). This training addresses both competency and currency.
Michael Zyda, director of the Game Pike Laboratory at the University of Southern California, believes that the Air Force cannot turn on the secret equipment in training without giving away the secrets. He noted that network security causes training problems, mostly because multiple networks are connected, and he said that the intranets are fine with respect to security. He also indicated that National Security Agency (NSA)-certified multilevel security is needed. Mr. Zyda noted that there are hard-coded requirements in the contracts; consequently, emerging behaviors are not modeled. How to make the environment more dynamic is an issue, in his opinion. Reliability is so high in planes today that they only see systems failures in the simulators. Mr. Zyda submitted that there appear to be assumptions that there will always be a “man-in-the-loop”; he believes the future is clearly autonomous systems. Finally, Mr. Zyda offered that AFSOC wants synthetic environments and state-of-the-art training devices; AFSOC has special mission equipment that must be in the simulator. For continuation training, the desire is to do all of it in the simulator. He noted that AFSOC would also like higher-end events in the simulator, but they are not there yet. The dialog about user needs led to the first key theme of the workshop.
Theme 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 LVC training, Air Force Special Operations Command’s requirements are between Air Combat Command and Air Mobility Command (Ray Johns, John Corley).
Further exposition of user needs was offered by Steve Detro:
• For AMC: (1) additional simulation technologies to expand the number and realism of real world experiences for aircrew (i.e., air traffic control congestive environments, mission management, crew resource management, crew fatigue); (2) training technologies that accommodate the different learning styles of today’s pilots; (3) methods to objectively measure aircrew competency (note: mission essential competencies and pilot evaluation techniques that were developed at the Warfighter Readiness Research Division of the 711 Human Performance Wing, Human Effectiveness Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory [711 HPW/RHA] by Dr. Wink Bennett); (4) use of the “science of learning” to optimize the training delivery methods and more efficiently utilize the full range of fidelity levels provided by a family of simulators; and (5) affordability.
• For ACC: (1) a more efficient way to develop, integrate, and deliver a persistent, cost-effective, LVC network across multilevel security simulators; (2) concurrent simulators that more accurately replicate the most current aircraft capabilities; (3) higher-fidelity simulators that accurately replicate aircraft systems, engines, avionics, aerodynamics, weapons systems, sensors, environments, threats, and communication systems; (4) flexibility in the simulation that enables the accurate modeling of combat conditions, to accurately simulate the unpredictable nature of operations in the environment of contested and degraded operations; (5) more efficient process for cross-domain network security; and (6) validated threat systems that are physics-based and exhibit intelligent behaviors.
• For AFSOC: (1) accurate validation of the optimal ratio and training balance of simulation “virtual” training versus aircraft-based “live” training; (2) upgrade of AFSOC’s legacy simulators to fix limitations (i.e., fidelity of visual environments for night-vison goggles at low-level operations, aero models, concurrency, faster scenario development, and physics-based electronic warfare models); (3) simulation of ramp operations to reduce the number of vehicle-aircraft collisions; and (4) better implementation of the ability to generate simulation scenarios that present situations or events that surprise aircrew during simulation evaluations.
Relatedly, John Corley offered that chasing physical fidelity may be a fool’s errand. “Sufficient fidelity” could be delivered through “perception of reality.” In turn, Mr. Corley submitted, we could achieve desired and measurable behavior. Steve Detro suggested that the Air Force continue to analyze potential benefits of virtual reality and gather measurable data to substantiate that the higher the fidelity, the higher the benefit. Finally, Harry Robinson noted that realistic simulation and credible simulation are not interchangeable terms. Realistic simulation is the measurement of fidelity and resolution. Credible simulation is the measure of trust in the simulation for providing an immersive training environment that supports the suspension of disbelief.
AIR FORCE PROGRAMS TO SUPPORT USER NEEDS
Representatives from Air Force Headquarters described broad, top-level guidance regarding simulation that reaches all major commands and nearly all core functions of the Air Force (see the abstract in Box 1-5). Below is a relevant extract from one piece of this guidance. Figure 1-1 depicts a notional end-state for LVC-Operational Training (LVC-OT).
This LVC-OT Flight Plan highlights the areas and item that need particular attention to advance the LVC-OT program and realize its full potential. The specified enabling processes address a governance structure, processes, and infrastructure—all essential to furthering LVC-OT
BOX 1-5
Headquarters Air Force and Air Force Agency for Modeling and Simulation
Brig Gen Eric Overturf, Mobilization Assistant to the Director of Operations, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Plans and Requirements
The Air Force Agency for Modeling and Simulation (AFAMS) through the Headquarters Air Force A3 is the lead agent for centralized management of Air Force cross-functional and shared live, virtual, and constructive (LVC) foundational capabilities and resources supporting Air Force Service Core Functions. The AFAMS mission is to provide seamless integration of cross-functional LVC environments for operational training that allow warfighters to maximize performance and decision making. AFAMS serves as the HAF lead for Air Force LVC foundations and integration with the Department of Defense, Service Components, other government agencies, international partners, academia, and industry. This mission provides the necessary development and implementation of standards for common access and interoperability within the LVC domain for efficient and secure global operations (AFMD56 14 JANUARY 2014).
This summer, the Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force unveiled the Air Force’s 30-year strategic vision and introduced the concept of “strategic agility” and stated, “One of the more promising paths to agility in operational training and readiness is in the area of Live-Virtual-Constructive training.” The Air Force is in a period of training transition due to available emerging and advanced technologies, fiscal constraints, and inability to train to the actual capabilities of our latest weapons systems highlighting the need to transition from the historical focus on live training to achieve warfighter readiness. There will be challenges at the forefront of this transition, but these challenges are not insurmountable. These challenges do merit closer collaboration with our sister services and our industry partners. Air Force (and national) readiness increasingly depends on the ability to harness and manage complex training systems and systems of systems. To summarize, “Readiness through LVC” is based on Strategic Guidance, OPLANs, and CCDR requirements/demands, utilizing the capability and capacity of manpower and resources on a timeline that is balanced by “fight tonight versus modernize for tomorrow.”
The programs encompassed within and touched by the LVC capability are numerous; they reside in every MAJCOM and nearly all 13 Air Force Core Functions. This is an important point because the MAJCOMs remain the key force providers who organize, train, and equip; Headquarters Air Force provides the overarching and broad strategic guidance ensuring standards and standards development are a foundation to the future of LVC. Headquarters Air Force A3 wears two hats in the planning/programming world: (1) as the lead and direct input source for LVC Foundational requirements and (2) as the programming advocate for operational training to help shepherd and support the MAJCOMs/CFLs issues through the Air Force Corporate Structure. Headquarters Air Force conducts support/advocacy/engagement in accordance with the SECAF/CSAF LVC Flight Plan signed in February 2013 and are working to codify this process in enduring and binding documents such as AFPD 16-10 Modeling and Simulation, AFI 11-202V1 Aircrew Training, 11-2MDS-V1 MDS Training, AFI 36-2251 Management of Air Force Training Systems, and AF Mission Directive 56 Air Force Agency for Modeling and Simulation, to name just a few. Our top priorities are to (1) support and advocate on behalf of the force and codify LVC standards and (2) provide support and Authorizing Official duties for Cybersecurity and Authority to Operate/Connect for LVC-related training systems.
The Air Staff under HAF/A3, Gen Field, developed these four enduring lines of effort to capture the LVC strategic focus: (1) LVC Foundations—develop policy and guidance that enable effective, efficient, training, test, and analyses in a secure LVC domain; (2) Aircrew Training Devices (Sims)—develop Air Force strategy and policies that align with COCOM requirements and Joint policy that provide affordable ATDs with timely concurrency, sufficient fidelity, and appropriate connectivity; (3) Distributed Training—develop the appropriate Air Force strategy and policies to enable effective, secure, distributed training in Air Force and Joint synthetic training environments; and (4) Full LVC—develop an Air Force strategy that aligns with Joint programs to integrate live aircraft, space, and cyber systems with virtual battle spaces.
Ultimately, the goal is a fully integrated operational training continuum, where “live” aircraft on a range fully integrate with “virtual” participants in simulators and “constructive” entities representing Red/Blue Air, Threats, Ground Forces, and Targets, all supported through readiness/distributed training centers and range control complexes for full spectrum combat ops training.
_________________
NOTE: The Air Force provided the following document to the workshop participants to illustrate current initiatives related to LVC training: “Bullet Background Paper on Air Force Live, Virtual, Constructive Vision and Strategy,” Col Crites/AFAFMS/CC/970-5701/srfs/18 Nov 2014; Air Force LVC-OT Standards Profile.
FIGURE 1-1 Notional end state for live, virtual, constructive-operational training (LVC-OT). NOTE: The “nirvana” end state for Air Force simulation is where all Air Force weapon platforms are linked together to enable realistic, distributed mission operations in a live, virtual, constructive environment. SOURCE: Brig Gen Eric Overturf, Mobilization Assistant to the Director of Operations, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Plans and Requirements, Headquarters U.S. Air Force. SAF/PA Approved for Public Release 2014-0569.
capabilities. Four key focus areas (LVC foundations, weapon system simulators, distributed training, and full LVC) are introduced and will lend permanency and stability to current LVC activity. Air Force-level requirements and investment strategies are also established to ensure operational and technical priorities are addressed, funded, sustained, and are in-line with operator readiness requirements. Finally, the LVC-OT Flight Plan identifies roles and responsibilities at all levels within the Air Force and provides a time horizon for specified actions.6
Several committee members reacted to the issues of attention to LVC at top levels of the Air Force and broad Air Force application of simulation technologies. First, John Corley noted that consensus must be reached on the current vision (modified at appropriate frequency) for LVC and that there must be an advocate, with both responsibility and authority, to deliver vision, strategy, and strategic plan for LVC. Mr. Corley submitted that Air Force communities (i.e., MAJCOMs) have arrived at the limits of live training. Further, he believes that separate and distinct virtual (simulation) or constructive approaches, when applied in an additive fashion, will not meet the knowledge transfer threshold today, much less the future. The appropriate integration of L, V, and C can achieve the full spectrum of needed training while also benefiting those requiring training across the full range of military operations. Mr. Corley offered that simulations growth through a prudent, commonly accepted LVC approach can provide increased learning benefit for the full complement of mission capabilities and developmental activities.
On a related topic, Ray Johns, committee co-chair, stated, “The Air Force needs an overall LVC strategy. The Air Force needs to state the LVC requirements, which will drive an acquisition strategy, which will drive a program.” Committee member Richard Reynolds, former vice commander Air Force Materiel Command, noted that establishing a durable understanding of LVC’s relative worth compared to
_________________
6 U.S. Air Force, United States Air Force Live Virtual Constructive Operational Training Flight Plan, February 22, Washington, D.C.: Headquarters U.S. Air Force, 2013.
other components of readiness is necessary. LVC is ultimately going to have to compete against other Air Force programs and priorities. Of course, he offered, work will be needed to define “durable” and “relative worth,” and, when done, one result will be discarding things that are not necessary. Strategic communications (aka “marketing”) will be important. In the eyes of Harry Robinson, committee member, there would appear to be many more applications for employment of simulation in Air Force training environments than has been addressed. With major emphasis on ACC, AMC, and AFSOC, Mr. Robinson thinks there would be value in opening the aperture for a bigger simulation umbrella to include Air Education and Training Command, Air Force Global Strike Command, Information Dominance, Air Force Space Command, and Air Force Research Laboratory. Mr. Robinson believes there is also a need to have simulation solutions that are driven to support inter-service training events. Committee member Michael Zyda offered that, clearly, the Air Force could use a chief architect and standards for its LVC systems. That is one of the biggest messages. The dialog about top-level guidance led to a second key theme of the workshop.
Theme 2. Establishing stated requirements for live, virtual, and constructive training as well as implementing a live, virtual, constructive training strategy 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 live, virtual, and constructive training’s relative worth compared to other components of readiness (Ray Johns, Donald Fraser).
Speakers from the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center and the Air Force Research Laboratory described various research and development, acquisition, and sustainment efforts under way to satisfy the top-level guidance and meet the user needs (Boxes 1-6 and 1-7). This part of the workshop delved into more technical detail. Illustrative comments from committee members appear below; some of these comments feed back to the needs addressed earlier, while others are precursors to more broad-based comments, which arose later in connection with discussions of a different approach for implementing a simulation architecture.
Committee member Robert Allardice noted that the Air Force simulation roadmap appears to be very immature (standards, disciplined investment, adaptability, distribution architecture, etc.) and that there seems to be a role for a “simulation” integrator across all platforms. Committee member John-Paul Clarke, associate professor in the Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology, submitted that the flexibility and fidelity that is desired by the Air Force stakeholders will require a modular simulation framework where all possible (or at least a large number of) combinations of L, V, and C elements can be put together so that individual units can schedule and control the conduct of complex or high-end training. He believes that such a framework will be expensive; thus, the development plans must include a transition plan that is dynamic and can respond to variances in funding to ensure that new capabilities are provided at the end of any fiscal year. Dr. Clarke believes time synchronization will be a challenge and that predictive cueing is an obvious approach to mitigating the effects of latency. Another possible approach, according to Dr. Clarke, could be to mix event-based and time-based simulation such that event messages are sent in parallel to real-time data exchange to ensure that specific things that must happen at a certain time actually do occur at that time. Also, for agent-based simulation, Dr. Clarke believes that one needs to know which agents are involved, how much they are involved, and, especially for VC into L, who is the training target.
Committee member Pamela Drew, executive vice president and president of Information Systems, Exelis, Inc., provided that LVC technology has advanced over the past 15 years or so in industry and laboratories, and solutions to some of the Air Force gaps do exist (e.g., the need for virtual reality in heads-up displays). However, she noted, there are major gaps in terms of operational needs of the Air Force to apply LVC to their mission set in a practical way. These gaps include ways to address safety, security (particularly in external DMO networks and coalition efforts), and standards for weapon system interface modifications to achieve interoperability and integration. (Note: this can be referred to as “Operational LVC.”) Ray Johns submitted that the Air Force has a need for mission-oriented investments
BOX 1-6
Air Force Life Cycle Management Center Simulators Division
Col Daniel Marticello, Chief
The Simulators Division is the U.S. Air Force’s primary agent for the acquisition, sustainment, and modification of aircraft training systems, including flight simulators, maintenance training devices, simulator interoperability solutions, and related services. The division is a component of the Air Force Program Executive Office Agile Combat Support Directorate, located within the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Air Force Materiel Command, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio.
The Simulators Division consists of over 400 acquisition professionals representing the program management, engineering, contracting, finance, and logistics management fields working together to provide solutions to a variety of ACC, AMC, AETC, AFSOC, AFGSC, and foreign military training requirements. We are responsible for over 40 aircrew and maintenance training system programs, executing a more than $1 billion annual budget for systems and services at over 100 locations worldwide. In addition to aircraft simulators and training devices, the division manages the Air Combat and Air Mobility Distributed Mission Operations programs, providing the Air Force’s only live, virtual, and constructive (LVC) operational training capability.
The leadership of the Simulators Division is focused on seizing opportunities for innovation within the sphere of training, cost-capability trades, and the state of the simulator industry. A large modification to an existing weapon system or the procurement of a new one to perform an existing mission presents an opportunity to scrub how training is provided. Simulator technology has moved significantly forward over the past decade in the areas of fidelity and networking. Training system methodologies have also matured, especially within the private sector, allowing more training objectives to be “off-loaded” and “downloaded” to simulators and accomplished at a lower cost.
The way forward to ensure that we capture these advances in capability and the promise of lower cost is to first conduct a Training System Requirements Analysis (TSRA). This study effort looks to capture all of the required learning objectives, throughput and availability expectations, and technology available. This information can then be used to support industry proposals on how best to deliver the training and what simulator devices are proposed. This approach allows industry to bring innovative solutions to the table in a best-value, trade-off type of competition. Subsequent CLS/TSSC and modifications are delivered via a separately competed contract vehicle following an initial period of interim contractor support provided under the production contract. TSRAs are also essential in understanding where best to apply the power of the LVC construct. An informed view of what objectives require interaction between the L, V, and C aspects of training will allow the Air Force to best apply limited resources.
Balanced cost-capability trade-offs are essential in this time of shrinking budgets. The Simulators Division is committed to utilizing data from existing contracts to close the feedback loop. Capability provided should match the level of capability needed. Reductions in capability should also be considered if a large savings can be obtained without a negative effect on mission accomplishment.
The simulator industry is experiencing a change in environment. Small Business Set-Asides, LPTA source selections for sustainment, and data rights are all areas that have unintended consequences. It is wise to understand the macro-level implications of decisions made at the individual program level.
to support LVC to prioritize where to put the next dollar (see Figure 1-2). The most challenging mission and biggest gap, according to Mr. Johns, is the mission set of training for the peer/near-peer adversary against 5th-generation systems; this is the integrated capability for which the Air Force must have LVC at a level that does not exist today. Without it, in the opinion of Dr. Drew, it is very likely that the Air Force is not going to be adequately trained for all threats. The MAF mission can benefit from such an LVC capability in terms of mission support, but will also reap higher dividends in efficiency (i.e., savings). In addition, Dr. Drew noted that the MAF (by repurposing the efficiency savings) could train for higher-end capability. The core architecture for such LVC exists, she believes, and it needs to be assessed for scale, robustness, and extensibility, among other things, as well as for what is needed to implement the Operational LVC to support the 5th-generation scenario. Lastly, Dr. Drew believes if that can be solved, the rest of the missions will be a subset of the solution.
BOX 1-7
Air Force Research Laboratory
Winston Bennett, Division Technical Advisor for Training and Assessment Research, 711 Human Performance Wing
The Warfighter Readiness Research Division of the 711 Human Performance Wing, Human Effectiveness Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory (711 HPW/RHA), is the Air Force’s premier research and development organization for education and training. The division pioneered the development of Distributed Mission Operations in Collaboration with Air Combat Command. The division has also led the development of methods and tools to persistently gather and track mission performance and proficiency data for the development of more targeted approaches to training. The division and its operational, industry, and academic partners continue advancing the state of the art in learning, performance, and modeling theory and practice. The division also continues to pioneer and advance distributed mission training and live, virtual, and constructive training methods and capabilities and our research continues to drive the Air Force’s vision and investment for the future of operational readiness training.
Recent Highlights and Advances
The division is growing our involvement in the Human Systems Community of Interest, promoting stronger collaborations with industry and our international collaborators. Further, the division is creating and transitioning proof of concept developments in learning management and performance measurement technologies, game-based applications for maintenance training, unmanned aircraft operations, low-cost 5th-generation tactical training, and agent development for autonomous operations, man-machine teaming, and increasing the realism and credibility of live, virtual, and constructive training environments. Our groundbreaking research in cognitive models and agents continues to define and push the science and practice state-of-the-art with successes like the synthetic teammate validation work, the growing collaboration with the American Heart Association and the Defense Health community, and prototypic agent-enhanced sensing for autonomous operations. The team is making great progress in integrating agents into operational training simulations to both improve the credibility of the environments for training and also to increase their efficiency by reducing the need for human “white force” support through the use of model-based agents and avatars. Finally, we completed our first distributed live, virtual, and constructive Close Air Support training trial with the U.S. Army, and we also completed our first and very successful demonstrations of medical operations training research technologies for critical care air transport teams, emergency responders, and pararescue personnel.
Looking to the Future
Of course, we are also mindful of the need to continue to look to the future and to ensure that the developments we make today are meeting the operational demand signals we have and are foundational to continued advancements down the road. Our current work has a strong emphasis on helping the Air Force realize its vision for realistic and secure live, virtual, and constructive training, but it is also a pointer to our future directions for personalized, performance-based learning and readiness assessment. In the future, our education and training systems must be agile and responsive to create the resilient Air Force workforce for the future fight that is more responsive, realistic, and pervasive than we know our adversaries will be.
In the eyes of Harry Robinson, current and planned capabilities can meet Air Force needs. The big challenge is drawing lines to define acceptable capability levels at a given point of time that will be acceptable to meet Air Force training requirements. Otherwise, Mr. Robinson notes, it becomes a “death spiral” development. By definition, Mr. Robinson noted, all models are wrong or incomplete; however, some models are useful. He believes it is unreasonable to recreate the actual world in a virtual environment; the challenge is met by acquisition of sufficient simulation to meet the requirement, not more. Mr. Robinson thinks that simulation-based training can and should be focused on specific flight regimes. Analysis of mission conduct, he said, should include disaggregation of specific tasks—from
FIGURE 1-2 Notional simulation assessment methodology. SOURCE: Ray Johns.
mission brief to man-up, launch, conduct, land, and debrief. In addition to end-to-end training, Mr. Robinson said, task-trainers and games present unique opportunities to maximize training resulting in proficiency improvements. Finally, he noted that cyber and security demands require attention in modeling and simulation for the training domain; these cannot be effectively backward-engineered into the solution.
