Military Training International

Military training, modeling and simulation solutions with a global perspective

General David G. PerkinsCommanding GeneralU.S. Army Training and

Doctrine Command

Q&A With

3D Modeling & SimulationPAGE 14

Convoy TrainingPAGE 17

Live, Virtual ConstructivePAGE 22

Embedded Training OptionsPAGE 25

M&S Big DataPAGE 28

INSIDE THIS

ISSUE...

International Vector:Major General

J.M. LanthierCommander, Canadian

Army Doctrine and Training Centre

March 2016 • Volume 21 • Issue 1

N A T I O N A L T R A I N I N G A N D S I M U L A T I O N A S S O C I A T I O N

2 6 – 2 8 A P R I L 2 0 1 6 } V I R G I N I A B E A C H C O N V E N T I O N C E N T E R • W W W. M O D S I M W O R L D . O R G

2016MODSIM WORLD

EMPOWERING USER COMMUNITIES WITH MODELING AND SIMULATION

ModSim2016DHPAd.indd 1 2/17/16 1:35 PM

FEATURES

17

14

22

20

25

DIMENSION TIMES THREE3D virtual reality training continues to become more realistic in order to meet military expectations. Two of the key components in 3D modeling simulations are the simulator and the content library.By Patrick E. Clarke

TRAINING CONVOY SKILLSWarfighters working convoys must be trained in a variety of skill sets and trained at several levels. The first is the individual soldier, driving, firing or using other convoy tools. The next level is training crews of vehicles, especially force protection vehicles, to work together. Then the convoy as a whole must be trained to work together with common tactics. By Henry Canaday

TOP COMPANIES AWARD WINNERSMilitary Training International had the chance to recognize the Ribbon Winners for its 2015 Top Companies Awards at IITSEC.

NEW WAVE LVCSince modern warfare brings a coordinated range of assets, including people and weapons systems, to the battlespace, the live, virtual, constructive (LVC) paradigm was developed to meet those aims effectively, from the perspective of both training objectives and costs. The integration of robust virtual and constructive training environments into the live part of a training exercise is important to developing and maintaining combat readiness more cost-effectively.By Peter Buxbaum

CLOSER TO THE SOURCESEmbedded capabilities bring training to the operator level for training on demand. Embedded into the operators platform, training can be conducted when and where needed without requiring the trainee to go anywhere or have any other systems specific to the training.By Henry Canaday

Military TrainingInternational

PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS

PEOPLE

RESOURCE CENTER

TEAM ORLANDO

26

2728

10

Table of ContentsDEPARTMENTS

INTERNATIONAL VECTOR

Cover/Q&A withGeneral David G. Perkins

Commanding GeneralU.S. Army Training and

Doctrine Command

MARCH 2016 • VOLUME 21 ISSUE 1

Major General J.M. LanthierCommander, Canadian Army Doctrine and Training Centre

Should your company be part of

Military TrainingInternational’sTOP COMPANIES list?

Contact me to learn [email protected]

...Be

Rec

ogni

zed.

..

Small-Armed Training Simulators and Crew-Served Weapon Simulators

U.S. Army Contracting command has issued a special notice seeking responses to find any available vendors capable of supplying small-armed training simulators and crew-served weapon simulators that include scenarios and training methodologies that are capable of training service-members to the Category III qualification level without development time and costs. If potential vendors can develop these systems, respondents need to include their development time and estimated costs.

The current system is the Conflict Kinetics TORA simulator system, potential vendors would need to be capable of being compatible with the existing system.

The following list includes the specific critical skills that Modified Category III, Category III, and Category IV shooters must demonstrate.

• Application of accuracy and time• Varied shooting positions (stable and unstable)• Rapid acquisition of a target that is not in the initial field of view• Use of cover and concealment (barricades)• Shooting multiple targets• Speed/tactical reloading of weapon• Use of secondary weapon• Weapons transition (primary to secondary)• Weapons malfunctions (immediate/remedial)• Varied target distances (multiple sight alignment)• Shooting while moving• Adverse shooting angles• Use of night-aiming devices• Use of night vision devices

Enhancements for Terrain Database Generation Software

TerraSim Inc. has announced the release of TerraTools 5.1, the latest version of its flagship terrain database generation software which contains over 300 new features, improvements, and bug fixes.

TerraTools 5.1 features a variety of improvements and optimizations for VBS3 and VBS IG terrain generation including enhanced multi-map support, built‐in automated terrain packing, and support for the latest runtime versions. Users can also now define starting positions and create map labels within the 2D map view.

TerraTools 5.1 includes enhancements to P3D model import, including better material support and automatic integration of existing proxy models. Performance and workflow improvements that were developed

during integration of VBS IG into the U.S. Army’s CCTT program are now available to TerraTools users and will provide better frame rates on larger terrains in both VBS3 and VBS IG. Users can now automatically prepare P3D models for improved thermal imaging appearance within the runtime.

The latest version also includes new automated trench placement technology that uses trench centerline data to rapidly and automati-cally place 3D trench models. A collection of trench component models representing both manmade and earthen trench types have been added to the TerraTools model library for placement. These trench models are fully functional in VBS3 and include destructible levels of detail. For added customization, users can import their own trench models into TerraTools for placement and export to VBS3.

TerraTools 5.1 is available free of charge to TerraTools customers currently under active maintenance and support contracts.

Predator Mission Aircrew Training System Simulators

L-3 Link Simulation and Training has been awarded a contract option from the U.S. Air Force to build 34 new Predator Mission Aircrew Training System (PMATS) simulators.

“The U.S. Air Force’s and U.S. Air National Guard’s requirements for MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper pilots and sensor operators continue to grow, and the skills needed to complete an expanding set of missions are increasingly complex,” said Frank Casano, L-3 Link’s vice president of programs. “These training devices will provide an unparalleled level of realism and immerse both new and experienced crews in challenging training scenarios based on today’s mission requirements.”

The new PMATS simulators will be used to train Predator and Reaper pilot and sensor operator crews. PMATS training devices, in addition to associated equipment and systems, will be delivered to 15 installations between the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Air National Guard.

The L-3 Link-developed and -produced PMATS training solution has been supporting training for the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Air National Guard since initial devices were delivered in 2007. L-3 Link, under previously awarded contracts, has fielded or is continuing to build 33 PMATS devices. This new award for 34 additional PMATS simulators will result in L-3 fielding a combined total of 67 Predator and Reaper trainers to support the services’ crew training objectives.

Under this contract option, L-3 Link will integrate its simulation environment solution with ground control stations supplied by the U.S. Air Force. L-3 Link’s simulation solution combines a physics-based image generator, Synthetic Automated Forces generator, instructor station and other training system hardware and software.

Indoor Simulated Marksmanship Trainers System

Meggitt Training Systems recently has received a $7.19 million second delivery order to accompany the overall $32.7 million contract from the U.S. Marine Corps Systems Command Program Manager for Training Systems to develop and deliver the Indoor Simulated Marksmanship Trainers (ISMT) system for the Marines. The ISMT system provides realistic, state-of-the-art virtual small arms training for marksmanship, collective and judgmental scenarios.

“There are three areas for proper weapons training: marksman-ship, collective and judgmental,” said Larry Raines, vice president virtual

PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS

www.MTI-dhp.com2 | MTI 21.1

Real-time screen captures are from MetaVR’s visualization system rendering 3D virtual terrain of Kismayo, Somalia, and are unedited except as required for printing. The real-time renderings of the 3D virtual world are generated by MetaVR Virtual Reality Scene Generator™ (VRSG™). 3D models are from MetaVR’s 3D content libraries. © 2016 MetaVR, Inc. All rights reserved. MetaVR, Virtual Reality Scene Generator, VRSG, the phrase “Geospecific simulation with game quality graphics,” and the MetaVR logo are trademarks of MetaVR, Inc. www.metavr.com

Sensor operator trainees use our high-fideity detailed 3D models to learn to recognize combat vehicles within pattern-of-life scenarios.

These training systems rely on our extensive libraries of 3D real-time entity and culture models with accurate thermal signatures.

MetaVR’s real-time 3D physics-based sensor views that stream HD H.264 video with accurate UAV KLV metadata are used as embedded training elements in the U.S. Army’s Universal Ground Control Station.

When your mission is to train efficiently, use MetaVR visuals for real-time 3D visualization

systems, Meggitt Training Systems. “Collective is used with teams in a combined environment. Judgmental hones a trainee’s response within their rules of engagement. Marksmanship develops the fundamentals of proper weapon training, including correct stance, butt pressure, cant, sighting and more. Utilizing simulation in these three training arenas mini-mizes range time and ammunition costs; allows for immediate, corrective action in a controlled setting; and provides realistic training with real duty weapons, regardless of weather, time of day or environmental conditions. This second delivery order, coupled with the initial ISMT contract, will result in better trained warfighters.”

The latest award includes virtual simulation systems and Meggitt’s patented BlueFire wireless weapons. The systems included in the order will be delivered to domestic and international locales, as well as aboard naval vessels.

“The ISMT program allows us to take advantage of new technology,” said Kathleen Wilson, ISMT program manager. “Our graphic artists and subject matter experts visited numerous USMC ranges, taking photos for use in future ISMT virtual scenarios. Meggitt’s small arms trainer was developed as an open architecture system, allowing third party plug-and-play aspects to work in conjunction with the ISMT system.”

UK Military Flight Training System Support

On February 2, Elbit Systems Ltd. announced that Affinity Flying Services Limited, its UK joint venture with Kellog, Brown and Root Limited (KBR), was awarded a fixed price contract for the support of Ascent Flight Training (Services) Limited, in the delivery of the UK Military Flight Training System (UKMFTS) program for the UK Ministry of Defence. Elbit Systems and KBR, each holding a 50 percent share in Affinity, will evenly support and benefit from the program.

The UKMFTS program is an innovative partnering agreement between UK front line commands, the UK MOD, Ascent and other leading industry partners to deliver aircrew training for the 21st century.

Revenue for Affinity associated with this program is estimated to be approximately $713 million over an 18 year period.

Bezhalel (Butzi) Machlis, president and CEO of Elbit Systems, said: “We are very proud to take part in such an important project for the UK MOD. This award attests to our position as a leading provider of systems and training infrastructure, as well as maintenance and logistics support services.” Machlis added: ”The United Kingdom is one of Elbit Systems’

primary markets. The award of the contract to deliver this key program for the UK’s armed forces is a significant recognition of our proven ability to adapt and deliver innovative global solutions to meet the specific needs of the UK market and customer.”

Strategic Airlift Capability to Train C-17 Crews

The Strategic Airlift Capability (SAC) program will soon train C-17 aircrews at Boeing’s C-17 International Training Centre (ITC) in the United Kingdom under a new $8 million contract.

SAC is comprised of 10 NATO countries and two NATO Partnership for Peace countries. The program will begin training its multinational aircrews early this year. Prior to this contract, the SAC program sent aircrews to the United States for training.

“Boeing met the customer need to have access to affordable, high-quality training for aircrews from smaller countries with limited resources,” said Larry Sisco, C-17 training program manager. “Having regional training is a big cost and time savings for the SAC Program.”

As part of the contract, the U.S. Air Force inspected and recognized Boeing’s C-17 training simulators at the ITC as being fully able to train C-17 aircrews. The ITC houses a weapons systems trainer, loadmaster station and an integrated maintenance procedure trainer.

“The U.S. Air Force gave us their stamp of approval,” Sisco said. “They were thrilled with our simulator capability and how concurrent the simula-tors are with the C-17 aircraft.”

On behalf of the SAC program, the NATO Airlift Management (NAM) Programme Office requested this capability to meet the requirements of nations who make up the multinational program.

Exercise Unified Resolve 1601

Close to 900 soldiers participated in Exercise Unified Resolve 1601 (Ex UR 16) in Edmonton, Canada, from February 8 to 12, 2016.

Ex UR 16 was a key step in the Canadian Army’s preparation for Exercise Maple Resolve 16 and the Road to High Readiness training program. Approximately half of the participating soldiers came from 1 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group, while the r emainder were made up of other Canadian Army units from around the country.

The Road to High Readiness is the Canadian Army’s flagship training regime that prepares soldiers for national or expeditionary deployments, as mandated by the government of Canada. The goal of the training is to

PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS


generate a competent, confident and integrated Army brigade that can provide scalable, mission-tailored and responsive forces for full spectrum operations.

Ex UR 16 provided a simulated environment making it possible to virtu-ally represent the movements and maneuvers of units and troops, without the participants actually deploying to a training area.

Image Generators for Joint Terminal Attack Controller Training Simulators

MetaVR has sold 24 Virtual Reality Scene Generator (VRSG) licenses for the installation of joint terminal attack controller (JTAC) training simula-tors at the Special Operations Terminal Attack Controller Course (SOTACC) facility at the U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground, Yuma, Ariz.

MetaVR’s business partner Battlespace Simulations (BSI) was recently awarded a contract by Special Operations Command, Hurlburt Field, Fla., to install two classrooms with desktop JTAC simulators featuring BSI and MetaVR software at the SOTACC facility. The new simulators replace the call for fire trainer (CFFT) simulators delivered several years ago by Fidelity Technologies. For this upgrade, which was installed and configured in December 2015, a purely commercial-off-the-shelf solution was selected over current government issued CFFT systems.

The contract calls for two classrooms, each of which consists of eight JTAC student stations, an instructor station, an instructor role-player station, and a NVIS Ranger 47 simulated laser range finder. MetaVR VRSG, geospecific terrain, and extensive 3D content libraries, along with BSI’s

Modern Air Combat Environment (MACE) software are the key components of the Windows desktop systems. Each station also includes a tablet running a ROVER feed of VRSG’s simulated sensor view and a communica-tions suite with BSI’s Viper DIS Radio software to simulate PRC-117, PRC-148 and PRC-152 radios. All new hardware, including two terrain servers loaded with MetaVR’s CONUS++, Asia and Africa terrain data sets round out the upgrade. The two classrooms share a DIS network, which will enable students to collaborate on exercise missions.

The new classroom simulation system is fully accredited by the Joint Fire Support Executive Steering Committee for types 1, 2 and 3 controls for both day and night, and for laser target designation with a simulated military laser device.

Expanding Maritime Simulation Capabilities

Transas recently announced a new strategic cooperation with XVR Simulation to expand their maritime training capabilities and to deploy common complex projects in the safety and security simulation market.

Transas and XVR Simulation have entered into a memorandum of understanding, which was officially signed at the Transas Simulation User Conference 2016, in Singapore.

Transas and XVR Simulation are currently exploring technical integra-tion for a range of specific training needs. One of the common solutions for the large customer base of Transas is an advanced fire fighting training solution. It is developed in accordance with the STCW requirements, as this type of training became compulsory for seafarers worldwide.

PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS

DEFENCE | TRAINING | SIMULATION | EDUCATION

The International Forum for the Military Simulation, Training and Education Community

www.itec.co.uk/facebookwww.itec.co.uk/linkedin@ITEC2016

For more information and to register for ITEC 2016, please visit: www.itec.co.uk or contact the team on +44 (0) 20 7384 7788 or +1 718 474 3817

Organised bySilver Sponsor

+7.8%+31.6%

+10.7%

+2.3%

Increase of military spending by 2020 (Source: IHS Jane’s Defence Budgets)

Platinum Sponsor

* Internal survey conducted in June 2015.

of exhibitors would recommend ITEC to their colleagues in the industry*

95%

ITEC attracts visitors from 55 countries, many of whom are INCREASING their military expenditure

J308003_ITEC03_MTI Advert_190.5x122.2_2016_v1.indd 1 18/02/2016 14:21www.MTI-dhp.com MTI 21.1 | 5

Emergency and crisis response training is a widely discussed topic in various maritime sectors. Now, thanks to the new cooperation and the companies’ combined strengths in simulation and training, customers will benefit from the advanced instructor application, impressive amount of emergency related objects, precise modeling and powerful gaming engine with good graphics.

Another opportunity provided by Transas together with XVR Simulation is damage control training on board ships inside a virtual environment that allows ship familiarization, emergency command and control scenarios.

Ralf Lehnert, vice president for the newly established Transas Academy commented that, “We are delighted to enter into this partnership, as we see great opportunities in the future of incident control manage-ment training solutions in the maritime domain.”

P-8A Training Systems

Boeing has been awarded a $178.1 million modification to a previously awarded fixed-price-incentive-firm contract for the update and modification

of P-8A multi-mission maritime aircraft training systems, including 16 operational flight trainers; 13 weapons tactics trainers and four part task trainers, as well as a training systems support center and electronic class-rooms located at the Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Fla.; Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Wash.; Dallas, Texas; and St. Louis, Mo.

Major General John C. Thomson III, commandant of cadets, U.S. Military Academy, West Point, N.Y., has been assigned as the commanding general, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas.

Brigadier General Paul Bontrager has been assigned as the deputy commanding general,

10th Mountain Division, Light, and acting senior commander for Fort Drum, Fort Drum, N.Y. He most recently served as commander, Train Advise Assist Command-South, Resolute Support Mission, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Operation Freedom’s Sentinel, Afghanistan.

Brigadier General Diana M. Holland, deputy commanding general, support, 10th Mountain Division, Light, Fort Drum, N.Y., has been assigned as the commandant of cadets, U.S. Military Academy, West Point, N.Y.

Colonel Matthew C. Isler, who has been selected for the

grade of brigadier general, commander, 12th Flying Training Wing, Air Education and Training Command, Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph, Texas, has been assigned as the deputy commanding general-air, Combined Joint Forces Land Component Command-Iraq; director, Joint Air Component Coordination Element-Iraq to Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve; and vice commander, 9th Air Expeditionary Task Force-Levant, Southwest Asia.

Royal Air Force Group Captain W. Rothery has been appointed to be Group Captain Recruiting & Selection, UK Royal Air Force College Cranwell in July 2016 in succession to Group Captain P.R. Sanger-Davies.

Royal Air Force Group Captain C.W. Todd has been appointed to be commandant UK Defence School of Personnel Administration, Worthy Down in October 2016 in succession to Group Captain A.V.R. Bettridge OBE.

Brigadier General Douglas M. Gabram, deputy chief of staff, G-3/5/7, Army Training and Doctrine Command, Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Va., has been assigned as the commanding general, Army Aviation and Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, Ala.

Air Force Brigadier General Robert D. LaBrutta has been nominated for appointment to the rank of major general. LaBrutta is currently serving as commander, 502nd Air Base Wing and Joint Base San Antonio, Air Education and Training Command, Joint Base San Antonio-Fort Sam Houston, Texas.

PEOPLE

PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS


General David G. Perkins commands the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, responsible for selecting and recruiting every U.S. Army soldier, training and educating Army professionals, and designing the future U.S. Army.

His numerous senior leadership positions include Special Assistant to the Speaker of the House, 104th U.S. Congress; battalion commander during Operation Able Sentry; brigade commander during the invasion of Iraq; executive assistant to the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and division commander during the transition of U.S. forces from Iraq in 2010-2011.

Perkins commanded the U.S. Army’s premier education and leader development institution at Fort Leavenworth, responsible for managing training development and support, developing U.S. Army doctrine, and synchronizing leader development.

A native of New Hampshire, he graduated from the U.S. Military Academy, holds a Masters degree in Mechanical Engineering as well as a Masters degree in National Security and Strategic Studies.

Q: In late 2014, the Army released The U.S. Army Operating Concept, a document entitled “Win in a Complex World.” What has the docu-ment meant since its release?

A: The title alone seems to resonate with people. The word complex seems to jump out at everyone and in fact it’s a word being commonly used to describe the world we live in today.

From events in Ukraine, the Pacific and what’s been going on in the time since its release, most people could not have predicted the added level of complexity. There are so many facets to our relationships, so many players involved, so many potential courses of action that complex is the absolute right descriptive word for today’s environment. When we use the word ‘complex’ to describe the world in the operating concept we are saying that the environment will be unknown, unpredictable, and constantly changing. We are not simply saying that the world will be complicated—the world has always been complicated.

Q: So how do you operationalize the concept and where does training fit in the equation?

A: There are a couple lines of effort that we take in identifying the areas of concern. We started just by thinking about the world, who the players are, what the variables are and just what is the range of possibilities.

We have to think about all of those facets and describe in our mind what the future will look like and then develop the concepts that will influence how we learn.

We have established the Army’s Campaign of Learning with things like Unified Quest to help identify the outcomes of our warfighting assess-ments. We have spent a lot of time talking to our international partners—those in the Pacific, Korea, Ukraine, the Middle East and elsewhere to better understand how the complexities manifest themselves in those areas.

We have to approach issues differently. We have to better under-stand how we can apply team solutions. We also have to better under-stand what we need to do to build better leaders focused on complex world solutions and then how to integrate those leaders into teams which can thrive in a complex and ever changing world.

Q: How receptive have you found those international partners when approached about collaborating?

A: I can tell you that everywhere we’ve gone we have been received with open arms and I think there are a number of reasons for this.

For one, they realize the capacity of the U.S. Army to learn and pro-duce results. To be quite honest, our reputation for being willing to learn and getting things done precedes us.

Secondly, they really do view that we are there to help. The Ukrainian Army, just as an example, really has a sense that when the U.S. Army is there it is to help. We’re there to empower them and not for any other purpose.

Our partners also realize that in this complex world, no one person, military or country has all of the answers and that we have to work together as a team or the enemy will out-innovate us. The only way to increase our ability to innovate is to increase our collaboration.

Gen. David G. PerkinsCommander

Training & Doctrine CommandU.S. Army

Q&A

www.MTI-dhp.com MTI 21.1 | 7

Q: You’ve talked about preparing for the challenges of uncertainty. How do you go about addressing those challenges?

A: You have to start with some vision of what the environment is that people are going to be operating in so that you can replicate it. Once you have that understanding, you can put people in those environments and create training opportunities. This is one of those areas where live, virtual, constructive training was created as it helps us replicate a deci-sive action training environment (DATE) and create them in a full range of military operations from counterinsurgency operations to a high-end operation with a peer competitor.

DATE give us a common framework to work from and even better is that now many of our coalition partners are looking at using DATE. In fact, the Canadian chief of staff has signed a memorandum of agreement to begin using DATE as their primary training environment.

This common framework of challenges, which now can extend to our partners, helps us move into the training environment necessary to figure out how to replicate that environment that’s being described. Under-standing the challenge is the first step. Developing a training response that prepares warfighters for that challenge in an environment that can be replicated is the goal.

TRADOC also has its Operational Environment Training Support Center (OE TSC) which collects data and information from real-world incidents from around the globe and puts them into a large, growing database. When creating a training scenario, we can now draw on incidents and data collected from these events and build a more realistic training environment.

When we want to train in a decisive action training environment, we can now go to the OE TSC, download some of these scenarios and train to them, keeping in mind that we have the real outcomes to measure against as a baseline.

We don’t have to make up what-if possibilities. We can train and re-train to these known, calculated events.

Q: What kind of budget stresses are affecting Army training?

A: Everyone in the Army is under resource constraints and pressures and we are always looking to make sure we get the best bang for the buck.

There are two things in particular that we are doing. The first is to make sure that we are good stewards of the resources we are given and that we spend the money wisely. The second is to make sure that we are in a position to replicate the complex environments that we expect to be fighting in.

The way we are training is helping out in both of those areas. By using live, virtual and constructive (LVC) training technologies it helps us reduce the cost of putting soldiers and equipment in the field, and it helps us be better prepared when we do.

Putting tens of thousands of boots in the dirt on training exercises virtually and constructively is certainly much cheaper than doing it with live soldiers.

By using LVC I can also run numerous iterations of a mission. If it doesn’t go as planned, I can quickly reset the scenario and run it again the same as before or with variations and without the friction that com-ers from having large numbers of deployed soldiers and equipment.

It also allows you to bring together participants that otherwise would not have taken part. During the Network Integration Evaluation in October (2015) we were able to have an Italian Army unit take part from their headquarters in Vicenza, Italy, and create a true decisive action training environment in a real coalition scenario. We can interface with so

many more people and include so many more resources because of LVC technologies than we could ever have imagined in the past.

LVC also allows us to train for situations that would be very difficult to replicate because of the risk to our soldiers and equipment. Mission critical options can be played out in the LVC environment and pushed to the limit because you are mitigating the risk to life and limb by doing it virtually. It again goes back to the fact that you can redo a scenario over and over to find the best solution and option and I can train to a much higher level of risk than I could in any other training option.

Lastly, we need to keep in mind that LVC cannot and does not replace live training entirely. What it does do is to train each solider to a much higher level so that when they do go into the field for a live training exer-cise, they do so at a much higher level. The basic training, the staff time and preparation that now can be done with LVC means the soldiers can move much quicker into the training mission. The soldier that prepares for a mission using LVC technology is better prepared for the field exer-cise—which is the long run is better training and costs less.

Q: Do you work with any metrics or formulas that outline how much of a soldier’s training should be done via a particular method—LVC versus live fire for example?

A: Yes, although I probably wouldn’t describe it as a set percentage but more of a holistic training strategy. That is really what we are working very hard to develop. In the past we probably have not had a proper strategy to work from.

We look at our training with different domains and delivery methods. Each domain has its advantages and has an important role in the overall strategy. We need to fully understand what those advantages are. What role that domain has within the strategy and how it plays into the next domain.

The aviation community is probably the most advanced in this area and we are looking to their strategy as a model for the rest as we con-tinue to develop the overall strategy.

Q: The Army wants to move away from looking at platforms and focus more on capability solutions. What does that mean for train-ing?

A: The Army is moving away from looking at warfighting in a platform-centric way to a more capabilities-centric approach—which is how we fight wars.

We don’t send a single tank into battle alone, we send a formation and within that formation are a host of capabilities that each element brings to the fight. That’s the way we need to approach everything within the Army.

The Army has its 20 warfighting challenges which seem to line up well with a capabilities approach to preparing the Army. When you look at the capabilities, we start to see certain subordinate capabilities and material elements start to rise to the top and become force multipliers.

For example, there is always talk about having reach-back capabili-ties which allow for a smaller forward deployed force when some of those necessary capabilities can be further back in sanctuary. If the right network exists, then it’s very possibly that I can connect my forward deployed trainers with the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, for example. I can reduce the exposure and risk of having more trainers deployed. Fewer trainers can mean a smaller support footprint while making it possible to offer more diverse training with those forward deployed elements.


Having more options means we can prioritize the allocation of re-sources and maximize the effectiveness of our training options.

Q: Tell me a little more about the value proposition that the partnerships with other countries and what they means for all parties.

A: These meetings are extremely valuable and build upon everything we’ve talked about.

The other countries we have met with have been very eager to work with us. Generally speaking in the past when these countries have been involved in coalition operations, the U.S. Army has been the lead partner because of our size and resources. These meetings are another way to deepen those relationships and learn a little more about how we ap-proach planning, training and mission execution now and especially in the future.

If we are given the opportunity to talk to partner nations about the decisive action training environment and how we are using it, and are able to convince them to follow the same path, it all builds towards mak-ing our forces more interoperable when mutually deployed.

However, this is certainly a two-way street as we visit them. We are very interested in what they have learned and what their first-hand expe-riences have been. The Israelis for example have quite a bit of experience in combat in urban areas as well as subterranean operations. In Europe, Ukraine has a lot of experience in dealing with Russian surrogate forces and hybrid war that operates on multiple levels—tactical and strategic operations.

These meetings are simply great ways to inform our coalition part-ners about what we’re doing and just as important to learn from them about experiences and environments we might find ourselves in.

Q: TRADOC has outlined three key priority areas including creating the future forces. What are your initiatives to meet those goals?

A: We have to increase our rate of innovation. In the known world you tend to innovate to deliver differentiation but we want to be much better than that. Differentiation can take a long time to show results. As we move into this complex time we have to focus our capacity on improving the rate of innovation and on innovating much quicker.

There are quite a few challenging aspects to make this happen. For example, we have to address the acquisition process to be able to innovate quicker and we’re working on that. We have to have an agile institution that actually integrates that innovation. We need to figure out how to get doctrine out quicker; how to get lessons learned out quicker; and how can we innovate the institutional Army.

Another aspect is that we then have to develop our leaders which will require an entire new line of effort to deal with the human dimension. We have to make sure that we can educate and train leaders to operate in this complex world. We need to be creating the right scenarios that re-quire critical thinking and require the right level of adaptation that meets current and future needs. We need to be getting our leaders outside their comfort zones by bringing in all of the other players that they will be interacting with and pushing to think about the complexities.

Once we get the individual leaders there, then we need to be able to train formations—both small and large—in order to leverage this critical thinking and adaptability that I have educated the leaders on.

We need to make sure that we have the training strategy and train-ing enterprise that can replicate the complex world that our leaders and formations will be operating in.

Q: The process of developing agile leaders within the training pipeline, where are you in the process?

A: Perhaps the key point is that I don’t see us ever reaching a steady state. We will never be done innovating and adapting. We are emphasizing that because the world is changing so quickly and our potential adversaries—by nature being smaller—usually innovate quickly. We have to bring in leaders and inculcate in their mind that we are constantly adapting and changing to adjust to the situations as they manifest in the complex world.

We need to institutionalize structural self-development so that each leader expects this dynamic ever-changing environment and is comfort-able working within it.

The Army of the past always had some degree of self-development, however, it was not a high priority. We are changing this so that the in-stitutional domain matches the operational domain and that the habit of continual learning and self-development becomes routine. Therefore it is incumbent upon the training institution that every time someone touches the institution what they see is a current but constantly evolving, updat-ing environment.

Q: Tell me about the Army’s Cyber Center of Excellence.

A: The Cyber Center of Excellence (COE) is our newest center of excel-lence within TRADOC.

In fact, in 2014 we opened cyber as a branch in the Army which is very significant. We don’t take opening a new branch lightly. The last time the Army opened a new branch it was Special Forces and before that it was Aviation, so you can see we don’t do this very often.

The Cyber COE is primarily responsible for a couple things. The first is that it is the proponent for the branch meaning it is responsible for laying out the leader development strategy for Cyber officers—what a cyber NCO does, what a Cyber lieutenant does and so on. The COE is also responsible for looking at cyber technology and developing our tactics, techniques and procedures.

Something unique about the cyber community is that it is starting out from a much more joint perspective. Cyber knows no boundaries and the young officers coming in understand that at a very basic level. Becoming joint is not something they have to understand and work towards—they already understand that. The COE is a part of and linked to the wider cyber community from U.S. Cyber Command, the Army’s Cyber Command as well as those of the other services.

Usually service commands were created and grew up within their own service and had to learn to become joint. Not so with cyber.

Q: Any closing thoughts?

A: The Army Operating Concept has only been out for a little over a year now and yet it has driven some pretty significant changes that include establishing the warfighting challenges, describing how we are going to modernize the Army, describing how we need to increase the rate of innovation, and confirming the importance of opening of the new cyber branch. We really have had a fairly dramatic past 15 months.

TRADOC’s role in all of this is to not necessarily own the processes but we drive many of the ideas that move the process forward.

One of the things we excel at is being team players. The goal is to increase the rate of innovation so we can be a part of a team or lead a team if that’s the best course of action. The better we can understand the problem, learn everything about it, analyze the options and produce actions that can be replicated, the faster we can respond to warfighter needs.


Q: Last year, you were involved with the Army Training Review. What is the status of that review? Have there been any action items as a result yet?

Lanthier: Spring 2015 provided the Canadian Army Doctrine and Training Centre (CADTC) with an opportunity to assess the results of Army Training Review (ATR) after a transformational period of three years; a period in which upwards of 40 recommended initiatives had been proposed in an effort to achieve affordability and sustain-ability goals following our war in Afghanistan. With confidence I can state that over 50 percent of those initiatives have been completed and the remainder are progressing well without the need for further study.

The first series of ATR initiatives focused heavily on the reorganization of human capacity and authorities, along with devolutions of functional responsibilities where ap-propriate. In addition, the Training System repositioned itself to more efficiently synchronize aims and effects in the design and delivery of the entire training program. Notable ATR outcomes that were completed and incorpo-rated into last year’s plan: the modernization of Canadian Army doctrine governance and management; implementation

of a new approach in the delivery of Individual Training across the initial training period, known as Developmental Period (DP) 1, of the Primary Reserve Force; and completion of a Canadian Army Simulation Strategy (CASS), supported by a revised policy backbone.

2016 will be an important year for continu-ing to assess how ATR initiatives, previously launched in three successive bounds, may deliver refined efficiencies. However, with limits in our capacity to drive a constant pace of change, I have indicated that ATR will formally close when our remaining initiatives are either implemented or determined to be of marginal utility going forward. The training system will continue to require periods of review, evolution and renewal, supported by meaningful analysis and informed by an understanding of how the effects of our evolutionary decisions may be realized within a

reasonable timeframe.

Q: In general, how has the Canadian Army training budget weathered the belt-tightening that has impacted most militaries?

Lanthier: While I cannot speak to the training budgets of other militaries, I can say that with respect to the Ca-nadian Army reductions in CA training funding were made in tandem with reductions in

demand. For example, the reduction in funding for collective training (battle groups and brigade headquarters) were made during the drawdown from operations in Afghanistan and the cor-responding reduction in high readiness troops required to be trained.

With no named operation for land forces, the CA did not require a high tempo readiness cycle for its combat units. The effort of training up high readiness forces was extended to 12 months from six, effectively halving some of our most expensive training events. We continued to invest in foundation level training to ensure that we could adjust quickly back to a six-month cycle at any time and we expanded the scope and capability of those ready forces in the 12-month “shop window” to meet the broader contingencies we might have to respond to.

Through the individual training review component of the ATR, significant economies and efficiencies were also gained. While the budget for IT decreased by almost 48 percent, the number of actual student days only reduced by approximately 22 percent. With the draw-down from opera-tions, the demand (total student/trainee days) for individual and leadership training has decreased allowing a lower overall throughput to continue to meet trained effective strength requirements. That said there continues to be certain trades i.e., highly technical trades or those with perishable skills, that remain a challenge to recruit for or train up to authorized levels. The training system, however, adjusts annually to shift capacity to where it is most needed to meet long-term targets.

Major General J.M. Lanthier OMM, MSC, MSM, CD Commander, Canadian Army Doctrine and Training Centre

International VectorAn Exclusive Military Training International Q&A with

Maj. Gen. J.M. Lanthier


All this to say, the Canadian Army has contin-ued to invest wisely in its training budget and it has judiciously managed its readiness program to ensure that it remains postured to meet all assigned missions under the Canadian Forces Defense Strategy and to do so with ready, credible options for the government of Canada.

Q: Have budget issues caused any delays in acquiring or developing new training sys-tems or restricted training exercises?

Lanthier: Over the past two to three years, funding has not restricted our training exercises. Clearly, collective training planning and conduct at all levels (division, brigade and unit) is based on the funding that is available and allocated; therefore, it’s a limiting factor, but it has not restricted the Canadian Army’s ability to achieve its training objectives.

The issue, with regards to training, is the availability of operations and maintenance funding, such as that required for wages, heating, fuel, spare parts for vehicles, etc. Within CADTC, exer-cises can be challenging to finance but it is rare from an institutional perspective that the training priorities of the commander Canadian Army are not met to the level required.

From a capability development or acquisi-tion perspective, budgeting is absolutely crucial to ensure the required funding for the often multi-year process of delivering new capabilities, from research and development through to the contracting, manufacturing and delivery phases, is available. The constraint of this acquisition process is often more problematic than the overall funding for the purchase itself, as it involves many government agencies, each with their own operat-ing budgets which are outside of the funding dedicated to procurement of a given capability.

The availability of trained staff (both civilian and military) to carry out our capital investment plan is probably the most significant constraint we are collectively facing at this point. This severely constrains our procurement ability.

Q: Do you have a prioritized acquisition list that will add new capabilities to your train-ing toolkit?

Lanthier: Yes, there is a prioritized acquisition list, but it is not necessarily a CADTC list.

The Directorate of Land Resources maintains a list of capability development efforts the Canadian Army is pursuing. CADTC’s principal efforts repre-sent simulation capabilities. There is ongoing work on the Land Vehicle Crew Training System, the Urban Operations Training Sites, and the Weapons Effects Simulation Mid-life Upgrade.

Other initiatives, such as the Forward Observation Officer/Forward Air Controller Modernization incorporates training aids, in this case simulators, amidst a range of tools to be de-livered. We are also staffing work to upgrade our Constructive Simulation capability, the software and hardware that supports synthetic operations at the battle group to division level, as we seek greater interoperability with our defense partners in NATO and ABCA (an organization represented by American, British, Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand militaries, designed to optimize coalition interoperability). The majority of this falls under the Future Integrated Canadian Army Integrated Training Environment construct which is at the heart of the Canadian Army Simulation Strategy, Revision 2, released 03 November of this year.

Q: I know that one of your initiatives has been the development of a fitness and performance optimization program. Tell me about that effort.

Lanthier: The Canadian Army Integrated Performance Strategy, known as CAIPS, was launched by the Commander Canadian Army on 24 November 2015. Modeled in part on the U.S. Army Ready and Resilient campaign, it aims at enhanc-ing the overall readiness and resilience of our

soldiers. It is also more than just about Canadian Army soldiers; it is about connecting with families, friends, civilian employees, and all members of the Army team to provide them with the necessary tools, training, education, and assistance they need to enhance their overall level of fitness, across six domains that collectively make up the overall fitness profile of an Army soldier. Physical, emotional, spiritual, intellectual, familial and social fitness will all be improved through comprehen-sive performance coaching techniques that will be employed at all levels of individual and collective training.

We are rolling out the Canadian Army Perfor-mance Triad (CAP3), which is also closely modeled on the U.S. Army Performance Triad and focuses on the triad of sleep, activity and nutrition. I must thank our colleagues from the U.S. Army for their outstanding assistance and cooperation in supporting our effort to develop the CAP3. By enhancing the readiness, confidence and perfor-mance levels of the Canadian Army team, we are concurrently building and improving their overall levels of resilience. This improved resilience will enable them, as individuals, to better adapt, resist and thrive under the demands of Army life.

At the same time, the Canadian Army is moving towards a fitness standard that better reflects the realities placed upon soldiers in the evolving operating environment. The Canadian Army is seeking to adopt a more realistic load-bearing fitness standard, coupled with a high-intensity cardiovascular and muscular output, representative of actual tasks performed during combat operations. Using historical data collected from land combat operations in a variety of environments during the past decade, a scientific model was created and superimposed over real world experiences to create a simple, yet effective physical fitness standard. The guiding principle was to define an enduring standard that

We are also staffing work to upgrade our

Constructive Simulation capability, the software

and hardware that supports synthetic

operations at the battle group to division level...

A member from 1st Battalion, Royal 22e Régiment crosses the Battle River in the Wainwright training area during the obstacle crossing scenario of the Canadian Patrol Concentration (CPC) on November 19, 2015. (Wainwright Garrison Imaging photo by Corporal Jay Ekin.)


represents a steady state of fitness as opposed to a one-time snapshot in the form of a singular test or assessment.

We believe we have created a simple, yet very applicable standard and will be trialing it extensively across the Canadian Army in 2016 with the intention of formally adopting it as the Army standard in 2017.

Q: What are your other primary initiatives to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Canadian training model?

Lanthier: As the center of excellence for land operations training, we must strive to strategi-cally align our concepts of how best to develop Canadian Army soldiers, leaders, and teams so as to achieve that operational excellence within an evolving Canadian Armed Forces. The align-ment of select ATR objectives within the criteria established under the parameters of DND/CAF Defence Renewal will continue, specifically in the areas of movement logistics and whole fleet management in support of large-scale collective training or in the shared stewardship of joint military occupation specialty training within the CAF. Where can we converge in training delivery to meet multiple Service aims or best position CAF capabilities to achieve land operational success?

We will pursue advances in simulation train-ing, increasingly networked and multi-layered. We will improve our knowledge management processes and keep pace with changes in networked defense learning delivery. Where it makes sense to do so, we should investigate how the training system and the field force might collaborate in the delivery of training, ex-ported from our CA schools and training centers. Achieving further synergies in the delivery of synchronized Primary Reserve and Regular Force individual and collective training may realize greater economies in both time and resources; and with the latter, it is incumbent upon the Army Training Authority to consider if all levels have been devolved the requisite authorities and correct resource allocations in money and personnel so as to act in accordance with the doctrine of mission command we espouse.

Finally, as we continue to build our reputa-tion for the world-class delivery of skill-at-arms military team competitions and challenging collective training, we will need to invest in our range and training area development strategy.

Q: How does the Canadian Army approach the balance between live fire and maneu-ver training with simulation and simulator training?

Lanthier: Training through simulation is no longer viewed as a threat by those who espouse the merits of live fire and maneuver training but rather, as a means by which to enhance the effective-ness of the Canadian Army. The Canadian Army Simulation Strategy (CASS) states the Army will seek to migrate 20 percent of its current field-based training into the simulation environment by the mid-2020s. The approach to this will be “front loading” where the initial training period at home stations in the Base simulation centers will be working towards collective training battle task standards that units or formations will need once they get into the field environment.

While it is a challenge to strike the optimum balance between live fire and maneuver training and simulation, we believe these are complemen-tary functions, not competing demands. The CASS aspires to develop an integrated training environ-ment which leverages the benefits of simulation training with those attainable through live fire and maneuver training. We are also looking at how to make live fire training more realistic, with targets that can actually engage the training audience through simulated means, therefore replicating the realities of combat operations.

Q: How much of your simulation training is web or cloud-based allowing the training classroom to be where the soldier is and ready when they are ready? Do you see the trend for web-based systems rising, declin-ing or remaining somewhat constant? Is the

trend moving in the right direction as far as you are concerned?

Lanthier: Simulation training is an expanding and ever useful means to train units and soldiers in today’s Canadian Army.

Web-based simulation training for the individ-ual soldier is, for the time being, in its infancy as the Canadian Army focuses its simulation efforts on collective training in a synthetic environment. This is an appropriate trend, but it is anticipated that all types of simulated training will become more and more inclusive in training schemes.

Training and education modernization is about adapting newer technologies and method-ologies to the learning environment, taking into account that “stand and deliver” lectures in “brick and mortar” institutions may not necessarily be the best way to convey key teaching points and produce the flexible, adaptable, highly motivated and independent-thinking soldiers of the future that we both desire and need.

However, it is equally possible that they might just be the best way to pass along that informa-tion. Regardless, the demands placed upon Army officers and non-commissioned members are increasing and the appetite to find different ways to conduct training and education is immense.

The dilemma is always to maintain the high standard that accompanies effective training in relation to the pressures of finding the most economical and efficient means of its delivery. As always, this is about balance and often the issue

Major General Lanthier started his career at 12e Régiment blindé du Canada. His regimental employment covered a variety of staff appointments at the unit, and he has commanded at all levels within the unit, culminating with the command of 12e Régiment blindé du Canada from 2005 to 2007. In 2009, he was appointed commander, 5th Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group. Lanthier assumed the duty of deputy commanding general sustainment, I Corps, U.S. Army, at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, in 2011. In 2013, he assumed command of the 2nd Canadian Division and Joint Task Forces (East). Promoted to the rank of major general, he was appointed com-mander of the Canadian Army Doctrine and Training Centre, in Kingston on the 10th of July 2014.

His extra-regimental employment includes postings to the Armour School, Headquarters Combat Training Centre, Headquarters 5th Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group, and the National Defence Headquarters. His key staff appointment was as Director Land Requirements from 2007 to 2009.

He deployed three times with different units to the former Yugoslavia, under the mandate of the United Nations protection force and the NATO stabilization force. He was appointed the com-manding officer of the operational mentoring and liaison team in 2006 and deployed to Kandahar with Task Force 3-06. He was the Canadian deputy commander Joint Task Force Haiti following the earthquake that hit Haiti in January 2010. In 2011/12, he was the ISAF joint command director of Afghan National Security Forces Operations in Kabul.

He obtained his Bachelor’s degree in biochemistry from the University of Ottawa and his Master’s degree in applied science from the University of Cranfield, England. He completed the Land Force Command and Staff Course in Kingston and the Advanced Command and Staff Course at the British Joint Services Command and Staff College. He is a graduate of the Senior Executive Asia Pacific Orientation Course in Hawaii and the Combined Joint Forces Land Component Com-mander’s course at the U.S. Army War College.


of quality versus quantity evolve into a paradox because the reality is that quantity brings with it a degree of quality in and of itself. Do we need five soldiers at 100 percent efficiency or is it bet-ter to have ten soldiers at 80 percent? Conse-quently, the pursuit of more efficient and effective means of training delivery will likely never cease and that means doing a better job at leveraging both existing and future digital technologies.

The reality is, however, that some Army training will never be efficient or economic but that will continue to be the only effective way the training can be delivered.

Q: There is a lot of focus on the Arctic in the past few years. Does the Canadian Armed Forces Arctic Training Centre serve all of the Canadian services and in all aspects of operations in that climate, including for example, maneuver, logistics, maintenance, aviation, maritime, etc.?

Lanthier: The Canadian Armed Forces Arctic Train-ing Centre (CAFATC) located in Resolute Bay, was inaugurated in August 2013. The CAFATC is housed in a Natural Resources Canada-owned facility where collective and individual training is carried out to ensure that our personnel are able to fulfill their assigned tasks in the demanding Arctic en-vironment. The CAFATC can accommodate up to a company group (approximately 140 personnel) and is fully resourced with pre-positioned snowmobiles and Arctic equipment.

It currently hosts on any given year, an Arctic Operations Advisor course and two Royal Canadian Air Force courses. The Arctic Operations Advisor course has about 50 candidates and aims to provide junior officers and senior non-com-missioned officers with the necessary expertise to advise their commanders when operating in the region. The Royal Canadian Air Force courses are conducted in cooperation with the School of Search and Rescue and the School of Aeromedical Training. These are demanding survival courses aimed at preparing our Air Force colleagues for any situation that may occur within the region.

On the Collective Training side, each year CAFATC supports the deployment of Arctic response company group exercises, immediate reaction units and may be called upon to serve as a forward operating base for Joint Task Force North during one of their national sovereignty operations.

As CAFATC launches into another training season in early January, it will seek other training venues, possibly with the Royal Canadian Navy div-ing units, and look into collaboration opportunities with allies who share the same interest in devel-oping Arctic and cold weather operation expertise.

Q: What training does the Canadian Army do to increase their interoperability with other nations?

Lanthier: As the Army Training Authority, CADTC ensures that army formation and unit level training fits the needs of the Canadian Army’s mission—to generate combat effective, multi-purpose land forces to meet Canada’s defense objectives. In contrast to other services, the Canadian Army is soldier-centric as its forces must interact in the human domain, creating favorable conditions for security, stability and peace, whether at home or abroad. Ultimately, decisive mission success will involve influencing the behavior of actors, which necessitates human interaction performed by soldiers.

The Canadian Army is a professional and integrated force achieving operational excellence in a joint, inter-agency, multinational and public (JIMP) environment. It does so by providing scalable, agile and responsive forces. It is therefore essential that our forces be interoperable with our allies, partners and whole of government colleagues, and every training opportunity which involves partners

must have clear and measurable interoperability objectives.

Training to be effective in a JIMP environment is the focus of most CADTC-led exercises. The an-nual Exercise Maple Resolve (Ex MR) in Wainwright, Alberta, is the confirmation phase of our high-read-iness brigade and its units readying for a possible deployment. During Ex MR next spring, U.S. and British troops will be training alongside Canadian soldiers, with military observers from France and Brazil. There will also be foreign affairs representa-tives and a number of international organizations and non-governmental organizations (such as the Red Cross) present.

Ex MR also sees the strong participation of the Royal Canadian Air Force practicing air land integra-tion between its fighter, surveillance, transport and rotary-wing aircrafts and army units. The Royal Canadian Navy also sends an explosive ordnance team to work and exchange knowledge with the army engineers. It is also an opportunity for the Ca-nadian Special Operations Forces Command to train alongside and integrate with conventional forces.

CADTC also organizes a number of competitive training events that favor the gain and sharing of experience. The annual Canadian Armed Forces Small Arms Concentration in September allows military and police teams from across Canada and the world, such as the U.S. and the UK to share knowledge and best practices of small arms training with other participating allies. The annual Canadian Patrol Concentration also hosts teams from across the Canadian Army, and from the UK, the U.S. and Australia. This event gives participants a venue to test and hone their core soldier skills, including combat fitness and patrolling.

The dilemma is always to maintain the high standard

that accompanies effective training in relation to the

pressures of finding the most economical and efficient

means of its delivery.

Canadians soldiers from 3 R22eR and Polish soldiers evacuate simulated casualties in a Polish helicopter, during an exercise in Combat First Aid held in Mogadisz, Ziemsko, in Poland, on September 21, 2015, during Operation Reassurance. (Op Reassurance photo by Second Lieutenant Delphine Bonnardot)


3D virtual reality (VR) training continues to become more realistic in order to meet military expectations. These expectations have truly spread throughout all ranks within all services. That’s because new recruits are used to using Xbox 360 and other video games that are so realistic that one half expects Arnold Schwar-zenegger to reach out and tap you on the shoulder.

Two of the key components in 3D modeling simulations are the simulator and the content library.

MetaVR has just such extensive content, from zombies to battleships. No, that wasn’t a typo, MetaVR even has zombies. “The zombie

was actually a customer request” said Phillip Winston, lead software engineer at MetaVR. “The customer wanted a ‘stand in’ which could be used in the simulation but would not be confused with the regular entities.”

MetaVR’s flagship product is the Virtual Reality Scene Generator (VRSG). The accompa-nying 3D terrain generation and visualization products include substantial libraries of 3D content, totaling over 5,300 models.

MetaVR has become one of the largest sup-pliers of commercial licensed 3D visualization software for unmanned aircraft system simula-tion training in the U.S. military, according to Winston. VRSG is used in settings ranging from

3D modeling simulations mesh well with military training needs.BY PATRICK E. CLARKEMTI CORRESPONDENT


classroom training at Fort Huachuca, Ariz., and other sites, to embedded training in portable ground control stations the field.

He explained some of the unique features offered by MetaVR. “The VRSG’s have the abil-ity to render ultra-high resolution 2 centimeter per-pixel terrain at 60 Hertz. At 2 cm resolu-tion one can see small details on the terrain such as small craters left from exploded ordnance and bullet holes on targets,” said Winston.

Winston explained MetaVR can achieve this level of detail because of their unique approach to obtaining the data. “The fact that we do imagery collection with our own remotely controlled aircraft is pretty fantastic. We process the data ourselves with our own tools, then we visualize the results with our image generator (IG).”

Of course the military always needs to see the results of any mission, so battle damage assessments (BDAs) are included. MetaVR’s visualization software has long been used as a tool to teach military vehicle identification for combat target recognition.

The company’s 3D military models achieve high-fidelity because they are built from publicly available photographs, and can be viewed in various sensor modes such as simulated noise, contrast and blur. With such a close comparison between a photograph and a model, the model can be examined from any angle and with thermal signatures in various sensor modes. By zooming and rotating the model and moving the articu-lated parts, trainees can learn to recognize a vehicle from different ranges and perspective angles.

“At I/ITSEC 2015 we demonstrated our larg-est damage-capable terrain to date, located in our Kabul, Afghanistan, database,” said Winston. “With this approach every building in the area can receive several degrees of dam-age. Damage is critical to creating a dynamic battlefield because it shows the history and impact of operations.”

To meet a shifting focus of training and simulation needs by the U.S. military and its allies to the Horn of Africa, MetaVR has built a 3D virtual representation of the southern Somalia port city of Kismayo. The terrain is populated with hundreds of geographically specific culture models built from ground-level photographs taken on the streets of Kismayo. In addition to these geolocated and photographically specific models of buildings and other structures, several hundred other buildings were modeled by matching the structural footprints visible in the imagery as

geographically typical models with culturally and architecturally accurate details.

MetaVR VRSG supports several features in 3D file format. These features enhance the model’s realism in a real-time context, for example:

• Switch states toggle between open and closed doors and windows.

• Level of detail switches swap in a less detailed version of a model at a distance to improve performance.

• Animation nodes add a looping sequence to models requiring movement (such as flags and vehicle wheels).

• Material assignments determine how the surfaces of a model respond to lighting.

As for future challenges “I think in the future we’ll improve collection capacity by using multiple aircraft at once, we’ll use many machines to process in hours rather than weeks,” said Winston

In Winston’s view, the future is always now. For example, “We will release a version of VRSG this year that uses DirectX 11. We created a DirectX 11 prototype a number of years ago but only now are rolling it into the shipping product. If you adopt new technology too soon then your customers are not ready for it and the platform is immature. If we wait too long, then you are falling behind. I think we timed this one very well.”

AEgis Technologies is another leader in the area of 3D content and has been around for more than 25 years. “We’ve helped set a lot of standards for 3D simulations,” said Anthony Castillo, production manager for real-time 3D modeling programs at AEgis. Castillo uses the Xbox consoles as a point of comparison. Xbox gaming has a higher visual quality and the scenarios are more realistic, he explained. But Xbox is finite and fixed—lin-ear. AEgis Simulation models and databases are designed to be open-ended and are not tied to one type of software or IG. At the same time, the products are backward compatible to support older systems.

One of their primary products is the Improved Moving Target Simulator System (IMTS). The IMTS is a 40-foot domed simulator with 360 degree projections and can accom-modate two three-man Stinger teams. AEgis has delivered multiple IMTS simulators to the U.S. military which includes both hardware and software.

In addition to the domed environment, AEgis provides fully embedded simulations that train all operator functions and

emergency procedures for family-of-systems small unmanned aircraft systems. AEgis Vam-pire runs on fielded Panasonic Toughbooks and ground control stations with no modi-fication to fielded hardware and software. AEgis products provide simulations that are an open-ended training environment where trainees can learn from their mistakes. The cost of actual training and training exercises is always a concern, especially with the war-time posture the U.S. has been in for years. “It’s always more efficient to use simulators as well as more cost effective from live am-munition costs to transporting troops,” said Lauren Johannesmeyer, business development manager, technology solutions at AEgis.

The new content library, AEgis Elements, is loaded with high-fidelity, real-time, military 3D models that have been custom built and compiled over the last two decades by leading 3D artists, designers and developers for use in simulators, gaming applications, demos and more. A customer can search AEgis Elements for hundreds of 3D models: articulated ground vehicles, maritime vessels, aircraft, missiles and weaponry. Search criteria can be filtered by level-of-detail, country code, damage states and national markings.

AEgis Elements 3D models can be designed for real-time simulations featuring high-fidelity models and high-resolution tex-tures that can be tailored to individual needs. Models are designed to be universally compat-ible with numerous geospatial datasets, 2D/3D viewing application, and gaming engines.

Features include:

• High-quality texture • Multiple paint schemes • IR texture • Multiple levels of detail • Articulation beads where applicable • Standard structure to ease integration • Available for delivery in multiple formats • Standard format: MultiGen OpenFlight

(.FLT) • Optional Formats: 3D Studio Max (.3DS),

VRML (.WRL), VBS2 (.pbo)

AEgis products allow trainees to gain physical muscle memory and/or visual muscle memory. Battle damage assessment is also available. Battle damage is dependent on the use case and the customer require-ments. Some of the traditional IG-based simulator models use multiple states based on the damage type. For example, if the vehicle took battle damage the weapon area would show a darkened, burnt looking


texture as well as visual damage or removal of the weapon geometry. Mobility damage would show texture damage to the track or wheel area with a thrown track or tire. Cata-strophic kill states usually show extreme non-repairable damage.

The newer game engines being used for some simulations have their own visual dam-age. In most cases it is more area specific than the legacy method—for example, the damage will appear exactly where you take a hit versus a general damage type. The game engine displayed damage is also usually controlled by the engine and not pre-built in the source 3D model.

AEgis is aggressive in looking at future environments, according to Castillo. But they also make sure products are backward compatible. “We can support older systems while always developing new products, giving them a well-rounded capability,” he explained.

Future systems must be lightweight and portable so they can be downloaded onto a laptop or tablet. “The goal is a product that would allow cost effective access to multiple environments, so training could continue even while troops are de-ployed,” said Castillo.

He added, “The genera-tion now coming into the military grew up playing video games that were re-alistic and believable. Military training must be the same quality.”

Bohemia Interactive Simulations (BISim) is a global software company providing simulation training solutions for military and civilian organizations. They use game-based technology for military-specific training and simulation software products.

Virtual Battlespace 3 (VBS3) simulations can be used for training solutions such as scenario training, mission rehearsal and more. VBS3 was selected by the U.S. Army as its flagship product for its Games for Train-ing program. Oliver Arup, vice-president of product management said, “We are based on gaming technology. We’re not old school.”

In fact, the founder of the company, Pete Morrison, co-chief executive officer, got the idea for the company from a game. While serving in the Australian Army, he used a game called Operation Flashpoint and thought that the game provided better train-ing than that provided by the military.

Bi-Sim can provide simulations for most equipment types. For example, ground based vehicle simulation can be done with HMMWVs. Marines can do convoy training with simulated vehicles and weapons in a simulated combat environment.

VBS3 comes equipped with a robust Developer Suite including tools for creating buildings, creating terrains from satellite im-agery and other data sources, and converting models to the simulation environment.

“Things have to look good because what users use for personal use is high end,” said Arup. “Graphics aren’t the be-all end-all, but have to be credible.” He added, “If you get the users past that first hurdle with the software then the training can be effective.”

That, and having a commander say that this is a real world simulation and soldiers will be judged accordingly. “Then the users get immersed and take the training seriously,”

said Arup. “Simulations may not be

specifically designed for BDA – but you can build in BDA as you feel it’s needed”, said Arup. “Basically, BDA can be built into a simulation on the fly.” BISim systems support cratering and destruction.

From a practical stand-point, weather can be an issue vs. simulation. This provides additional cost saving in that a unit using a simulation for training pur-

poses wouldn’t have to cancel an exercise.

Arup emphasizes that Bohemia is always looking to meet the challenges of the future. “Every six months hardware improves. We have to be able to match that,” said Arup. He pointed out that expectations are driven by the game market. “However, personal games have billions of dollars to support them. We have to match that with much less funding.”

Another leader in the field of virtual train-ing for Air, Ground and Naval platforms is Elbit Systems. Linked together for interoperability, Elbit Systems training solutions simulate com-plex combat scenarios for which coordination between multiple teams is crucial for success.

Their solutions range from the individual soldier to full-scale joint forces LVC training systems, using advanced modeling, visualiza-tion and networking capabilities.

ARTIST (Augmented Reality Integrated Training System) is Elbit Systems’ latest product, one that combines live, embedded

and augmented reality technologies into one innovative training suite, according to Livneh Ofer, research and development manager, training and simulation, at Elbit Systems.

A major gap for live embedded training, especially in combat platforms, lies in the insufficiencies of the training arena. In order to train in an applicable operational arena, the costs are very high, and even then, many restrictions are imposed—safety or limited areas where firing is actually permitted, for example. “ARTIST integrates a virtual arena (entities and effects) into the real training arena, where the training occurs. By using ARTIST, the warrior is enabled, while operat-ing the combat platform’s systems, to view the environment and to operate the platform sensors (e.g. electro-optical) against the real world, after it has been enriched by using augmented reality techniques,” said Ofer The end result is that the training arena that the operator is exposed to, via the platforms’ dis-plays, are rich and the elements look, behave and react as in the real operational arena.

The training audiences are operators of sensors and systems that have visual displays—either screens or out the window, such as commanders and gunners of land or naval platforms, forward observers, border protection personnel, pilots etc. ARTIST allows operators to train on detection, recognition, identification and fire procedures as well as defense protocols, when red forces are operating against the trainees. The training is aimed towards both crew and formation training scenarios.

Battle damage assessment is a crucial el-ement of the training Elbit Systems provides. “We capture, automatically and manually by the instructor, a vast variety of trainee actions, training and arena statuses, events along with the video and audio of the train-ing,” said Ofer. “All that data is presented to the trainee in an after action debrief session. The trainee can use the data and perform various actions like jumping between events, viewing all the data in a synchronized man-ner or comparing between the trainees who participated in the training.”

The training and simulation domain needs to bridge two main challenges—con-stant reduction of budget on one hand and constant increase of complexity within the platforms, sensors and operational battle field, on the other. Additionally, one specific aspect is the fact that more and more opera-tional scenarios are operationally carried out by joint forces. Training should support those needs.

Oliver Arup


Simulating many skills, many levels and many modes.BY HENRY CANADAY, MTI CORRESPONDENT

Getting convoys safely through hostile or contested areas proved to be problematic during the Iraq war and is still an issue in Afghanistan. Improvised explosive devices (IEDs), ambushes and indirect fire have been just some of the dangers on both urban and rural roads. In future fights involving terrorists or civil conflicts, these threats are likely to expand.

The skills needed to navigate these dangers are built around the basics of all mobile warfare: shooting, moving and communicating. In the case of convoys, these skills take very specific forms, depending on vehicles, weapons and circumstances.

Warfighters working convoys must thus be trained in a variety of skill sets and trained at several levels. The first is the individual soldier, driving, firing or using other convoy tools. The next level is training crews of vehicles, especially force protection vehicles, to work together. Then the convoy as a whole must be trained to work together with common tactics.

Additionally, a convoy relies on support from other assets includ-ing ground troops and vehicles, manned and unmanned aircraft, and a host of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems. Complete convoy training takes coordination of these assets into account.

So convoy training must accomplish many tasks. And it is done in many modes, on desktops and laptops, with realistic hardware and in actual convoy scenarios.

The Marine Corps’ Combat Convoy Simulator (CCS), made by Lockheed Martin, trains convoy drivers, gunners and passengers in a variety of tactical scenarios: resupply, patrol, logistics support, high-value target extraction, MEDEVAC, calls for close air support and calls for fire. The system consists of two bays with five HMMWVs and one MTVR seven-ton truck in each.

The Corps has seven CCSs deployed at various bases, according to Vic Szalankiewicz, senior portfolio manager at the Marines’ Training and

Education Command (TECOM). TECOM would like to ensure CCS simulates any new vehicles and weapons that might be acquired by the Marines in the future.

CCS has limits. Tight space means it is not possible to train for con-voy dismount operations, such as securing 25 meters around a halted convoy.

Simulation Officer Captain Michael Eady said TECOM would like more federation of different training systems, for example the CCS with train-ers for other ground and air assets. That requires all training systems be interoperable, a key factor in selection of systems going forward.

Private firms offer a wide variety of convoy and convoy-related train-ers.

One virtual training system acquired through the U.S. Army’s Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training and Instrumentation is the Virtual Clearance Training Suite (VCTS) by FAAC. According to Christian de Graff, FAAC’s business development manager, the VCTS trains engineer vehicle and equipment operators to defeat explosive hazards as well as soldiers in convoy operations.

FAAC has produced 28 VCTSs for the Army, Army Reserve and National Guard. Initially fielded in four 53-foot semi-trailers, VCTS is now getting a fifth semi-trailer.

MTI 21.1 | 17 www.MTI-dhp.com

The first trailer has an instructor station and classroom for 25 trainees. The second has four simulators, configurable as Buffalo, Panther or RG-31Mk5E. The next two trailers are Panthers or RG-31Mk5Es, plus simulated .50-caliber machine guns, a Husky and Talon III. The new fifth trailer will have two Huskies and vehicle optics sensor systems.

De Graff emphasized that VCTS is mobile and self-contained, with its own generator, heating and air conditioning, bringing training forward to students. It enables drivers, com-manders, crews and gunners to train together virtually. “Most systems only train force-protec-tion crews,” he explained. Semi-autonomous forces can be programed to act as enemy forces, and FAAC has a large library of IEDs for emplacement on the ground, partially buried or buried, for added realism. VCTS also has three simulated radio networks.

In the future, VCTS will support night operation, Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below/Blue Force Tracker (FBCB2/BFT), remote weapons system stations and simulated Mk19 grenade launchers. Two new vehicles, the High Mobility Engineer Excavator (Route Clearance and Interrogator System Type I) and the Mine Clearing Vehicle M1271, will be added. And engineer training will add explosive hazard pre-detonation (EHP) wire neutralization capabil-ity, EHP roller and EHP blower, plus robotic deployment and interroga-tions for the RG31.

A very broad training approach is taken by Lockheed Martin. Since 2004, more than 400,000 soldiers, Marines and airmen have trained on their convoy trainers, including the original Virtual Combat Convoy Trainer (VCCT), according to Ralph Briggs, senior manager of business development for training and logistics solutions. “They support training for real scenarios warfighters face, such as patrol, logistics support, re-supply and calls for fire,” said Briggs. Lockheed’s most advanced convoy trainer is their CCS, used by Marines and other services.

Lockheed has a variety of systems related to convoy training. For example, it has delivered over 500 Close Combat Tactical Trainers (CCTTs) that integrate all facets of combat vehicle operations in battle-field scenarios. CCTT validates tactics, doctrine, weapons and plans for vehicles, both in and outside of convoys. Lockheed is now focusing on CCTT concurrency changes for the Abrams and Bradley.

Lockheed’s Combined Arms Tactical Trainer helps the British Army prepare soldiers using a large virtual trainer that can train up to 900 warfighters in a virtual battlespace. The company’s Advanced Gunnery Training System prepares U.S. and international forces to transition from simulation to live gunnery. Their Digital Range Training System offers a family of digital ranges for live fire and their Digital Air Ground Instrumented Range integrates attack helicopters and ground fire.

Briggs said Lockheed’s family of training systems enables convoy and other combat training to be delivered through different methods, from desktop and part-task trainers up to full simulators. The company ensures soldiers see the crisp, game-like visuals they have grown up with. Lockheed’s Scalable Advanced Graphics Engine provides richly detailed images and motion and uses commercial gaming technology to deliver realistic combat simulation imagery.

Increasingly, training will be delivered via home-station and net-worked training. Briggs said military units seek realistic and

immersive training, especially on future threats. And they want training in networks among coalition partners that need to fight together.

The company is also developing a state-of-art digital battle staff trainer for an international customer. It will train commanders and staff from platoon up to corps. It features the latest enhanced perception im-age control software for 3D wargame execution and after-action review, is multi-lingual and integrates a mosaic of large-scale screens covering more than 125 square feet.

Lockheed is also developing turret training for the UK’s Scout vehicle that will train both commanders and gunners.

More generally, Lockheed is moving toward live, virtual and con-structive (LVC) training through augmented and virtual reality devices, especially for ground training. Briggs said militaries are merging LVC and gaming into a single synthetic training environment for both greater realism and affordability.

Simsoft Technologies is an affiliate of Simsoft Information Tech-nologies of Turkey. It provides convoy simulators for both armored and unarmored vehicles and weapon systems in a realistic virtual environ-ment, explained Lal Bozgeyikli, vice president of operations. The Simsoft system allows more than one simulator to run the same scenario at a time, providing both basic and scenario training. Realistic vehicle dynam-ics and motion gives students the feeling of controlling real vehicles.

The system includes basic marksmanship and aiming techniques and includes different firearms with high-fidelity ballistic simulation and equipment that yields realistic force feedback. The training vehicles have motion platforms with six degrees of freedom for realism.

The Simsoft system models seven different vehicles, including unarmored and unarmored vehicles. Hostile forces and other objects are controlled by a terrorist- or crowd-behavior model. The system can train for combat and driving simultaneously.

Bozgeyikli stressed Simsoft’s ability to measure trainee reactions under unexpected conditions, improve critical decision-making and train on firing whether a vehicle is moving or stopped.

“Different conditions such as snow, rain, fog, sun and moonlight can be chosen,” the Simsoft exec said. The system supports high-tech equip-ment like night vision and thermal imagers. “One of the most noteworthy features is simulation generated by multiple projectors attached to the physical vehicle cabins.” Simsoft simulation includes terrorists, crowds

Training systems that allow multiple operators to be a part of the training and interact with the simulation from their perspective is the key to realistic simulations. (Simsoft Technologies photo.)


and pedestrians, while realistically modelling dust, explosions, smoke and fire.

Saab’s convoy training system is a fully-instrumented, tactical-engagement system developed to train for attacks on convoys, route clearance with current and future IEDs and other counter-insurgency missions, explained Hans Lindgren, head of marketing.

“Casualties and the effects of an attack on a convoy can only be reproduced in training with laser-based systems,” Lindgren argued. Laser environments like the Saab system can also include simulation of heavy weapons and explosives. Thus a laser-based system objec-tively replicates actions that occur in the chaos of an ambush.

The system also has sensors that track and register handling of metal detectors for spotting IEDs. More than 60,000 soldiers have conducted counter-IED training with Saab’s convoy trainer either in Afghanistan or in Europe, where it is used by several militaries.

Saab’s instrumentation of soldiers, vehicles, buildings and IEDs give instructors the tools to plan, prepare, execute, control, monitor and evaluate training exercises entirely on line. All actions of soldiers and vehicles, firing events and player status are recorded allowing instruc-tors to conduct accurate and tailored evaluations of both individual and unit performance. A comprehensive after action review can be done immediately after an exercise.

Lindgren stressed that Saab’s trainer is modular and can be configured to meet specific training requirements. It can be a fully man-portable system or a combination of larger mobile systems that instrument all of the organizations in the exercise. The system can work for platoons up to and beyond brigades. The man-portable ManPack 120 trains up to 120 students while the ManPack 300 works for 300. There are versions that can manage up to 2,500 trainees.

Raydon’s convoy training addresses a wide range of wheeled and tracked platforms. “Tactical convoys are rarely pure,” noted Ernie Audino, senior vice president. Convoys involve multiple echelons, from individuals to platoon and above, all of whom must move, shoot and communicate together.

Audino stressed that Raydon combines tactical-maneuver training, precision gunnery and scoring in the same simulator for common crew-served weapons. Its solutions are modular, scalable and tailored to meet specific training objectives, and there is a library of training apps, called Nested Virtual Training Enablers, that can be accessed on many devices.

Audino said Raydon systems are carefully designed to reduce the hourly cost of training, with multiple functions built in to boost utili-zation. When gunners have been trained, maneuver training can be done on the same Raydon system with designs for multiple weapons, vehicles, echelons and fidelities included.

Raydon now offers the first unstabilized gunnery trainer for mount-ed machine guns in accordance with current Army doctrine. Raydon quickly refreshed its training content after release of the Army’s newest manual, which lists Raydon as the primary trainer for these weapons.

Most Raydon trainers can be rented, a low-cost approach to state-of-art virtual training. Audino said this is far more efficient than developing, acquiring, fielding, sustaining and refreshing trainers by traditional means.

Raydon’s most recent offering is for the Stryker, training in ma-neuver, unstabilized gunnery and remote weapon stations. Stryker units have already rented this capability, and one Stryker brigade combat team used it to more than double its first-run, live-fire qualifications.

On the horizon are turn-key, blended training capabilities across Raydon offerings. “Higher echelon wrap-arounds will provide greater context, depth and complexity to a virtual platoon’s fight,” Audino said. Instrumented live squads may close on objectives in concert with virtual mounted elements. “We want to make high-tempo, higher-echelon, collective training logistically much easier to do.”

Then there are trainers that use real convoy vehicles. Director of Business Development Paul Romeo explained that Meggitt Training Systems uses an embedded training approach that builds the train-ing system into operational platforms for training convoy-vehicle crews. The company’s embedded solutions provide individual and collective training for armored vehicles including main and second-ary armament, remote weapons stations, information surveillance target acquisition and reconnaissance systems, and forward observers and air controllers. Meggitt has more than 2,000 such embedded trainers fielded and in service.

For example, Romeo noted that AFVs pose increasingly complex challenges for their crews. One way of meeting these challenges is to train soldiers in the AFV itself, “training within the environment where they must fulfill all of these duties.” This embedded training approach builds confidence, reinforces ability to process information in a multi-tasking environment and develops muscle memory for real battle. Meggitt systems do all this, while minimizing acquisition of large, cumbersome simulation solutions at significant cost.

The Meggitt exec said his company’s approach can train com-manders, gunners and drivers in a high-fidelity environment and perform networked collective training of an entire convoy unit. Embedded trainers can be used to train on new vehicles, improve retention of skills, introduce new tactics, techniques and proce-dures or rehearse specific missions in theater. They are especially useful for lower-level commanders who want to maintain their soldiers’ skills when time slots at high-fidelity simulation trainers are scarce.

Simulations that replicate all aspects of convoy actions such a logistics support, re-supply, patrol and calls for fire, in addition to the tasks of driving and gunnery are the norm these days. (Lockheed Martin photo.)


1. Cubic: Bill Toti and Holly 2. Bohemia Interactive: Pete Morrison and

Holly3. CAE: Chris Stellwag and Holly4. L-3 Link Simulation & Training: Joe Rivera

and Holly5. TRU Simulation + Training: Troy Fey, Ian

Walsh and Kyle Crooks 6. MetaVR: Mathew Saunders and Holly7. D-BOX: Claude McMaster, Holly and Sebastien

Loze8. Christie: Keith Klentz and Holly9. Lockheed Martin: Holly Foster, Holly Segrue,

Geneva Greene and Janina Baxter10. Adacel: Gary Pearson and Holly11. Strategic Operations: Anthony LaPorta,

Thomas Told, Kit Lavell and Holly12. Elbit Systems: (left to right) Moshe Ganon,

David Zohar, Holly, Aviram Berger and Alon Afik13. Aptima: (left to right) Mike Knapp, Chris Nucci,

Chad Weiss, Courtney Dean (rear), Mike Tolland, Alex Wade (rear), Mike Garrity and Dan Howard

14. Digital Projection: (left to right) Chuck Collins, Troy Cobb, Phil Laney, Richard Hill and Steve Chapman

15. Rockwell Collins: LeAnn Ridgeway and Holly16. Raytheon: Holly, Rogelio Portillo and Scott

Fazekas17. Meggitt Training Systems: Michelle

Henderson and Ronald Vadas 18. Aqru Research and Technology: Holly and

Benjamin Bell19. SAIC: Josh Jackson, Holly and Dan Harris20. JRL Ventures: Kevin Long and Holly

8

9

10

4

5

3

2

1 7

6

14

MTI Top Companies awardees

recognized at I/ITSEC


13 18

12 17

11

16

15

19

20


New Wave LVC

Live, virtual constructive training is essential to training in today’s environment whether as a stand alone method or in conjunction with other training tools.

BY PETER BUXBAUMMTI CORRESPONDENT

It has long been a United States military axiom that warfighters should train as they are going to fight. Since modern warfare brings a coordinated range of assets, including people and weapons systems, to the battlespace, the live, virtual, constructive (LVC) paradigm was developed to meet those aims effectively, from the perspective of both training objectives and costs.

The integration of robust virtual and constructive training environments into the live part of a training exercise is important to developing and maintaining combat readiness more cost-effectively. But the integration of the advanced capabilities of modern weapons platforms in a training environment often go beyond current LVC capabilities, all of which underscores the need for a next-generation LVC that will build upon current capabilities to link training systems in

ever more complex and realistic scenarios.

LVC helps reduce the overall costs of training, but, at least for the U.S. Marine Corps, cost avoid-ance is not the top priority of its LVC approach; training efficiency is. The Marine Corps has found that when it can articulate a busi-ness case that combines training effectiveness with cost reduc-tions, the funding for new LVC initiatives has been forthcoming.

LVC involves the integration of live, virtual and constructive

technologies into one seamless

training event. Live training refers to real people performing actual exercise missions on real systems, while the virtual involves real people operating simulated systems. The constructive domain in-volves machine-to-machine interactions, as, for example, when enemy forces and actions are represented in virtual reality systems or in battle management, command and control, and weapons systems. The idea is that combining training components from each of the LVC domains enables the training experience to emulate real operational conditions.

“LVC is an acronym that is too casually and too frequently used,” said Colonel Walt Yates, program manager for training systems at the Marine Corps Systems Command. “It is not an objective in itself but expresses the need to connect the virtual and the constructive to live training to address gaps in training capabilities or where there are affordability issues.”

LVC often revolves around activities that are difficult to replicate in a live training environment, such as the integration of maneuver with artillery and close air support. In the aviation realm, flight hours are very expensive, and live training also involves fuel costs and wear and tear on airborne platforms.

“The first reason to use LVC should not be cost avoidance,” said Yates. “It should be to increase the volume of training. If we can identify LVC training that is effective then we should use it as much possible. We will have higher levels of readiness when we go to train with live fire in the field. Conducting a virtual rehearsal before full live training is a great example of where LVC can save a tremendous amount of time and money.”

“An integrated, immersive, interoperable LVC training environment can deliver a number of benefits to warfighters,” said Gene Col. Walt Yates

22 | MTI 21.1 www.MTI-dhp.com

Colabatistto, group president for defense and security at CAE, “including extending the life of actual weapon systems assets, delivering realistic mission train-ing that might not otherwise be possible with purely live training, and reducing risks to mission success.”

The U.S. armed services, as, for example, the Marine Corps’ Live Virtual Constructive Training Environment Initial Capabilities Document released in 2010, have articulated a roadmap for the development of a next generation of LVC. The gist of the vision is to achieve a blended training envi-ronment to enhance and evolve capabilities that approximate the physical stresses of combat and the multiple challenges that are presented on the battlefield. The development of persistent training federations that can interoperate with less advance planning and preparation is also a current re-quirement. The next generation of LVC will also require more complex

synthetic environments that are more realistic and immersive.

“The next generation of LVC is going to have a strong component of mixed reality,” said Yates. “Untethered Marines in the field will be wearing apparatus that gives them visual and auditory cues from simulations overlaid in the real world. We can have forward observ-ers and attack controller teams coordinating close air support with virtual aircraft and ordnance but seeing targets and effects on the real landscape within their field of view.”

“Where LVC is headed is not toward one solution or one provider,” said Amy Kruse, chief technology officer of Cubic Global Defense. “It is moving toward an architecture, hopefully an open, non-proprietary ar-chitecture. There are a lot of solutions providers out there. We should be aiming to allow all of these providers to develop applications that can then hang off the architecture.”

The ultimate vision, then, is to develop a plug-and-play training environment. “The idea is for any live or virtual player to be able to instantly join an LVC event,” said Marcus Boyd, senior manager for Air Force business development at L-3 Link Simulation and Training. “Live and virtual assets should be able to join an exercise without tons of preparation or bureaucratic red tape.”

“One reason LVC training concepts are evolving is that modern combat aircraft such as the F-35 have become so sophisticated in the range of their sensors and situational awareness that many exist-ing live training ranges are capable of providing only a fraction of the capability necessary to evoke a full mission training experience,” said Colabatistto. “In the early days of LVC experimentation, the technology was basically to discover and develop gateways and bridges. As the technology has evolved, cloud-based and service-oriented technolo-gies are leading to future integrated systems whose objective is to

collapse legacy LVC architectures into a new integrated whole.”Yates prefers thinking of the next-generation LVC in terms of

federation rather than integration. Federated training systems retain their original characteristics. “Whereas with integration they can be meshed together to the point where they can’t stand alone and you create something that is more monolithic, less flexible and more fragile,” explained Yates.

From a technology standpoint, the next generation of LVC will require more bandwidth and greater reach of the training network. “The Marines in the field need to get a stream of data that gives them the virtual and constructive entities rendered out there in the range,” said Yates.

The next generation of LVC will also require new approaches to cybersecurity. In the case of F-35 pilot training, for example, entities, such as other aircraft in the battlespace, which are beyond the line of sight will be represented on aircraft systems constructively, because it doesn’t make any sense to use a live aircraft which can’t be seen in a training exercise. “You want to be able to do this without having to rewrite the system programs,” said Boyd.

One approach to the challenge this poses is to develop indepen-dent multiple levels of security within the training systems. “The classified portion of the live platform should not be readily accessible on the training network,” said Boyd. “It’s a question of getting to the brains of platform with minimum invasiveness. How do you get information from virtual and constructive players into the operational flight program?”

The next generation of the LVC will likely make use of cloud computing technology to enable the flexible federation of training systems functionality and the inclusion of diverse and dispersed units into training exercises. “Cloud technology enhances the level of cybersecurity that can be provided on networked train-ing exercises and advances the proposition that training can be provided on demand whenever and wherever it is needed,” said Bob Kleinhample, service line di-rector for simulation and training services at SAIC. “Cloud comput-ing allows user systems to be technology agnostic. It allows older legacy systems to be run alongside newer simulations. It also promotes centralized control of training environments.”

Cloud computing also ad-vances the next-generation LVC notions of greater flexibility and speed. “You can stand up the simulation environment quicker and thereby increase training throughput,” said Kleinhample. “The lighter simulation foot-print means spending less time managing heavier simulations and increases availability for training.”

Gene Colabatistto

Amy Kruse

Marcus Boyd

Webb Stacy


The LVC systems of the future could make use of sophisticated performance measure-ments technologies that have been developed by Aptima. These technologies come to ad-dress the challenge of how training instruc-tors can provide real-time feedback to trainees on their performance when a large volume of data is being generated by complex training scenarios.

Aptima is leading the charge on an indus-try standard called the human performance markup language, or HPML. “The standards address ways to express and capture perfor-mance measurements from raw data,” said Webb Stacy, a corporate fellow at Aptima, “and to assess whether performance was acceptable or unacceptable for the skill being trained on.”

The Air Force Research Laboratory, the Naval Air Warfare Center and the Boeing Company are among those expressing inter-est in Aptima’s performance measurements. “We believe it will make for a rich ecosystem of performance measurements and training tools that benefits everyone,” said Stacy. “It is a sibling program that can run alongside the training systems to give an added dimension. We have demonstrated that it can be hooked up with a large number of applications in a wide variety of settings to provide real-time meaningful performance measurements.”

The next generation of LVC training may utilize training programs that have been finely tuned to produce the desired results by using the latest knowledge generated by research in the neurosciences. “We rely on research that have mapped the brain pat-terns of experts as opposed to novices,” said Kruse. “Marksmen, for example, have a brain pattern that produces focused concentration before they are ready to pull the trigger. Their heart and breathing become calm before they take motor action. The challenge is whether you can take novices and accelerate their performance based on brain training alone. If you can, then you don’t need that much time on the range. By doing brain training you can to replicate the expert brain state and actually see rapid improvement in a trainee’s performance.”

Cubic has developed a methodology to do just that. The key compo-nent of the training is to gamify it on the basis of using visual and audi-tory feedback. “The feedback is correlated to creating an optical brain signature of focused concentration before taking action,” said Kruse. “It calms the mind before the skill being trained is performed.”

In the budget climate the U.S. armed forces find themselves in, there will always be funding challenges. “The Army has some programs of record for LVC but not the Air Force, Navy, or Marine Corps,” said Boyd. “When there is no program of record, LVC comes out of funding of other programs, whether it is for research and development or for the training exercises where LVC is employed.”

“I have found that we get adequate funding when we state the business case clearly,” said Yates. “If we can make the case that LVC

will make us more ready and more capable while avoiding costs, we have received the funding we have asked for. We’re not looking to add to our portfolio but to add to our readiness while reducing costs.”

The future of LVC involves a paradigm shift that is currently ongoing, according to Colabatistto. “It is between training focused on building a training system around individual trainees and crews and the evolving earth simulation environment where individuals, crews and forces can join a persistent, always-available training environment,” he said. “There have been some promising developments, but future devel-opments will continuously be necessary in order to bring higher levels of fidelity and capability to integrated LVC training environments.”

“Using mixed reality is the next big thing for LVC,” said Yates, “and it will become more important with advances in mobile wireless technology. Experiments in 2012 showed that we could train effectively with mixed reality, even though our vision in 2012 was outpacing the capabilities of current mobile technologies at that time.

“In the space of four years mobile computing has opened up new possibilities,” he continued. “With smaller and more powerful man-worn computers and with high-quality wireless communications on the range, we will get an amazing amount of fidelity to the rifleman and to the combat vehicle crew. They will be able to see virtual constructs and

An integrated, immersive, interoperable LVC training

environment delivers a number of benefits to the

warfighter that improve training, keep skills cur-

rent and reduce wear and tear on actual weapon systems. (CAE photo.)

LVC architecture is heading towards a more open-source

design allowing for solution providers to provide applications

quicker that cost less. (Cubic Global

Defense photo.)


Embedded training (ET) is training hosted in hardware or software that is integrated into operational equipment. When activated, ET over-rides the equipment’s normal operations for training and assessment.

The U.S. Army uses full and partial ET approaches. In full ET all training hardware and software reside on tactical platforms, even in combat. In partial ET some training components are temporarily attached the system.

Patrick Sincebaugh, lead engineer for ET at Program Executive Office, Simulation, Training and Instrumentation, said ET’s primary advantage is warfighter training at the point of need. “Lessons from theater have shown this is critical.” For example, In Iraq, vehicle gunners temporarily assigned other duties would have benefited greatly from ET in maintain-ing gunnery skills. So a Common Embedded Training System (CETS) has been developed for virtual gunnery training for the Abrams and Bradley. But integration of CETS on these vehicles or the Stryker would require engineering change proposals.

ET also allows soldiers to train as they fight, using real combat systems. And it’s tough to keep stand-alone training aids, devices, simulators, and simulations current with combat systems. ET inherently addresses most concurrency issues.

Army regulations prefer ET, but significant hurdles must be overcome, including cybersecurity and safety. Standalone trainers are unclassified, while many vehicles are classified. For example, if un-embedded tactical vehicle systems are used for live force-on-force training, data on location and kill status can be sent to operations centers unencrypted. It would need encryption in an ET system.

Updating ET can be a challenge as updates may only be allowed dur-ing annual or semi-annual software loading. And changing ET may require updated safety certification, time-consuming and costly.

Another challenge is using ET with non-standard, proprietary interfac-es and software. The government sometimes lacks data rights to embed software affordably. Future live-training systems will use open interface standards with software available for download at www.lt2portal.mil by qualified vendors and government.

The Army’s Embedded Training Working Group, with more than 150 members, is developing a strategic roadmap for ET, working on collabora-tive opportunities, solutions and standards. One achievement is the Multi-function Vehicle Port (MFVP) Interface Standard for connecting standalone training systems to vehicles through training ports.

Development of Live Training Engagement Composition (LTEC) soft-ware enables live training for appended, hybrid and full ET. Stryker will embed LTEC to eliminate some appended training devices.

Sincebaugh said the cost of appended, hybrid and full ET could be significantly reduced by implementation of the Vehicular Integration for C4ISR/EW Interoperability (VICTORY) architecture and specification. VIC-TORY is a PEO Ground Combat Systems (GCS) initiative that originated to address size, weight and power issues with ground vehicles.

“Mission equipment packages on ground vehicles were often de-veloped in a stove-pipe manner,” Sincebaugh noted. “They weren’t fully integrated with the vehicle or other existing systems.”

The Program Manager for Training Devices has been working closely with PEO GCS to ensure test and training requirements are satisfied by VICTORY. Component types for interfacing with weapon systems are now specified in VICTORY architecture.

This provides a common interface for different vehicles to acquire data such as trigger events. Sincebaugh says widespread implementa-tion of VICTORY on ground vehicles would eliminate vehicle-specific kits for interfacing with weapons.

VICTORY can also enable software re-use across training domains. “The same software and message can be used for acquiring a trigger event for live force-on-force training as for ET in gunnery,” Sincebaugh said. Reducing vehicle-specific kits and re-using them across domains would significantly cut training costs.

Meggitt Training Systems is well-versed in ET, with more than 2,000 fielded systems in armored vehicles.

Director of business development Paul Romeo said applying ET cor-rectly in the right circumstances can be very cost-effective, since most equipment can be reused rather than replicated or modelled. The ET assets can be operated in any environment real assets operate in. ET can also train anywhere and anytime, especially in theater. And ET offers the best fidelity in look and feel.

But the approach is not suitable for all situations. “Some vehicles are more suited than others,” Romeo noted. Choosing ET should be based on internal components of the vehicle. Otherwise, the cost and challenges of ET will be greater than standalone trainers. Generally, vehicles that have cameras for primary sighting systems are better suited for ET than vehicles that rely on optical combat sights.

Vehicles must also have room to house ET hardware, mostly a high-end ruggedized computer. And power consumption matters. Vehicle OEMs often limit ET to 100 Watts, with simulations running on batteries when the engine is off.

Meggitt balances best ET technology and best performance. Power limits can sometimes force compromise. ET typically requires two to four channels, feeding two to four sighting systems. Using more channels can affect performance.

Romeo also stressed that ET itself does not teach a crew how to perform actions. A computer assisted training module must be developed with training guidelines on the step-by-step process of performing tasks.

Matt Jackson, a technical product manager at Presagis, has worked with his firm’s software for both real avionics in cockpits and for training. “In Europe, that requires certification, and in the U.S. the ability to get data on the screen with fusion,” Jackson explained. Presagis works with real systems for both aircraft and ground vehicles and also does ET.

Closerto theSourcesEmbedded capabilities brings training to the operator level for training on demand.BY HENRY CANADAY, MTI CORREPSONDENT


ET requires plenty of software for simulating virtual sensors and mimicing radar behavior and tactical environments. Blending virtual tools with real systems enables troops to train realistically in the field. That is the ET approach.

For example, ET simulation lets pilots work with other aircraft, manned or unmanned, without the associated operational and sustain-ment costs. ET lets pilots use virtual weapons that are not both danger-ous and expensive. Presagis software simulates information that would replicate real hardware.

So ET for both aircraft and ground vehicles usually requires a com-bination of real hardware and simulated hardware, data and situations. The challenge is inserting the virtual world into the real world safely, effectively and affordably.

Jackson said modern simulation makes it theoretically possible to do almost anything in the half-real, half-virtual world of ET. But military budgets mean ET is limited by resources and must focus on essential training functions. “You have to have a reason and operational need. That determines how realistic you can make it.”

Whether it’s a vehicle, aircraft or ship space inside most platforms is at a premium, so any system that takes away more space has to be considered carefully. “D-Box systems are so compact they can be virtually adding kinesthetic cues anywhere even in confined and compact military vehicles environments,” said Sébastien Lozé, D-Box’s senior product marketing director.

In late 2015, the Quebec, Canada-based D-Box demonstrated a pro-totype embedded tactical team trainer which was a combined simulator with a driver/pilot position and an unstabilized gunnery trainer. “The Embedded Tactical Team Trainer provides trainees with the finest immer-sion techniques through motion and visual cues. It integrates world-class technologies from D-BOX, Esterline and Laser Shot to create true-to-life training scenarios,” said Lozé.

“Embedded training is just starting, communication simulation stan-dards—such as HLA—adoption is increasing and with it the possibility to link these simulators together hence building better team training from different simulators in a network,” Lozé continued.

Textron Systems’ Embedded Onboard Training (OBT) allows forces to cost-effectively train operators in port and rehearse missions at sea. OBT technology “stimulates systems installed on the ship, supporting and integrating high-value assets in their operational environment,” explained Byron Green, electronic systems vice president of business development.

OBT’s environment and scenario controller is a common tool used across many Textron products, allowing collaborative ET across many domains, assets and countries participating in networked exercises.

Textron ET presents realistic visuals of the battlespace displayed on ship-operator consoles by stimulating various sensors—navigation, radio, radars, sonar and weapons—with high fidelity. This represents behavior of players in each scenario. Green emphasized stimulations are pure physics-based. Training scenarios can be entirely virtual or virtual augmentation of real situations.

Green also stressed OBT’s modularity, allowing rapid delivery of new functions. OBT enables collaborative training and mission rehearsals, for example, by crews sailing to mission positions. And ET allows warfight-ers to train inexpensively and frequently on the ground or in port without costly missions at sea.

Green said Textron is uniquely able to offer ET systems because it also makes the radio-frequency receivers, synthesizers and other compo-nents that are being modeled or stimulated. “The science is the hard part. We do the math determining what the results would be in real time, not just provide old fashion look-up tables.”

ET generally requires excellent visualization of training situations. MetaVR’s 3D product, Virtual Reality Scene Generator (VRSG), is a real-time 3D graphics engine that can render very large, expansive and geo-specific terrain in round-earth format, explained W. Garth Smith, MetaVR’s presi-dent. The U.S. Army uses VRSG to train unmanned aerial system (UAS) pilots in ET and other configurations.

VRSG is commercial-off-the-shelf system that runs on game-level Windows computers. Customers use VRSG to build terrain, populate terrain with culture and create training scenarios to run in VRSG. Especially important for UAS training is VRSG’s ability to simulate UAS video feeds coupled with its physics-based infrared (IR) rendering capability.

The Army uses VRSG in its RQ-7 Shadow Crew Trainer and Universal Ground Control Station (UGCS) for training operators of the Shadow, MQ-1C Gray Eagle and MQ-5 Hunter. VRSG simulates UAS camera payload by streaming simulated real-time UAS key-length-value metadata multi-plexed into an HD H.264, a commonly used video coding format, transport stream. Tactical systems use this streaming MPEG feed to visualize sensor imagery in real time.

VRSG can encode Motion Imagery Standards Board (MISB) 0104.5 and Engineering Guideline (EG) 0601 metadata. The HD H.264 stream can be transmitted live over User Datagram Protocol (UDP) to any remotely operated device that can play back video from an actual intelligence, sur-veillance and reconnaissance video feed. VRSG’s real-time, high-definition simulated video is indiscernible from actual UAS video feed.

The Army uses VRSG in its UGCS for training operators of multiple platforms in universal mission simulators, the next-generation simulator for multiple UASs. The UGCS Tactical Common Data Link can use VRSG’s streaming feed to visualize simulated sensor imagery in real time and extract the UAS metadata.

Using VRSG, the switch from UGCS simulation exercise to actual mission is seamless. Trainees needs only learn one system. Thus when UAS operators are not flying an actual UAS, they can fly a simulated UAS mission using the same hardware.

Training UAS operators often requires interacting with joint terminal attack controller trainees, during close air support exercises. VRSG can stream its simulated sensor video to a JTAC’s Remote Operational Video Enhanced Receiver, generating range and coordinates of target on moni-tors.

VRSG simulates IR images directly from the visual database by com-bining automatic material classification of red-green-blue images with a physics-based IR radiance and sensor model. This means VRSG emulates the heat signatures of terrain as well as vehicles, characters and objects on the terrain with a very high degree of accuracy.

MetaVR provides a number of tools and products to enhance the usefulness of VRSG.

To aid in building realistic highly detailed 3D terrain, MetaVR’s new remote-controlled aircraft collects images at sub-inch resolution. Syn-thetic environments built from the resulting terrain, with MetaVR’s Terrain Tools plugin to Esri ArcGIS, rendered in VRSG benefit from the ultra-high resolution and can then be rendered in VRSG’s simulated sensor feeds with a high degree of ground detail.

UAS customers use MetaVR’s VRSG Scenario Editor to build culture-rich dense scenes and real-time pattern-of-life scenarios to support training exercises in VRSG. Using this game-level editor, users can drag and drop culture and moving models onto the 3D terrain, create paths of movement, assign appearances and animations and sequence activities in a timeline. In doing so, users can draw from MetaVR’s extensive librar-ies of over 5,500 models.


Aptima . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27www.aptima.com

Eurosatory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C3www.eurosatory.com

ITEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5www.itec.co.uk

MetaVR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3www.metavr.com

MODSIM World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C2www.modsimworld.org

Raydon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C4www.raydon.com

RESOURCE CENTER

Associate PublisherHOLLY FOSTER

[email protected]

CorrespondentsPETER BUXBAUM • HENERY CANADAY • PATRICK CLARKE •

ANDREW DRWIEGA • KAREN THUERMER

Publication DesignJENNIFER OWERS • JAMES SCOTT CASSIDY

Subscription InformationISSN 1097-0975

Military Training International is published eight times a year by Defense House Publishing. All Rights Reserved.

Reproduction without permission is strictly forbidden. © Copyright 2016. Military Training International is free to qualified members of the U.S. military, employees of the U.S. government and non-U.S. foreign service based

in the United StatesAll others: $80 per year. Foreign: $120 per year.

CEO & Managing DirectorJEFF MCKAUGHAN

[email protected]

Contact InformationDefense House Publishing

P.O. Box 236Forest Hill, Maryland 21050 USA

Telephone: 443-243-1710Fax: 410-838-0224

www.mti-dhp.com

Marine SouthApril 6-7, 2016Camp Lejuene, N.C.www.marinemilitaryexpos.com/marine-south.shtml

MODSIMApril 26-28, 2016Virginia Beach, Va.www.ndia.org/meetings/61M0

Marrakech Air ShowApril 27-30, 2016Marrakech, Moroccowww.imas-aero.com

Army Aviation Mission Solutions SummitApril 28-30, 2016Atlanta, Ga.www.quad-a.org

AUVSI/XponentialMay 2-5, 2016New Orleans, La.www.xponential.org/auvsi2016

Middle East Special Operations Commanders ConferenceMay 9, 2016Amman, Jordanwww.inegma.com/events/45/Middle-East-Special-Operations-Commanders-Conference--MESOC-2016-

SOFEXMay 10, 13, 2016Amman, Jordanwww.sofexjordan.com

Sea-Air-SpaceMay 16-18, 2016National Harbor, Md.www.seaairspace.org

ITECMay 17-19, 2016London, UKwww.itec.co.uk

SOFICMay 23-26, 2016Tampa, Fla.www.sofic.org

SOMA Scientific AssemblyMay 23-26, 2016Charlotte, N.C.www.specialoperationsmedicine.org

Fast Jet Pilot Training Eastern Europe June 9-10, 2016Prague, Czech Republicwww.smi-online.co.uk

EurosatoryJune 13-17, 2016Paris, Francewww.eurosatory.com

TSIS June 15-16, 2016Orlando, Fla.www.trainingsystems.org

Air & Space Conference & Technology ExpoSeptember 19-21, 2016National Harbor, Md.www.afa.org

Africa Aerospace & Defence September 14-18, 2016Waterkloof Air Force Basewww.aadexpo.co.za

Modern Day MarineSeptember 27-29, 2016Quantico, Va.www.marinemilitaryexpos.com/modern-day-marine.shtml

ADVERTISERS INDEX

CALENDAR

Learn more about Aptima in this edition of Military Training International:

Boston ▪ DC ▪ Dayton ▪ Orlando | www.aptima.com

Human-Centered Engineering New Wave LVCPage 27

Learn more about Aptima in this edition of Military Training International:

Boston ▪ DC ▪ Dayton ▪ Orlando | www.aptima.com

Human-Centered Engineering New Wave LVCPage 27


TEAM ORLANDO

In WWII, the submarine was the secret weapon that helped determine the outcome of the war against Japanese forces. In WWI, it was U.S. “doughboys” and the 100 Day Cam-paign. Today, it’s Big Data.

The use of high quality data is fast becom-ing the backbone of modeling and simulation, as the industry strives for more realistic, timely and relevant end products. Improved product quality and cost savings are making Big Data attractive in the M&S industry. Cost savings are achieved when high quality data are used effectively for acquisition, testing, ex-perimentation, analysis, planning and training.

It is well established that warfighters ben-efit greatly from M&S, and the basis for M&S is valid data. Behind every project lies thousands, perhaps millions, of data points that produce the real-world training experience for which the industry is known. But obtaining reliable and accurate data inputs is costly and time consuming.

Enterprise Data Services (EDS), a program of the U.S. Army Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training and Instrumentation, is becoming the source of Big Data for a wide range of military M&S trainers. It is supplying DoD users and contractors with data com-bined from multiple sources that are reliable and current.

Today, the biggest issue around data gen-eration is cost. If a company has to produce the data itself, it can drive total cost up signifi-cantly; whereas, sharing of data across M&S communities can reduce cost significantly.

Robert (Rob) M. Cox, Ph.D., assistant pro-gram manager, EDS, said: “It requires new and

agile processes and data sources to realisti-cally represent today’s dynamic operational environment. These economies of scale from a shared data source produce a reliable end product with significant cost savings. EDS provides this in an open-source environment available to all government users and their contractors.”

In 2015, Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity (AMSSA) conducted a study to evaluate data usage in the M&S industry and to assess its impact. The study demonstrated that an enterprise data system with a shared model has the potential to yield a 25 percent return on investment. The study found that nearly all Army M&S communities can benefit from an enterprise data system, but that the M&S community is not fully utilizing the benefits of shared data.

The reason for the gap is uncertainty about where and how to obtain valid data. DoD users and contractors are seeking authorita-tive sources and governance to guide the industry.

Cox said: “It isn’t a lack of data that is preventing us from benefiting from shared sources right now. It’s an overabundance and uncertainty that is preventing the M&S community from fully capitalizing on a valuable asset. There is plenty of data, and frankly that is part of the problem.”

Multiple scenario data generation systems exist today, but it is often difficult to find, obtain, and reuse data to support M&S events.

Cox said: “If you can find current data, it is difficult to obtain, and if you can obtain the data, it is difficult to understand and

transform it for your use. It’s a bit like the Wild West.

‘Our model for EDS enables the discovery, assessment, retrieval, and transformation of data to support events across the entire DoD M&S Enterprise. It offers the opportunity to produce new and more sophisticated training tools for warfighters, and it delivers this at a significant cost savings.”

As military leadership demands more realistic and sophisticated methods of ready-ing troops within already tight budgets, users will be challenged with obtaining increasingly more accurate and abundant data for military trainers. Shared data sources offer a viable solution with strong financial return.

Cox said: “Right now, users are looking for someone to pick up the flag and point it in the direction that Big Data is going. People under-stand the benefits and embrace its emerging capabilities. Data users are asking the right questions: ‘What information is available for my division? What is available on the specific equipment that I am using, and what data can be obtained relevant to my specific mission and exercise?’

Cox explained: “My organization will re-main focused on giving them those answers. We’re building availability for all DoD users—gathering, validating and enhancing data and information that would otherwise not be read-ily available, and certainly not in the timeframe it is often needed. Our primary purpose is to help ensure the end goals of all the military branches are met. It’s that simple.

As our funding continues for EDS we will add additional data points and data sources. We’ll expand and add new tools and additional help aides. It will take that to keep pace with the ever-evolving world of M&S.”

EDS has three tenets for users of shared data processing:

• Apply a common data architecture• Proliferate standards -

interoperability at the data level• Focus on enabling the users and

automating the data management

EDS Creates Strategic Data Components for Simulations.BY THERESA BRADLEY

What information is available about my division?

What information is available about my fighting vehicles?

Find all data relevant to my mission/exercise.


THELAND & AIRLAND

SOLUTION

D E F E N C E & S E C U R I T Y I N T E R N A T I O N A L E X H I B I T I O N

www.eurosatory.com

We don’t send you to the fight,WE BRING THE fight TO YOU

WE BRING THE FIGHT TO YOU...BEFORE THE ENEMY DOESWith a ready fl eet of rental trainers, Raydon will bring the training to you. Guaranteed ready training, guaranteed throughput, portable and ready when you are. Bringing the warfi ghter the latest TC-3-20-31 gunnery curriculum, our fl eet is “Good to Go” - no matter where you are.

www.RAYDON.com

bring it on – We’re good to go!

Documents

Military Training International