Virtual Training Initiatives

With the cost of training aviators and aircrew already high, AETC, CNATRA, and the USAACE have sought new ways to apply simulation. In June, the 451st Flying Training Squadron began a new method of training CSOs, taking simulators airborne. The USAF is modifying T-1A Jayhawks with an electronic warfare suite so that undergraduate CSOs can conduct simulated training while in flight. Previously, the electronic warfare portion of CSO training was taught only in a simulator, with basic flying skills taught in the aircraft.

AETC told Defense, “Placing an additional electronic warfare [EW] equipment suite in the back of the T-1 allows us to nearly double the amount of flying hours a CSO student gets [one student in the front and one in the back during the low level phase of training] while at the same time taking EW training airborne. The EW suite is capable of several configuration types, but for now, we are limiting the amount of configurations due to training time limitations. Future syllabi will continue to expand on the capabilities of the EW suite in the modified T-1.”

At CNATRA, the Navy is bringing undergraduate training for select UMFOs down to earth. P-3, P-8, EP-3, E-6, and E-2C/D NFOs will make extensive use of a new Multi-Crew Simulator (MCS), focusing on crew resource management, communications, and sensor integration as a follow-on to primary T-6 training. The MCS will be fielded by newly reconstituted Training Squadron Four (VT-4).

“Before, we gave the ‘heavy’ fliers very little back-end training,” Merkel said. “We provided a little training about what aviation was about and then sent them to the FRS [fleet replacement squadron]. The FRS would then have to specially train them about sensor operations, because CNATRA had no capability to do it. We’re just now testing our MCS and expect to stand the squadron up in summer 2014.”

Previously equipped with T-6As, VT-4 will now operate the ground-based MCS, essentially becoming a “simulator squadron.” Known officially as an Advanced Maritime C2 (command and control) Squadron, the unit will train approximately 160 NFOs per year in classes of eight to 12 students.

“Before, we gave the ‘heavy’ fliers very little back-end training,” Merkel said. “We provided a little training about what aviation was about and then sent them to the FRS [fleet replacement squadron]. The FRS would then have to specially train them about sensor operations, because CNATRA had no capability to do it. We’re just now testing our MCS and expect to stand the squadron up in summer 2014.”

USAACE continues with its unique contractor-owned and -operated “Warrior Hall.” Located adjacent to Fort Rucker, Warrior Hall is the largest helicopter simulation facility in the world, housing training helicopter (TH-67) virtual simulators, advanced aircraft virtual simulators (UH-60A/L, UH-60M, AH-64A/D, OH-58D, CH-47D, and CH-47F), reconfigurable collective training devices, and a training support/management oversight capability.

The arrangement has proven effective, with prime contractor CSC’s training support services having been “awarded additional option years to the base contract extending the period of performance. The maximum allowable contract term is through 2023 if future option awards are earned,” Seitz reported. L3 Link Simulation and Training, along with FlightSafety International, provide the varied simulators used at Warrior Hall and work with USAACE to continually modernize and improve simulation.

“Our newest OH-58D simulator was fielded with new upgrades, to include an enhanced visualization system,” Seitz said. “Earlier this year, we fielded the first-of-its-kind full-motion/full-visual CH-47F simulator, and are currently in accreditation testing for the first-of-their-kind UH-60M full-motion/full-visual simulators.”

 

Apples to Oranges

AETC and CNATRA make similar modernization efforts where funding allows, but as each of the services told Defense, almost all funding for the acquisition of new training devices is on hold. The argument for more simulation would seem to be made by the flight hour reductions each service has experienced under the current sequestration and the possibility of further cuts. Moreover, the cost of simulation is said to be a fraction of that of live flight.

As yet, however, none of the services has arrived at a formula to compare the costs of live flight hours versus simulation. When asked whether simulation is proving to be cheaper than live training, AETC says making a direct comparison between the two is complex.

“AETC has a lot more fidelity on cost per flying hour in an aircraft than for in a simulator. Many variables are required for the simulator cost per flight hour calculation, rather than just the initial purchase of a high-fidelity full-motion simulator; for instance, building a facility to house the simulator, power requirements, heating/air conditioning, contractor-provided simulator instructor costs, simulator maintenance requirements, etc.”

Merkel maintains that a comparison could be made if the cost of simulation was calculated in the same fashion as flight hours. He said the Navy doesn’t tally expenses including military instructors, the amortization of equipment (aircraft), and other factors when measuring flight hour expenses.

“If you’re not counting the costs of hangars which house aircraft, you don’t count the cost of the buildings or facilities which house simulators. Start throwing all of those things out, including the cost to buy simulators, and you get down to the maintenance cost for simulators as a comparison cost to airplanes. So we’re probably talking about somewhere near $100 per hour for basic maintenance on a large group of simulators.”

Despite the certain cost advantage, the services say they are balancing the advantages and disadvantages of virtual training and have no immediate plans to employ more simulation in flight training.

According to AETC, “For the undergraduate pipeline, the levels of simulated flying training are at a level that efficiently and cost-effectively produces a graduate that is prepared for the rigors of their follow-on training. There is currently no plan to change the ratio of simulation to live flying in most pipelines.”

USAACE’s Seitz explained, “While there are measurable cost differences between flying a lower-cost flight simulator versus the higher cost actual aircraft, there are certain training tasks and essential training transfer requirements that are best suited for the live aircraft – just as there are tasks that are better suited for simulation. Having a reasoned balance between live aircraft and simulators, appreciating the strengths and limitations of both capabilities, allows us to achieve higher training effectiveness at a lower cost.”

 

The Industry Outlook

L3 Link Simulation and FlightSafety International are two of the leading manufacturers of flight simulators, producing a range of full-motion and fixed flight simulators for the training commands and for more advanced mission training and wargaming.

Both firms are well aware of the conundrum the armed forces are facing – an acknowledgment that the operational and fiscal necessity of simulation will increase in coming years, complicated by declining funding and a desire to protect live flight hours.

“All of our armed forces, and those internationally as well – even though they may be on one hand trying to protect live flying – are asking about what we can incorporate into a simulation device that will allow them to do training they can’t do in a live airplane or training that will be limited in an airplane,” said L-3 Link’s Vice President of Business Development Gary Nesta.

FlightSafety Services Corporation Vice President Ron Ladnier concurred, and added that the armed forces are asking for more capable new-build simulators that allow multiple types of training to be simulated simultaneously.

“A lot of the conversation around the KC-46A Aircrew Training System [ATS] contract that we just won was about how more training could be moved to our simulators,” Ladnier said. “One example in our solution included a boom-operator simulator trainer with a motion base that links it to the full flight simulator that the pilots use and allows it to move in coordination with the full flight sim or separately. All of the advanced components we’ve included in our KC-46A simulators relate to shifting training to increased simulation.”

Another example is FlightSafety’s HH-60G simulator for Air Force Special Operations Command. Built on a similar motion platform, the Pave Hawk trainer allows gunners to train with pilots on the same motion base.

“Each gunner position has its own visual system,” Ladnier noted. “In the Army, the first time pilots and gunners marry up is often in Afghanistan. With Air Force special ops, those guys train together and when they deploy to combat, they’re already an effective team.”

This multiplier effect is also demonstrated by L-3 Link’s AVCATT (Aviation Combined Arms Tactical Trainer), which can be reconfigured to simulate different aircraft types, including the AH-64A/D, OH-58D, UH-60A/L, and CH-47D platforms. As importantly, AVCATT simulators can be linked for advanced virtual training, including Distributed Missions Operations (DMO) and LVC (live, virtual, constructive) simulation.

“AMC linked 13 air-drop aircraft,” he said. “They briefed the mission before they took off in the simulators, flew the mission in the sims, and debriefed. That’s 13 live flights that didn’t occur because they could be done in simulators.”

DMO and LVC training rely on sophisticated networks that allow participants in geographically distinct locations to “game” and rehearse highly complex campaigns or operations, using a mix of local/distant live and virtual players in a “constructive environment.”

FlightSafety’s Ladnier cited a recent Air Mobility Command (AMC) air-drop training exercise for loadmasters as an example of efficient DMO training.

“AMC linked 13 air-drop aircraft,” he said. “They briefed the mission before they took off in the simulators, flew the mission in the sims, and debriefed. That’s 13 live flights that didn’t occur because they could be done in simulators.”

Ladnier noted that DMO capability is almost a standard requirement for new simulation systems his company and others are producing, including the advanced technology simulators FlightSafety is providing as part of the KC-46A ATS contract.

“One of the goals for our KC-46 ATS is that we want to be able to have a boom operator on the East Coast refuel a fighter on the West Coast,” he said. “We’re 100 percent responsive to networked simulation. All of this supports the move of more training to simulation.”

At the high end of DMO and LVC training are large-force exercises being conducted by the Army, Navy, and Air Force. These employ LVC simulation to bring together live and virtual assets from around the globe to participate together in constructive scenarios.

“From a simulations standpoint, I can tell you that our investments in live, virtual, constructive, and gaming capabilities provide commanders the ability to maintain readiness,” said Seitz, explaining the benefits. “For example, the Aviation Combined Arms Tactical Trainer provides the opportunity for aviation leaders to plan, rehearse, execute, and evaluate collective training in the virtual environment. It can serve as an excellent enabler for constructive simulations exercises like the Command Post Exercise-Functional [CPX-F]. CPX-F is a Combat Aviation Brigade-level constructive exercise that is designed for home stations and executed in the local Mission Command Training Center [MCTC].”

Perhaps the most advanced virtual training conducted routinely is the Air Force’s “Virtual Flag.” Run by the 705th Combat Training Squadron and hosted at the Air Force’s Distributed Mission Operations Center (DMOC) at Kirtland AFB, N.M., Virtual Flag is described as:

“A real-time tactical-to-operational level event using air, land, space, cyber and maritime distributed scenarios to integrate live, virtual and constructive simulations and train warfighters in robust combat scenarios. Joint and coalition combat platforms are integrated from DMOC based and worldwide distributed operational sites.”

Held quarterly, the large force exercise is “designed to increase combat capability across the Theater Air Control System and its elements,” according to the Air Force. Growing in popularity and complexity, DMO and LVC simulations like Virtual Flag are an area of the market many expect to expand – that is, if the challenge of smoothly integrating/networking disparate and distant simulators can be simplified.

At present, the military and industry have “difficulty getting all of the systems to play together each time without a major effort,” said Nesta. “In the training and simulation area, I think LVC provides us some opportunity [marketwise] but it’s going to take some time to sort out how that will transpire.”

With the budget uncertainty and new aircraft programs (LRS-B, UCLASS, JMRTD, TX, etc.) years away, Nesta explained that the military is primarily asking industry how it can make current simulators more versatile.

“The biggest push we get from our customers is, ‘How can you add more capability to my existing simulation assets?’” he said. “It’s more like they’re saying they’re not going to buy a lot more new simulation devices. It goes back to them not being able to add a lot in the near term with budgets as they are. They want to know how they can make what they have more effective. The challenge for industry is how we can add capability without killing the customer’s budget.”

Merkel confirmed Nesta’s assessment, but added that the current crop of simulators won’t last indefinitely.

“We’re faced with scraping money together for modifications, doing SLEP [service life extension programs], or just continuing as usual with a less-than-optimum training system. You can only do that for so long, because hardware deteriorates, computerized systems become obsolete, and electronic parts fail and go out of manufacture. There comes a point when you have to acquire new simulators.”

It’s hard to say when acquisition will resume, but when it does, simulators will be among the military’s top priorities, exiting the holding pattern as America’s armed forces shrink and the fiscal logic of virtual training becomes hard to argue against.

“People do pause when you look at the first-year acquisition cost of simulators,” Ladnier admitted. “But when you look at life cycle costs, the argument is compelling. When you have fewer airplanes, you can’t afford to be flying the same number of flight hours. You can’t afford to devote that smaller number of airplanes for training. I think that reduction in airplanes will make them revisit simulation.”

This article first appeared in the Defense Fall/Winter 2013-2014 Edition.