Upload
drwilsonpa
View
1.572
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
The level of technology has been achieved that allows the miltary and aviator to achieve a level of qualification not achieved in decades. The simulator of the 21st century puts the aviator in situations that once was unattainable.
Citation preview
MILITARY’S USE OF SIMULATION
by
Donald Ray Wilson and Amanda Phipps
A Graduate Research Paper Submitted to the Extended Campusin Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of
Master of Aeronautical Science
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical UniversityExtended Campus
Sky Harbor Resident CenterOctober 2006
ABSTRACT
Researches: Donald Ray Wilson and Amanda Phipps
Title: Military Use of Simulation
Institution: Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
Degree: Master of Aeronautical Science
Year: 2006
This paper discusses the virtues of the various forms of simulation, how each
branch of the military uses it to train their military forces from breaching a room,
training aircrew members to operate a multi-million dollar aircraft, to using virtual
simulation to train forces in preparation for battle. The authors will briefly discuss
new programs that each branch of the military is in the process of procuring.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
ABSTRACT ii
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Use of Simulation 1 Military Training Classification 1 Forms of Simulation 2 Capabilities of Simulation 4
Restrictions on the Use of Simulation 5
II. SIMULATION TRAINING USEFULNESS AND COST 7
Live Simulation 7Stand Alone—Single System Simulation 8Virtual Simulation 9
III. MILITARY SIMULATION PROGRAMS AND PLANS 11
United States Army 11United States Air Force 12United States Navy 13
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14
REFERENCES 16
iii
CHAPTER I
BACKGROUND/INTRODUCTION
Use of Simulation
There are common applications for the use of simulation by the military.
These uses range from training, mission rehearsal, testing and evaluation, and
modeling for procurement, to combat effectiveness analysis.
Military Training Classification
Military training normally occurs in one of two settings: technical training or
at the unit level. At the Schoolhouse, training is structured from start to finish.
However, at the unit level, training normally occurs using the actual piece of
equipment that the individual will be required to operate.
Currently there are two forms of military training - individual and collective.
The individual training program primarily focuses on, as the name implies, tasks
that are executed by the individual (for example aiming a weapon or
troubleshooting a simulator malfunction). However, collective training focuses on
tasks that are performed by a group of individuals such as flight crews, and tank
crews who must function together and coordinate various activities including
conducting a wing-level attack on a formidable objective.
The training setting and type will traverse to form a four-element
classification (see Table 1) (Gorman, 1990). The classification table depicted in
Table 1 illustrates the various methods of training that can occur.
iv
Table 1. Four Element Training Table
Forms of Simulation
There are numerous types and forms of simulation that are associated
with military operations and training. When considering simulation it is sometimes
easier if you break it down into two subgroups. The first subgroup would be in
terms of (1) people and (2) systems; the second subgroup would be in terms of
whether the simulation would depict both people and systems, neither people nor
systems, or it could be people or systems (knowledge of subject based on 20
years of military experience as trainer).
The first type of simulation that will be discussed is live simulation. Live
simulation normally consists of “live people and live systems” in an environment
engaging hundreds, if not thousands, of people in a simulated battle. This
simulated battle will make use of live weapons and munitions. The intent of this
type of simulation is to prepare the soldier or aviator for war. Simulation of this
type is as real as it gets without going to war. To train the soldier or aviator in live
simulation the military has various facilities located throughout the United States
including the Army has the National Training Center located at Fort Irwin, and the
v
Air Force has Red Flag exercises located at Nellis Air Force Base (DMSO,
1995).
The second form of simulation is what is known as the “stand-alone
single-system simulator.” This entails having real people interact with simulated
systems. Examples of this range from the use of the weapons training simulator,
flight simulator, to possibly a tank simulator (Frost & Sullivan, 1994).
The third form of simulation is known as virtual simulation. Virtual
simulation may involve the networking of various military computer systems
located throughout the world. This enables participants scattered across the
globe to engage in virtual training exercises that will permit these soldiers to hone
their war-fighting skills. Virtual simulation can support both individual and
collective forms of training (normally at the unit level). The following are some
examples used by the various military branches: the Army’s SIMNET (Simulator
Networking) and Close Combat Tactical Trainer, and the Navy’s In-port Trainer
and Combined Services’ Multi-service Distributed Training Testbed,” (DMSO,
1995).
The last form of simulation is called constructive simulation. Constructive
simulation entails the combining of simulated military forces and simulated
weapons systems. This form of simulation is a computer model based on
simulated combat forces primarily used to train field commanders and members
of the battle staff in areas of strategic planning, tactical planning, and logistical
planning. Some examples of constructive simulation include JANUS (Joint
vi
Theater Level Simulation), Enhanced Naval War Gaming, and Air Warfare
Simulation (Department of Defense, 1994).
Capabilities of Simulation
Simulation is used for many reasons - to reduce operating costs, safety,
provide necessary feedback to instructors regarding students’ knowledge, and to
limit damage to the environment.
There are many advantages to using a simulator over a live piece of
equipment. The cost of operating a KC-135 air refueling tanker is approximately
$5,000/hour, whereas the operation of the simulator is roughly $300 – 500
dollars/hour (Department of the Air Force Budget, 1993). Other advantages are
safety and environmental reasons. It is much safer to accomplish certain
maneuvers in the simulator. For example, autorotation in the simulator is by far
safer than the same maneuver in the real aircraft (any mistake can have
devastating effects), and it is better on the environment. With the simulator, you
have no exhaust emissions nor any other environmental problems, like you
would experience when operating an aircraft.
The use of simulators was extensively used in preparation for the first Gulf
War. As you are well aware, you cannot practice in the enemy’s territory.
However, with the use of satellite photography and combining these images with
available ground images, out military was able to develop simulation scenarios
based on this information (Dept of the Air Force, 1993).
Finally, with dwindling resources, increasing costs, and political and
military situations, the use of simulation is one answer to a multi-layered problem.
vii
Restrictions on the use of Simulation
As we, all know simulation training is not a replacement for operations
training. The level of fidelity will have a direct impact on whether or not the
soldier, sailor, or airman will interpret the simulation as being close to the real
thing. This will determine if the simulator can be used in lieu of the actual piece
of equipment or device.
The layman must be made aware that all military jobs are explained in
terms of tasks. It is unfortunate that the simulator is not sophisticated enough for
the individual to complete all applicable training tasks. It is apparent that
whatever training cannot be accomplished on the simulator must be
accomplished on the actual piece of equipment.
Other limitations that are associated with simulation will be directed in the
area of flight simulation. With flight simulation, you are visually stimulated via the
external world as viewed through the cockpit windscreen. The stimuli that you
receive is generated and viewed on some form of screen(s). This stimuli if not
properly synchronized and controlled can induce what is known as “simulator
sickness”. Simulator sickness can have a debilitating effect on the aviator and
greatly impair their capabilities to continue with the training scenario. If the
problem persists, the aviator may even become incapacitated (Frank, L. H.,
Kennedy, R.S., Kellogg, R.S., & McCauley, M.E., 1983)
However, even with these known limitations, the use of simulation is just
one form of training that is both cost effective, readily available, and can be used
viii
for completing whatever mission(s) the military may have, based on available
resources.
ix
CHAPTER II
SIMULATION TRAINING USEFULNESS AND COST
Live Simulation
Simulated combat experience will have a direct impact on whether the
soldier or aviator will survive a real combat engagement with the enemy. This is
where live simulation comes into play. Historical data has proven many times that
if combat training is provided on the level that a member of the military might
experience then that individual has a good chance of survival.
One form of live simulation comes in the form of fighter weapons school
that both Navy and the Air Force employ. For the United States Air Force this
type of live simulation training takes place over the Nevada desert using actual
aircraft in simulated battle with an aggressor squadron flying aircraft similar to
that of the enemy and trained in the same tactics that are used by the enemy.
This type of training is monitored by personnel and computer systems on the
ground. Feedback is provided at mission completion so that changes in tactics
and training can take place. This form of training is so real that for that short time
you actually think you are engaging in battle with the enemy. The purpose of this
training is to hone the skills of these fighter pilots so that when they are engaged
in battle with the real enemy, their chances for survival are greatly improved. This
form of training has been used since the Vietnam Conflict; many surviving pilots
had attributed their survival to the training received in either “Top Gun” or “Red
Flag” (Gorman, 1990).
0
Today, all military services make use of all forms of live simulation to train
and sharpen the warrior skills. The leaders of each branch of our military know
the value of live simulation and the impact it has on the success of our military
forces in combat (Gorman, 1990).
Stand Alone—Single System Simulation
No one actually knows the exact number of simulators that each branch of
the military may have, however, you can easily estimate that number to be in the
thousands (based on the number of aircraft, ships and tanks) that are currently
employed. This number does not even take into account the number of Part-
Task-Trainers, Fixed-Based simulators, and other training devices that the
military owns and operates. Based on information gleaned from the Department
of Defense budget for FY2007, the military as a whole is projected to spend well
over $20 billion on all forms of simulation. This was an increase of over 10%
based on FY2006 budget (DoD Budget, 2006).
All branches of the military use some form of stand-alone single system
simulator. The Air Force and Navy are one of the world’s largest procurers of
aviation simulators, these simulators are used as an aid in training aviators to
safely operate the aircraft that they are responsible for. The Army uses stand-
alone systems to train gunners, tank crews, and helicopter crews in the safe
operation of each system. Based on numerous studies regarding the use of
simulators to train aviators, simulation is primarily used in initial and
familiarization training. However, these systems are not used to train aviators to
fly the aircraft.
1
Based on several DoD studies, the use of simulators in aviation
contributes to the safe operation of the aircraft. Simulators are great tools to be
used and contribute on a daily basis to the outstanding safety record of each
branch of service (DMSO, 1995).
Virtual Simulation
One of the newest forms of simulation to enter the military is virtual
simulation. This is one of the leading forms of technology that the military has
taken hold of. The armed forces are in the process of using this new technology
to train the soldiers and aviators of the future to fight and win on the battlefield.
Earlier in this document, it was stated that the Army uses tank simulators
to train tank crews to correctly and safely operate the multi-million dollar
Abrahams Main Battlefield tank. (DMSO, 1995)
With the introduction of virtual simulation soldiers and tank crews located
at different bases can now through computer networking, orchestrate and
participate in simulated battles that only a decade ago would not have been
possible due to the cost prohibitive nature of transporting the personnel and other
resources. This form of training is now possible and enables all associated
personnel to hone their war-fighting skills through their participation in these
simulated exercises. When the Army had live exercises there were always
accidents, and, unfortunately, some personnel were injured, or worse yet, killed
in a training accident. It is not to say that the Army has done away with live fire
training exercises, but that when the Army does have these exercises, all
2
participants have already ran through all possible scenarios through the use of
virtual simulation.
Today, with more powerful computers available, it is now possible to have
all the services link up and participate in battlefield simulations that were only a
dream a decade ago. The use of virtual simulations allows the military to train as
they fight and fight as they train. Virtual simulation allows the military to save tax
dollars and at the same time ensure that each member of a fighting unit is
properly trained. In addition, when a large exercise like REFORGER is executed
all personnel know what they are supposed to do, because they have already
received training prior to their deployment.
3
CHAPTER III
MILITARY SIMULATION PROGRAMS AND PLANS
Over the last several decades, the United States military has invested its
resources in simulation and simulator devices to better train its military forces.
The types of trainers and simulation devices range from the Antoinette trainer
used in World War I, to the Link training device used to train pilots in World War II
(Scans, 1979), to various other devices leading up to the full motion simulator
with 6 DOF.
United States Army
Today the military uses all forms and types of simulation devices to better
train its military forces. In the late 1970s and early 1980s the Army developed the
“MILES gear” to be used as a force on force training device to better train and
hone the soldier’s war fighting skills. This device has reached its life cycle and is
now in the process of being replaced by new state of the art technology. The
Army calls this new program “MILES XXI”. This new contract yet to be awarded
will be worth approximately $140 million. The MILES XXI equipment will be
available for and used on both mounted and dismounted soldiers and motorized
equipment. Based on preliminary information the Army stated that the new
system will improve weapon fidelity, reduce the logistics burden and provide
essential after action reviews. (www.global-defence.com/2001/TSpart2.html)
The Army also stated that the reason for the replacement of the current
MILES gear is that “it has reached its economic lifecycle and needs to be
replaced with modern and up-to-date equipment that included features not
4
available on the current basic MILES system,”
(www.global-defence.com/2001/TSpart2.html).
Based on the FY2006/2007 budget the Army is projected to spend
approximately $32 billion on Operations & Maintenance, a percentage of these
funds will be used in the areas of training and readiness
(www.asafm.army.mil/budget/fybm/FY07/greentop.pdf).
United States Air Force
The United States Air Force, over the past 50 years, has invested
hundreds of billions of dollars in training and various forms of simulators and
simulation devices to ensure that the pilots and crewmembers who fly the various
types of aircraft are the best trained.
L3Communications, Link Simulation & Training is the subcontractor
responsible for developing and building the F/A-22 training devices for the USAF
(www.airforce-technology.com/contractors/training/link/ ). Based on available
information, the complete F/A-22 training package will be valued at over $720
million: “$220 million for 10 prototype trainers and courseware, and $500 million
for 96 production trainers. Boeing is a one-third partner in the F/A-22 aircraft
program, but has 100 percent of the trainer work. Lockheed Martin is the prime
contractor for the aircraft,”
(www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2003/Nov/Planned_upgrades.htm).
Based on the FY2006/2007 budget estimates, the Department of Air Force
is projected to spend well over $17.7 billion on training its aircrew and the
5
procurement of the necessary training materials and devices
(www.saffm.hq.af.mil/FMB/pb/2006/afoandm/AF_FY06_PB_OM_Vol%201.pdf).
United States Navy
Based on FY2006 with an operating budget of well over $105
Billion, the Navy is projected to spend just slightly over $3 billion on training
programs
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/budget/fy2006/navy/OMN_FY06PB.
pdf).One example of how the Navy is improving its training is in the area of
upgrading its Landing Signal Officer Training device. The Navy has recently
awarded a $3 million contract to Aero Simulation, Inc. “The multi-year effort
requires the upgrade, refurbishment and relocation of the Navy’s only major
training system in this critical technical field. ASI’s upgrades will include
development of the VISUAL LSO Workstation and a new Instructor Operator
Station, as well as replacement of the Image Generator and related database
environment and models. ASI will also perform a technical study of the visual
display system, investigating potential performance improvements. In parallel
with these upgrades, ASI will also correct a number of existing deficiencies within
the training system,” (www.aerosimulation.com/).
6
CHAPTER IV
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on research and available case studies the Department of Defense
and all branches of the military have invested trillions of taxpayer’s dollars on the
defense of the homeland. It is also readily apparent that all branches of the
military understand how important it is to have a properly trained fighting force
that is capable of meeting any mission that they are confronted with. That is why
each year billions of dollars are invested in the training of our military. The
training dollars invested range from basic military studies to investing hundreds
of millions of dollars on flight simulators that are used to train aviators who
operate multi-million dollar aircraft.
The military is attempting to find smarter and better ways to spend the
limited training dollars that are budgeted each year. The 21st century technology
revolution has led the DoD and the military to invest heavily in virtual simulations
and simulators. Based on past reports, the Army, Navy, Marine Corp and Air
Force would spend hundreds of millions of dollars on large joint exercises.
Unfortunately, with reduced operating budgets, the military is now turning to new
technology to help stretch the O&M dollars. That is were simulators and virtual
simulation comes into play. For years, the military has been using various types
of simulators and training devices to train its aircrew members to fly and operate
multi-million dollar aircraft. Now, they are turning to virtual simulation. In one
example, the Army is using virtual simulation to train soldiers to fight in urban
areas.
7
The use of simulators and virtual simulation is just one way the military is
ensuring that they get the most bang for the training buck.
8
REFERENCES
Adams, C. LtCol. (1995). Defense Modeling and Simulation (M&S) Office.
Modeling and simulation master plan. Alexandria, VA. Unpublished
manuscript.
Department of the Air Force (2005). Air Force O&M Budget Estimates for
FY2006/2007. Retrieved on Sep 30, 2006, from
https://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/FMB/pb/2007/afoandm_3400/AF3400_FY07_
PB_OM_Vol%201.pdf
Department of the Air Force (1993). FY 1993 Budget. KC-135 operating costs.
Washington, D.C.
Department of the Army (1993). Simulations and their relationship to
OPTEMPO/training ammunition. Washington, D.C.
Department of Defense (2006). FY2007 Military O&M Budget. Washington, D.C.
Department of the Defense (1994). Military manpower training report, FY 1995.
Washington, D.C: Office of the Comptroller of the Department of Defense.
Frank, L.H., Kennedy, R.S., Kellogg, R.S., & McCauley, M.E. (1983). Simulator
sickness: Reaction to a transformed perceptual world. Orlando, FL: Naval
Training Equipment Training Center.
Gann, T. Col. (1995) Department of the Air Force. Response to air force
simulation questions. Washington, D.C. Unpublished manuscript
Gorman, P.F. (1990). The military value of training. IDA Paper P-2515.
Alexandria, VA: Institute for Defense Analysis.
Hudson, C., Davis, C., & Loomis, K. (2003). Manual of the American
9
Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, D.C.: American
Psychological Association.
L3 Communications (n.d.). Link simulation and training—Military simulators and
training systems. Retrieved Sept 30, 2006, from http://www.airforce-
technology.com/contractors/training/link/
Miles Ahead in Weapons Systems. (n.d.) Retrieved Sept 30, 2006 from
http://www.global-defence.com/2001/TSpart2.html
National Defense Magazine (2003, Nov). F/A-22 Pilots Begin Training at Tyndall
AFB Planned upgrades: air-to-ground capabilities, connectivity with other
trainers. Retrieved Sep 30, 2006, from
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2003/Nov/Planned_upgra
des.htm
US ARMY NEWS RELEASE. ARMY BUDGEY FY2007 (2006, Feb 6). Retrieved
Sep 30, 2006, from
http://www.asafm.army.mil/budget/fybm/FY07/greentop.pdf
Wilson, D.R. (2006). 20-years military experience as KC-135 flight crewmember
and training instructor
10