MS&T Magazine - Issue 3/2010 by Halldale Group

www.halldale.com The International Defence Training Journal

Training Transformation

UAS Center of Excellence

Technology Application

Simulation at a Price Performance Technology

Putting Theory into Practice Technology Application

Medicine, Health Care and Opportunity ISSNâ&#x20AC;&#x2C6;1471-1052 | US $14/ÂŁ8

Issue 3/2010

The Future of Human Performance Training and Research is TODAY! Artist conception of the 711th Human Performance Wing and Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory (NAMRL) complex being constructed at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. (Air Force graphic by KZF/BWSC)

Future Home of the US Air Force ATFS-400 PHOENIX

Future Home of the US Air Force FALCON Hypobaric Chamber Suite

Future Home of the US Navy GL-6000 GRYPHON

Just ed! d Awar

Navy Research Facility

FALCON Hypobaric (Altitude) Chamber Suite Climb Rates Between 50 ft/min to 80,000 ft/min • Infrared Panels for Solar Simulation • Noise Levels as low as 50dbA • Rapid Decompression Times as low as 40 milliseconds • Temperature Control Between -67° F to 150° F Relative Humidity Control between 2% to 98%

etcAircrewTraining.com/FALCON ATFS-400 PHOENIX Centrifuge State of the Art High Performance Human Centrifuge • Max 20Gz • 15G/sec Onset/Offset • Multi-Axis • Interchangeable/High Fidelity Aircraft Cockpits

etcAircrewTraining.com/PHOENIX GL-6000 GRYPHON Disorientation Research Device (DRD) • VTOL and STOVL Motion Capable 6 Axes of Motion • Spatial Disorientation • Multi-Axis Research Capable Plus or Minus up to 3G • Future Cornerstone of Navy Medicine Research

TAKING TRAINING TO THE TROOPS

WITH SAAB as your training partner you have access to the world’s most reliable and effective Deployable Instrumented Training solutions. The system supports live force-on-force collective training in open and urban environments and is flexible in its use from section/squad and platoon level training right up to Brigade Combat Team level.

The new enhanced version which includes many new capabilities has been recently procured by the US Marine Corps and the British Army. Now they take training to the troops, wherever they are deployed without change or modification of infrastructure. That’s the best environment for effective training.

www.saabgroup.com

CAPABILITIES:

• Full integration of on-line synchronized audio and video • Integration of C2/C4I data to support analysis and evaluation • Communication via satellite link and options for information security • Fully deployable – readily relocated where required • Realistic Simulation of weapon effects and ground truth in Exercise Control (EXCON). • Tactical training up to 20,000 players • Scalable coverage – flexible usage and growth potential

• Comprehensive set of tools from exercise planning to AAR and Take Home Package • Parallel multi-scenario training • LVC interoperability - DITS backbone interface • Proven and fielded by the major armies in the world

PRODUCT

DEPLOYABLE INSTRUMENTED TRAINING SYSTEM

FUNCTION

LIVE TRAINING

DEVELOPED BY TRAINING AND SIMULATION

WE KNOW TRAINING LIKE NO ONE ELSE At Raydon, our many years of experience enable us to analyze your training needs and develop an effective, efficient solution that fits your budget. In fact, all our current products are the result of developing solutions for previous customers. And we can design your training solution to be as unique as your needs are.

A SINGLE, WELL-FOCUSED AIM At Raydon, our only goal is to earn the confidence to become your provider of choice for comprehensive training systems. To do that, we leverage our vast library of previous developments to help you, our customer, create the most effective solutions for their current and future challenges.

Delivering your solution faster â&#x20AC;&#x201D; Raydon +1 386 2672936

WWW.RAYDON.COM ÂŠ 2010 Raydon Corporation

Editorial Comment

Editorial Editor-in-Chief: Chris Lehman [e] chris@halldale.com Managing Editor: Jeff Loube [e] jeff@halldale.com Contributors Walter F. Ullrich - Europe Editor Chuck Weirauch - Training Procurement Lori Ponoroff - US News Editor [e] lori@halldale.com Fiona Greenyer - RoW News Editor [e] fiona@halldale.com Advertising Business Manager: Jeremy Humphreys [t] +44 (0)1252 532009 [e] jeremy@halldale.com Business Manager, North America: Mary Bellini Brown [t] +1 703 421 3709 [e] mary@halldale.com Marketing Manager: Lizzie Daniell [t] +44 (0)1252 532008 [e] lizzie@halldale.com Sales & Marketing Co-ordinator: Karen Kettle [t] +44 (0)1252 532002 [e] karen@halldale.com Design & Production David Malley [t] +44 (0)1252 532005 [e] david@halldale.com Internet www.halldale.com/mst Subscriptions & Distribution Subscriptions Hotline [t] +44 (0)1252 532000 [e] mst@halldale.com 6 issues per year at US$168 Distribution Co-ordinator: Sarah de Wet [t] +44 (0)1252 532006 [e] sarah.dewet@halldale.com Publishing House and Editorial Office Military Simulation & Training (ISSN 1471-1052) is published by: Halldale Media Ltd. Pembroke House, 8 St. Christopher’s Place, Farnborough, Hampshire, GU14 0NH, UK. [t] +44 (0)1252 532000 [f] +44 (0)1252 512714 [e] mst@halldale.com US office Halldale Media Inc. 115 Timberlachen Circle Ste 2009 Lake Mary, FL 32746 USA [t] +1 407 322 5605 [f] +1 407 322 5604 Publisher & CEO: Andrew Smith

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise especially translating into other languages - without prior written permission of the publisher. All rights also reserved for restitution in lectures, broadcasts, televisions, magnetic tape and methods of similar means. Each copy produced by a commercial enterprise serves a commercial purpose and is thus subject to remuneration. MS&T Magazine (ISSN 1471-1052, USPS # 022067), printed June 2010, is published 6 times per annum by Halldale Media Ltd, Pembroke House, 8 St. Christopher’s Place, Farnborough, Hampshire, GU14 ONH, UK at a U.S. subscription rate of $168 per year. Periodical postage rates are paid at Middlesex New Jersey New York U.S.A. Postmaster: Please send address changes to: Halldale Media Inc., 115 Timberlachen Circle, Ste 2009, Lake Mary, FL 32746, USA.

Circulation audited by:

Jeff Loube

Training Technology: Love it, Hate it. There is a love-hate relationship with new training technologies. Some of us resist change, fearing new technology and its impact; some of us are early adopters, enthusiastically seeking out and embracing new technology and its promises. Fear of new technology is not unexpected. Steven Pinker, writing recently in the New York Times notes “New forms of media have always caused moral panics: the printing press, newspapers, paperbacks and television were all once denounced as threats to their consumers' brainpower and moral fiber”. He notes that we are told: “PowerPoint... is reducing discourse to bullet points. Search engines lower our intelligence, encouraging us to skim on the surface of knowledge rather than dive to its depths.” For those who fear technical change – safety is found in the status quo. They would never be found at 0500 in a queue outside The Apple Store. On the other hand, ‘digital immigrant’ grandfather aviators, with pride and wide eyed wonder, tell us stories, about how proficiently their “digital native’ grandchildren demolish them in digital dogfights – concluding that recruits have changed – and we must use new technologies if we are to appeal to this new race. We observe how networks and databases, models and simulations frame most military workplaces. Connectivity is persistent, both at work and at home. Is it surprising that this environment spawns technology advocates that do not find it unreasonable to be in a queue at 0500 outside The Apple Store? For these folks technology itself is instrumental in their thinking, and technology is both the issue and the solution. Every year, The Edge Foundation (www.edge.org) poses a question to influential thinkers. This years question is “How is the Internet changing the way you think?” Interesting reading especially for those engaged in training tomorrow’s soldier – and choosing the technology to do so. We should be asking similar questions about our own network centric environment. Marissa Mayer, VP Search Products and User Experience, Google, answered, “It's not what you know, it's what you can find out. The Internet has put at the forefront resourcefulness and critical-thinking and relegated memorization of rote facts to mental exercise or enjoyment”. The Internet is a paradigm for the networked and connected environment of tomorrow’s soldier. Those training and employing that soldier would, I believe, agree with the need to develop resourcefulness and critical thinking. Certainly, I’ve seen critical thinking highlighted as an essential skill for aircraft technicians. Kai Krause, software pioneer and author, comparing the vision, the hope and the theory with the reality of today observed “There were such lofty expectations using multimedia in education and learning but already soon after... we called it "multimediocrity"”. And perhaps that is what those with strong reservations about training technology fear – an institutionalising of mediocrity in training through technology. Yet, how do we train for the modern environment without technology – we do need to “train as we work, train as we fight”. Ruth C Clark (2007) asks “Have you ever attended an ineffective classroom course? Or experienced poor e-Learning materials? The reason we see inconsistent learning outcomes is that the quality of a learning environment is not in the technology, but in how the technology is used.” This leaves us with two things to keep in mind when dealing with technology. First, technology is not the big issue. The big issue is how and what you want the students to learn e.g. critical thinking, and the instructional methods required. Only after that is determined can we deal with technology. Taking a position midway between advocacy and fearful resistance – a critical dialectic position – helps us to best do that. E.V. Sullivan proposes a broad framework that challenges decision makers to be objective and critically reflect on the issues. A critical dialectic position forces the evaluation of the impact of technology from a multidimensional perspective, including its intent and consequences, in order to arrive at an informed decision. And an informed decision is essential. Neil Postman (1992) cautions, “Every culture must negotiate with technology, whether it does so intelligently or not. A bargain is struck in which technology giveth and technology taketh away. The wise know this well and are rarely impressed by dramatic technological changes…” Jeff Loube, CPT MS&T Managing Editor MS&T MAGAZINE • ISSUE 3/2010

TrAining TrAnsformATion

UAS Center of Excellence

Technology ApplicATion

Simulation at a Price performAnce Technology

Putting Theory into Practice Technology ApplicATion

Medicine, Health Care and Opportunity ISSN 1471-1052 | uS $14/£8

Issue 3/2010

cover credit USAF/Lance Cheung

front cover

www.halldale.com The InTernaTIonal Defence TraInIng Journal

contents ms&T 3/2010

05 Editorial Comment

Technology Application

08 Technology Application Simulation at a Price. The Latvian Armed Forces found a cost effective solution to provide a simulated training environment. Harry Thompson describes the implementation.

12 Technology Application Medicine, Health Care and Opportunity. Vendors of military and aviation M&S technologies are bullish on the health care domain. Chuck Weirauch explains.

Performance Technology

Technology Application

16 Performance Technology

Training Transformation

feature Articles

Training Technology. Managing Editor Jeff Loube explores the zen of training technology.

Putting Theory Into Practice. Some ideas that work. Lt(N) Bradley White discusses tactics for Air Force technical training gleaned from the field.

19 Training Transformation A Center of Excellence. The Joint Unmanned Aircraft Systems COE is tasked with supporting joint use of these systems. Chuck Weirauch explains their role.

24 Training Technology Eighty Years of Flight Simulation. Ed Link’s trainer demonstrated the effectiveness of ‘ground based training’. Walter F. Ullrich tells the story.

28 Show Report ITEC 2010. The show was considered a success by all concerned. Walter F. Ullrich reports.

30 Conference Report IQPC UAV Training and Simulation. An insatiable appetite for capability is driving the growth and the challenges of RPA systems. Dim Jones reports.

32 NEWS Seen and Heard. A round up of developments in simulation and training. Compiled and edited by Chuck Weirauch.

MS&T MAGAZINE • ISSUE 3/2010

Technology Application

carce resources, equally competing requirements, complex situations, rapid decision-making training and readiness of personnel and equipment – these are situations that today’s NATO leadership continually face. How can technology approach these issues? How can technology help decision-makers overcome these obstacles? In today’s budget-conscious environment, it is extremely important for North American Treaty Organization (NATO) countries to employ affordable and yet sophisticated simulation training resources to maintain readiness. Many countries, however, do not have the financial and human capital resources required to enhance their national training and readiness capabilities to promote interoperability among alliance forces. Latvia, in the Baltic region of Northern Europe, serves as an example of how a nation can use technology to more effectively utilize scarce resources. The Latvian Armed Forces faced a shortage of computer-assisted simulation solutions for training military personnel. 08

MS&T MAGAZINE • ISSUE 3/2010

They needed to find a cost-effective tool to meet their training and readiness requirements and provide real-world scenarios to improve the quality of their military training. The challenge the Latvian Armed Forces faced was twofold. First, the military had to develop a simulation capability with features and functionality available in more sophisticated and expensive military simulation training tools. Secondly, the armed forces needed to find a way to meet their training and long-term sustainment requirements at a price the nation could afford. Program Executive Office-Simulation, Training and Instrumentation (PEO-STRI) awarded training contracts to Alion Science and Technology. Alion has worked closely with representatives of a number of NATO nations to help them put together a strategy to incorporate modeling and simulation in their training and educational programs. Alion found that many of the countries were buying feature-rich simulation systems with features that far exceed their current existing requirements and capabilities. The findings showed that

Above Latvian Master Trainer, Corporal Evita Martina teaches Battle Command Operator classes. Image credit: Author.

oversized systems were costly to install, maintain and sustain. This was further complicated by the additional subject matter experts needed to maintain and sustain these systems. These factors placed an additional financial burden on a nation’s budget, particularly significant with smaller countries. As a result of these findings, it was clear there was a need to adapt and rethink strategies to respond to the needs of smaller countries. There needed to be an intermediate level of simulation between the highly capable U.S. joint simulations and the commercial type computer games that could be used to address a nation’s constructive simulation requirements in a manner “good enough” to support these requirements, but much less costly in terms of simulation procurement, training and sustainment costs. In the case of the

Bringing Military Simulation Capabilities to Latvian Armed Forces Sometimes ‘good enough’ exceeds all expectations. Harry Thompson describes the successful implementation of a constructive simulation capability in a budget conscious country.

Latvian Armed Forces, simulation solutions were reviewed that would suit the military’s objective to support its operational units. After in-depth research, VT MÄK’s Battle Command software was selected to meet the military requirements. VT MÄK’s Battle Command military tactical trainer provides similar features and functionality as more costly systems and allows ground combat commanders to practice their planning and execution skills within a compelling simulated environment. Battle Command helps commanders develop warfighting skills by allowing them to plan the battle, fight the battle and review the battle. Alion worked with VT MÄK to tailor Battle Command to make it costeffective and comprehensive. Engineers weighed the costs and benefits of each element of the Latvian military solution. This included defining customer needs and controlling expenses. Alion took Battle Command simulation software to a different level by integrating it in both a training program and an educational program to meet the Latvian military’s requirements to use

the simulation countrywide – not just in one central simulation center. This approach addressed the Latvian senior leadership’s vision to push simulation use through a distributed, easy-to-use manner down to the lowest possible level nationwide. Among the support Alion provided to the Latvian Armed Forces were overall program management, advanced user training, terrain database development, extended on-site support and operational use helpdesk support. Latvian users were taught how to effectively install and use the software and how to build their own terrain to use with the software. Subject matter experts developed a massive library of more than 100 individual function guides or checklists (in addition to the normal user’s manual) for the various functions associated with Battle Command operation and terrain development.

Train the Trainers An integral part of making the simulation software cost-effective involved establishing a technically and operationally proficient Latvian program man-

agement office to provide oversight of all simulation activities, act as a helpdesk and provide “master trainers” for the future nationwide use expansion. The “master trainers” were trained through the “training the trainer” approach. Alion worked with selected military personnel, who previously did not have extensive simulation experience, and taught them how to employ the simulation tool, helping them to become effective “master trainers.” These “master trainers” are now able to pass on their knowledge to other military personnel, enabling them to operate the battle simulation program on their own. Additionally, the Latvian forces were trained to run major brigade-level exercises without external subject matter experts. This saved the Latvian military an additional $1.5 million during the first year. Subsequent savings of $1.5 million per year is expected in program sustainment costs since Latvia Armed Forces do not require on-site U.S. experts. This training and fielding approach better ensures and protects the investment by the U.S. and Latvia in simulation by establishing a capability for Latvia to MS&T MAGAZINE • ISSUE 3/2010

Technology Application

sustain and grow its simulation capability with its own people and resources within a budget they can afford.

Program Management Alion’s role as the program management and subject matter expert included support of nationwide training exercises with the Latvian Armed Forces using VT MÄK’s Battle Command desktop training simulation. These brigade-level exercises were the culmination of a fivemonth long project that included fielding, new equipment training and advanced training. Originally, this annual national level training exercise was scheduled to be a live field exercise but the exercise was scheduled for cancelation due to budget restrictions. However, with the fielding of the Battle Command simulation, it was determined that the training objectives could be accomplished using a simulation tool at a considerable savings. Therefore, Latvian military leaders decided to replace the previously planned, and cancelled, live training with a constructive simulation training exercise using Battle Command.

Interoperability with Command & Control Systems During the exercise planning and development process prior to the national exercise, the Latvian senior leadership discussed the possibilities of using their tactical Command and Control Personal Computer (C2PC) system, which is a U.S. command and control tool, in the simulation exercise. They would normally use this system in live field exercise operations in their command posts but were trying to determine how it could be used by the command centers to track the battle in this simulation exercise. Because Battle Command simulation can interoperate with other simulations and systems such as command and control systems, it was worth exploring with the Latvian military. Similar type interoperability during exercises had been performed with Battle Command, so an experiment as part of the national exercise was arranged in Latvia for determining the effectiveness of the interoperability between the Battle Command simulation and the Latvian C2PC system. The result was highly successful. 10

MS&T MAGAZINE • ISSUE 3/2010

Above View of Latvian terrain near the city of Liepa in Battle Command simulation. Image credit: Author.

With the installation of a small software program from VT MÄK and some small modifications, within 10 minutes, the battlefield picture of all friendly and identified enemy units in the simulation were being displayed in the C2PC system in the main brigade headquarters, just as it would have been in a live exercise. The Latvian senior leadership decided at that point to continue the remainder of the exercise using the C2PC to Battle Command linkage. There were no issues with its use during the exercise, and it greatly added to the realism of the training for the Latvia command posts and their staffs. This achievement provided the Latvian military with limitless options for support of future exercises.

The Result The fielding of Battle Command provided the Latvian Armed Forces with its first simulation capability at nearly one-third the cost of procuring and fielding a more complex simulation tool. The Latvian military leaders proved that the multipurpose simulation tool: • Is able to be used in a large national simulation center; • Suits classroom environments; • Serves as an enhancement/sustainment tool to other simulation tools in use; • Can be used in solo mode as a study aide; • Is able to support distributed exercises

with locations throughout Latvia and the world; • Is interoperable with the Latvian realworld command and control system; and • Meets training and educational needs through a software system that has the same type of coding as more complex simulations but is easier to operate. Additionally, the training and supportive approach resulted in overall annual savings for the Latvia military of $1.5 million in sustainment costs. The management plan provided subject matter experts to initially train the Latvia forces for the normal three week new equipment training period, which is part of the standard PEO-STRI program of support. Alion further conducted two additional training periods of four weeks to six weeks and concluded with a comprehensive exercise. This entire process took less than six months to complete, instead of the normal one full initial year plus followon additional years of subject matter expert support. Despite budget cuts, the approach with reasonable procurement and fielding and program management costs has provided the Latvian Armed Forces another option for a national simulation capability which has greatly increased the military’s ability to train - a simulation capability with all of the characteristics and capabilities of a large system for good performance. Not only did the fielded simulation program exceed its identified requirements, Alion trained the Latvian military personnel to use the software within six months and left the country ahead of schedule. This resulted in savings that

Left Harry Thompson (right), Alion Science and Technology Program Manager, and Major Andris Auliciems review results of training exercise in preparation for After Action Review (AAR) of the exercise. Image credit: Author.

the country can use for needs that would otherwise have been spent on continuing sustainment support. The Latvian Armed Forces program demonstrated that Alion can deliver simulation capabilities quickly and cost effectively, reducing the cost of ownership by eliminating costs associated with ongoing support and sustainment. By lowering capital investments requirements, this approach lowers the entry barrier for smaller countries that want to increase and enhance their armed forces simulation training programs and capability.

Future The leadership of the Latvian Armed Forces envisions the use of this simulation capability across all levels of their military services. Simulation will be used to train Home Guard forces, in academic institutions and training facilities, and in various small unit organizations throughout the country in distributed or stand-alone exercises. The key to the Latvian militaryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s training success is reasonable procurement and fielding costs and vastly reduced sustainment costs. This intermediate level simulation

system is constructed so that Latvian personnel can rapidly learn to operate, maintain and sustain all associated simulation functions on their own. Cost and complexity have forced many smaller countries to put off adopting a simulation training program or accept an extremely complex solution with minimal sustainment support and training. Latvian senior military officials along with the Office of Defense Cooperation chief in Latvia conducted extensive research

on the options available to address their requirements with the funding they had available. The Latvia militaryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s implementation of the Battle Command simulation capability serves as an example to other NATO countries that they can afford to enhance their national training capabilities through various means and not just the standard, expensive and highly technical options of the past. ms&t About the Author Harry Thompson serves as International Programs Business Manager and Vice President for Program Management, Alion Science and Technology. He has worked in the modeling and simulation community for more than 20 years and in the international and NATO M&S environment for more than 14 years, the last 10 years with Alion.

MS&T MAGAZINE â&#x20AC;˘ ISSUE 3/2010

Technology Application

A Growing Market There is opportunity in the growing medical simulation and training market. Chuck Weirauch describes some initiatives in that market.

timulated in part by US Department of Defense (DoD) requirements and funding, and military and civilian demand for improved patient safety and outcomes, next-generation application of modeling and simulation technologies to medical training is emerging as a viable market for those in the defense and aviation training industry community. The health care community is recognizing that it has similar training problems to those encountered in aviation and the military, and that the training solutions those two communities have developed and implemented can be adapted to meet and resolve medical training challenges as well.

Parallels One training provider that sees the close correlation of medical training needs to its aviation and military training product, concept and curricula training solutions is CAE. According to Guillaume 12

MS&T MAGAZINE • ISSUE 3/2010

Hervé, President of CAE Healthcare, there are parallels in the three areas, namely, high-risk environments where people’s lives are at stake, and an expected high outcome of saving and preserving those lives. He explained that is why successful training concepts, such as crew resource management (CRM) from the aviation industry, can be applied to medical team training to improve practitioners’ decision-making and cognitive reasoning ability to quickly identify and resolve problem areas in the operating room, “We started looking at areas where simulation can play a can play a role in reducing risk, and we quickly realized that there are lots of parallels between health care and aviation, both civil and military,” Hervé said. “They all are highrisk areas where you need a lot of different stakeholders to execute flawlessly for the outcomes to be positive, making sure that a flight is safe, a military mission is properly executed, or in the case of health care that a patient is properly

Above The CAE-Michener Centre for the Advancement of Simulation in Healthcare is expected to train more than 1,500 students and healthcare practitioners per year. Image credit: CAE.

treated. Our mission is to improve the safety and efficiency of health care by leveraging simulation, modeling and simulation-based training best practices from our aviation and military training applications.” In addition to applying CAE’s own aviation and military training knowledge and experience to health care, CAE Healthcare has recently made what Hervé refers to as “bolt-on” acquisitions of medical simulation and training provider companies to gain both new products and medical expertise. In February, the subsidiary partnered with the Ontario’s not-for-profit transport medicine provider Ornge to become the

exclusive provider of that company’s simulation and education programs for healthcare practitioners. Earlier, CAE Healthcare acquired ICCU Imaging and VIMEDIX. The former firm provides education programs for bedside ultrasound procedures, while the latter recently launched its new virtual reality echocardiography simulator. Prior to that, CAE Healthcare had acquired Immersion Corporation’s medical simulation business unit, which provides endoscopy, laparoscopy and endovascular simulators. According to Hervé, the goal is to provide an integrated training program, complete with the equivalent of a full flight simulator, and training broken down into part task trainers, with highfidelity Web-based training similar to those employed in the military training community. Simulation reduces the time it takes to train a health care professional to learn to conduct a procedure, while improving patient safety by helping reduce medical errors through enhanced training where a student must demonstrate competency, Hervé explained. According to Jeff Bergenthal, Director of Advanced Programs at Lockheed Martin Simulation, Training and Support, the health care profession is facing exactly the same training challenges that the military does. There are “a lot of tremendous parallels” between what his company does in the way of training solutions for the military and what is needed in the health care world to provide better patient care, he pointed out. That is why his company has been taking a look at what it does for its military customers every day to determine what it can provide to help encourage profound changes in the health care field that will result in improved patient safety. The firm’s first health care venture is a partnership with Adventist Healthcare to develop a training program for the health care system’s new nurses. The overall goal is to give new nurses the knowledge and experience that a nurse with many more years of experience would have. The primary focus is to develop and hone the nurses’ situational awareness, as well as decision-making and communication skills, and accelerate this process to an expert level through the use of virtual worlds, immersive simulation and Webbased training, Bergenthal explained. To accomplish this task, Lockheed Martin called on its Human Performance

Engineering Division to formulate and build expert nurse models to use during the whole program of instruction. During the course, the performance of new nurses is compared with the expert models throughout training and assessment to understand what knowledge and skill gaps are being closed and how close they are to becoming an expert. The instructional courseware effort was begun 18 months ago and was delivered to Adventist Healthcare last fall. Work is now underway to double the content of the program of instruction, with a pilot study to begin next year to quantify and validate the results of the expanded program. Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin is looking to further expand into the health care training arena. “I think that there are a lot of opportunities that are out there in our traditional customer set, such as the Department of Veteran Affairs,” Bergenthal said. “There is also tremendous opportunity in the civilian health care arena. Health care reform is going to cause providers to ensure to provide the best health care they can, so anything that can help them with that goal will have value.”

Virtual Worlds Among the simulation-based technologies that can be exploited, such as gaming, to meet health care training needs, one that is gaining traction is virtual worlds. That is because the technology is ideally suited to meet the critical health care challenge of providing training to a diverse group of health care providers who must work in teams, such as surgical teams, but who rarely get the time or opportunity to train together. SAIC has made a foray into the health care training arena with its purchase of Forterra Systems’ On-line Interactive Virtual Environment (OLIVE) in February. The OLIVE has already been employed in hospital training of civilian and military emergency medical teams and first responders, including for Stanford University’s Medical Center and Walter Reed Medical Center. SAIC has a medical research division, and OLIVE has potential applications for that area. Medical training is just one application for OLIVE, but a major one for SAIC, said Robert Franceschini, Division Manager for the company’s Orlando-based Simulation Systems Division. The OLIVE platform can connect with third party

Virtual reality works; realworld practice works: get the best of both worlds with Augmented Reality.

•

Unrivalled track record in COTS and customized augmented reality (AR) simulators

•

The only true commercial 3D AR

•

AR simulators for laparoscopic & spinal surgery, gaming & security

•

Proprietary AR platform for fast, cost-effective simulation development.

See us on www.youtube.com/haptica100 Contact us now to discuss how we can build advanced AR simulation solutions for you: +1 617 342 7270 or +353 879 692 397 or info@haptica.com

MS&T MAGAZINE • ISSUE 3/2010

Technology Application

medical models and provide detailed physiological models of patient behaviors, conditions and vital signs and has some ability to represent emergency medical facilities, he pointed out. “In general, we think that OLIVE is very well suited to any situation where there are multiple participants doing team training, and in the medical community there are a number of those where people are distributed but then have to work together. Virtual worlds are set up by their nature to be collaborative environments, and another big advantage is cost, being much cheaper to employ compared to other simulation systems.” “As simulation becomes more mature, it’s harder to argue against it from an economic perspective, especially because simulation is able to represent complex medical environments in scenarios,” Franceschini summed up. “That’s becoming a compelling argument, and ultimately there will be quite a good market for medical simulation and training.” Engineering and Computer Simulations (ECS) has focused its product line on game-based medical training solutions for several years, and perhaps is best known for its Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TC3) simulation for the Army’s Department of Combat Medic Training at Fort Sam Houston, Texas. The company’s latest product is the Virtual Medical Simulation Training Center (VMSTC), a networked medically orientated virtual world based on the Nexus Web platform for the distribution of medical learning content that would include virtual classrooms, simulation-based training, immersive environments, social networks and online repositories to allow users to meet medical training requirements. The first VMSTC is scheduled for delivery to the Army Research, Development and Engineering Command (RDECOM)’s Simulation Technology and Training Center (STTC) this August. According to ECS President Waymon Armstrong, the VMSTC will create a virtual medical channel learning environment that will serve as a central access platform to bring together medical instruction and education materials from various and diverse sources. Health care professionals will be able to access this material online, interact with it via their avatars and train together with distrib14

MS&T MAGAZINE • ISSUE 3/2010

uted medical team members in a virtual classroom environment, he explained. The VMSTC will be particularly useful in providing the means for health care professionals to meet their continuing education requirements and train to operate new medical equipment. “Virtual worlds allow medical personnel to train anytime and anywhere and can provide the hands-on expertise that they need,” Armstrong said. “They also are going to give you that team training exercise capability.” According to Jack Norfleet, the STTC’s Chief Engineer for Medical Simulation, the VMSTC is developed to create a virtual world that will allow the delivery of many different types of medical distance learning products from a single point, an approach similar to the Army Knowledge Online (AKO) Web portal. The primary goal is to create a virtual campus for medical learning. ECS is “very bullish” on the future of medical simulation, Armstrong emphasized. With defense budgets being cut back and health care reform calling for the means to improve patient safety, there will be funding available for civilian medical simulation, he believes. Larger defense training providers will take the same role as lead system integrators for civilian medical applications just as they have for the military, while smaller companies will provide the solutions, Armstrong feels.

Other Simulation Applications The STTC is researching several other applications of simulation technology for medical training. One that currently has high priority is the development of alternatives to the use of live animals for medical training. According to Norfleet, simulation might be just might be one of

Above OLIVE has been employed in hospital training of civilian and military emergency medical teams and first responders. Image credit: SAIC.

those alternatives. To find out, the Center is drawing on its experience with simulating severe trauma. “This is less about trying to reduce the reliance on live animals than it is about trying to increase the technology to a level where we can train all the Force on simulations that are as good as live animals,” Norfleet said. ‘In so doing, we will be able to raise the level of training throughout the Force without them.” Some of the other STTC areas of medical simulation research include virtual patients and the development of natural language processing, Norfleet reported. The latter is so that a virtual patient would have language capabilities that would allow medics to practice patients’ health evaluations with them. Another area is gaming for medical training. The STTC was the contracting agency in the development of the ECS TC3 simulation. Work also continues to further the capabilities of wireless patient mannequins, an STTC led development. “This simulation work is from the aspect of patient safety,” Norfleet pointed out. “In order to provide our caregivers with the skill and confidence levels they need through training, we have to let them practice. And the nature of medicine is that you can’t do that on patients, so you have to do that in simulation. The patient element has always been a weakness in medical training, and that’s why the medical simulation industry is growing significantly. It’s a logical progression of the technology.” ms&t

Technology Application

Training People to Do Things What really works. Lt(N) Bradley White has participated in and observed the ongoing transformation of technical training in the Canadian Air Force. He discusses some key issues.

ost would agree that training people to maintain and fix things is best done using a blend of computer-based courseware, simulation and hands-on practical performance of real maintenance tasks. So why do we still see a reluctance to use one or another of the components of this blended approach? Why do some resist using computer-based courseware to deliver training and others embrace it as the solution to all their problems? Entrenched positions at the extremes promote narrow approaches that actually detract from the training process by failing to leverage training technology and instructional methods. Clearly, using a combination of methods and media (old and new) is doable and it works best. Technical training in Canadian Forces aircraft fleets is changing and I’m ready to say we’ve got it (almost) right. I will attempt to show, quite unscientifically of course, three good things: first, that using elearning (or what we some16

MS&T MAGAZINE • ISSUE 3/2010

times call Interactive/Individual Courseware (ICW)) is good as long as it is not used exclusively; second, that making technical trainees perform work on aircraft or high-fidelity simulators does not increase timelines, does not require too much money and should be used in conjunction with other methods; third, and finally, that training people to do particular tasks, whether on a computer or on an aircraft, is the only way to train skills. The latter is actually the backbone of the concept of using a blended approach to training. While a certain segment of training ‘experts’ stick to the notion that ‘skill-based’ training is the solution to technical performance – they gloss over the fact that to learn a skill one has to actually “do” something (a task), and the only way to demonstrate a skill is with a satisfactory task outcome. So, why not use real tasks? I believe that embedding real tasks in a blend of methods and media always gives the best results in the big picture.

Above Technical training in the Canadian Air Force is producing competent and skilled technicians. Image credit: Canadian DND.

The First Good Thing The first good thing is that there are many different methods and many different media available because when you’re training someone how to do a task you can’t rely on one method of instruction. When I was at 10 Field Technical Training Squadron (10 FTTS – the school that teaches CF-188 Hornet techs to maintain those aircraft) I saw what works and what doesn’t work. The best possible combination of using ICW and real work are the courses that trained Avionics Technicians (AVS) their basic AVS course. These guys have it figured out: they use ICW for most of the system or component descriptions (capabilities and limitations, etc.) and some procedures and then move on to instructor-

led to explain it further. Then they move on to using the Integrated Maintenance Training System (IMTS) for actual procedure training. The IMTS is the simulator designed and built with one purpose in mind: maintenance of the Hornet. They finish off with removing and installing a component on a real aircraft. Just plain common sense. So why am I describing this? Because what the school did for many years was to teach using only CBT – no real hands-on training. Not surprisingly, it took longer to train and graduates had to re-learn everything using their hands when they got to their operational units. Sound crazy? In hindsight we (the Air Force) know it was but we thought we knew what we were doing. Even so, there are still advocates trying to tell us we can learn technical skills without actually performing some work. In the AVS training described, most facts and concepts, in fact, come from ICW. Even some procedural knowledge comes from ICW. What doesn’t come from ICW is the instructor walking the students through higher-level knowledge and the students performing work either on a simulator or a real aircraft. What’s important is that they are practicing tasks.

The Second Good Thing The second thing is that using simulators or real items to train hands-on work is not a burden, but the opposite. We are always conscious of reducing overall costs, both in dollars and personnel. Hence the attractiveness of online ICW to senior managers – even though there are usually some higher initial costs (for production, etc) it simply costs less over time. However, enough time has passed since the Hornet world re-introduced hands-on training that we can safely say the quality and production rate achievable through using hands-on training far outweighs the costs. The Hornet world produces at least twice as many techs capable of their own work in less than half the time it took five years ago. In roughly ten months 10 FTTS brings a new technician to the point where he or she can actually perform maintenance and sign for much of their own work. Contrast this with 24 months, or even 36 months. The Sea King fleet can claim similar successes achieved by redesigning training. (see MS&T 2/2009 – “Out of the Box”) So what gives? If ICW costs less than simulation (the high-end versions) and hands-on

using real aircraft (or tanks, or ships, or refrigeration units, etc), what’s missing? A systems view of the gains in effectiveness and efficiency are what is missing. The factor to add into the equation when we estimate costs is “quality”. The quality, hence value, of a graduate who has actually learned to do something in a realistic manner is higher. While the cost of enabling your learners to manipulate something (either virtually or real) may be high, and the cost of expert technicians (instructors) to coach learners in small groups may be high, the quality of graduate you get at the end of the course is simply better, and it is faster. It is more effective and more efficient. If training is well designed you can pretty much throw a graduate on the line and have them fix a lot of things sooner and better than otherwise. You may pay more at the front end, getting it right the first time, but you save much more, over many more years, at the back end, by graduating job ready technicians in a shorter time.

The Third Good Thing CF success stories all have practical training in common. The interesting nugget that emerges from these stories

RUAG provides sophisticated training solutions tailored to its customers’ requirements. Products range from virtual simulation systems for driver and gunnery training, to crew training for light armoured vehicles, main battle tanks and howitzers, to tactical training. Live simulation systems include laserbased precision training for gunnery and anti-tank weapons, small arms, improvised explosive devices, and urban operations, as well as complete combat training centres.

Your Partner for Live and Virtual Training Solutions RUAG Electronics AG Simulation & Training · P.O. Box · 3000 Berne 22 · Switzerland Tel. +41 31 376 66 00 · marketing.electronics@ruag.com · www.ruag.com

RZ_Ins_SimTraining_178x124.indd 1

MS&T MAGAZINE • ISSUE 3/2010 04.06.10 15:3517

Technology Application

is that no matter “how” this practical bit of training is applied it is the “what” that is key. Advocates of so-called skill-based training, of which there are many in the CF, do find success in ab initio schools where technicians learn skills such as basic aircraft mechanics or electrical systems. They find success because these skill sets are generic in nature and can be applied in quite broad fashion – and because they are based on performing generic tasks. What some technical schools for specific fleets continue to find – and prove – is that it is essential that actual maintenance procedures are trained: that is, tasks!. Some of the greatest strides in Aviation Technician (AVN) training at 10 FTTS have been made in the realization that the training of actual tried and true procedures, for say, landing gear rigging, can only be trained through application and repetition using detailed technical orders. Skill or no skill, task-based training on real or near-real (high fidelity) simulation simply cannot and will not be replaced by e-learning, courseware, ICW, etc. And, no amount of generic skill-based training (real or not) will replace it either. Perhaps the greatest example of the application of a successful back-tobasics strategy for shortening training time and improving learning using a blend of ICW and hands-on work is the centralized Apprentice Training Flight concept as it has evolved in the Hornet fleet. The key to ATF is that it uses master-apprentice relationships, small group learning and a whopping amount of hands-on training to enable some very good learning. The ATF actually trains apprentices in some key servicing and aircraft awareness tasks before they enter the more “academic” courses at the main schoolhouse at 10 FTTS. In effect, the Hornet fleet has sandwiched the training of theory, fact, and concept between the practical procedure training. The result is that trainees are given enough training on the aircraft as they can handle to be effective at some basic tasks while at the same time this amount of training firms up the base of “awareness” and general aircraft knowledge so that the ICW delivered training makes sense. The trainee learns the aircraft and how to service it, then goes to the school where they undertake a program that delivers short bits of theory, then practical, then theory, then practical, and so on as they work through detailed train18

MS&T MAGAZINE • ISSUE 3/2010

Above An instructor at 10 FTTS shows the simulator used for CF-18 maintenance training to students. Image credit: Canadian DND/Pierre Habib.

ing on specific systems and on specific tasks. Essentially they do all three of the “good things” in a systematic manner. The result is skilled and able graduates… in half the time it took ten years ago.

The Cost of Good Things Indeed there is a cost to to lead apprentice or student technicians through such a blended type of training. Over the years 2007-2008 10 FTTS more than doubled its staff, from roughly 60 to over 130 regular and reserve, and expanded to include a detachment at 3 Wing Bagotville, Quebec. Importantly, this expansion was mostly at the Corporal and Master Corporal level – the level with the highest positive impact on student-instructor ratios. The expansion, however costly in terms of salaries and impact on existing Squadron manning, allowed the school to not only implement the ICW/practical blend but also increase student throughputs from approximately 60 graduates per year to, at its highest, over 210 graduates per year. Not only did training time decrease by around 58% - the new trainees can now perform a host of first-line maintenance skills on their own. Quite simply put, a change in training methodology combined with a staff increase of 217% allowed the school to increase student throughput by 350%...and graduate better students in 42% of the time. And as for the cost of creating high fidelity

maintenance simulators in order to optimize training…as compared to the host of other methods the school used at various times during its two decade history the IMTS cost is a fraction of the others. (“Lessons Learned – Training Technologies in Canadian Hornet Maintenance Training, G. Coulman and B. White, I/ ITSEC 2009)

Conclusion Nothing I have written about is new or original. However, it’s well past the time that we can afford to spend time seeking panaceas for training solutions – especially for technical training. The fact is that a lot solutions work but they work in different ways. What it comes down to is when and where you want to spend your money – and what you need to train. Focus on silver bullet solutions at your peril. What we see in technical training in the Air Force is that good design with a mix of old and new, ICW and hands-on practical training, makes sense and produces competent and skilled technicians. ms&t About the Author Lieutenant (Navy) Bradley White is a Training Development Officer currently working with the CF-188 Modernization program and advising the Next Generation Fighter Capability on maintenance training issues. He was formerly the Standards and Development Officer at 10 FTTS in Cold Lake, Alberta. Disclaimer – This article reflects the authors personal views; it is not a Canadian Forces position on technical training; nor an official position of the Training Development branch of the CF.

Image credit: U.S. Air Force/Michael Holzworth.

Training Transformation

JUAS COE If you are already in the business of Unmanned Aircraft Systems, you probably know all about JFCOM’s Center of Excellence. For the rest of us, Chuck Weirauch explains.

he US Department of Defense (DoD) is budgeting more than $6 billion for unmanned aerial systems (UAS) in 2010. The number of UAS to be employed by the world’s military is expected to grow exponentially in the next few years. There is little doubt there will be an expansion of Joint service and Coalition operations employing UAS. The Joint Unmanned Aircraft Systems Center of Excellence (JUAS COE), located at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada, is the DoD-designated agency responsible for supporting the Joint Warfighter through the development and integration of common unmanned aircraft operating standards, capabilities, concepts, technologies, doctrine, tactics, techniques, procedures and training. In other words, it covers the scope of topics that involve the operation of DoD UAS, with a focus on anything that is not an acquisition-based problem. Initially established in 2005 as a means to resolve

the issue of which service would be the lead DoD agency for UAS, the JUAS COE was realigned under the US Joint Forces Command in 2007.

task force and operational planners to optimize the latest UAS capabilities to best support operations.

Airspace Requirements CONOPS With each US service having its own designated UAS, and unique doctrine, tactics, techniques, procedures and training, the kind of joint service operations demanded by irregular warfare often proved challenging. One of the first tasks for the JUAS COE was to develop the first joint UAS concept of operations (CONOPS). This CONOPS was approved by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council in March 2007, and described how the DoD should optimally employ UAS to achieve the greatest effectiveness. A second edition of the CONOPS was also submitted and approved in late 2009. The JUAS COE works to update and integrate the latest UAS capabilities into the CONOPS on a regular basis. The document provides guidelines for joint

In the March 2010 US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report entitled “Comprehensive Planning and Results-Orientated Training Strategy are Needed to Support Growing UAS Inventories,” the GAO stated that in light of expanding UAS inventories, “in some cases the Air Force and Army lack robust plans that account for the personnel, facilities and some communications structure to support them.” Further, it states that “the DoD has not developed a results-orientated strategy to resolve challenges that affect the ability of the Air Force and the Army to train personnel for UAS operations.” One training issue the GAO report cited was the limited amount of DoDcontrolled airspace in restricted-area training ranges in which to train forces MS&T MAGAZINE • ISSUE 3/2010

Training Transformation

on UAS prior to deployment. More such airspace will be required as more UAS are fielded, the report concluded. The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had tasked the JUAS COE to study US National Air Space (NAS) training requirements, and a resulting COE study determined that approximately 1.1 million flight training hours in the NAS would be needed by 2013. This issue is compounded by the fact that in addition to the need for training airspace at service bases and Combat Training Centers (CTCs), National Guard units will also need to find more areas for UAS training as they acquire those systems. In the interest of civil aviation safety, the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires that any UAS operator, including DoD and other governmental agencies that wish to operate in the NAS submit a Certificate of Authorization (COA) for approval describing in detail the parameters of any proposed UAS mission. Upon approval, the COAs allow limited NAS access, usually restricted by time and area of operation, along with other rules. The JUAS assists the services with COA approval while working towards wider access to the NAS. “What we have done is gone to each one of the services within DoD to where we now have set up a DoD-FAA-DHSNASA Executive Committee,” said Lt. Col. Steve Tanner, who is in charge of the JUAS COE Operations Branch. “We work for the Office of the Secretary of Defense UAS Task Force under the Airspace Integration Integrated Product Team as our formal mechanism for requesting and getting major procedural and policy changes done between the departments.” According to Lt. Col. Rudy Ridenbaugh, Deputy Director of the JUAS COE Training Team, the organization supports and promotes DoD UAS research, including that on ground-based sense-andavoid programs that are being developed to allow UAS to deconflict with air traffic in the NAS. “We are the operational input for these systems,” Ridenbaugh pointed out. “As these systems mature in those locations where the DoD flies UAS, that area will hopefully expand. We need these airspaces to train our pilots and operations, need access to test and train our forces before they are deployed, and need COCOM access for real-world missions that depart from our CONUS stateside locations.” 20

MS&T MAGAZINE • ISSUE 3/2010

UAS Training Standards Another way the JUAS COE is supporting DoD access to the NAS is through the development of standardized training requirements for UAS aircrews. One result of its effort in this area is the Joint Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 3255.01, Joint Unmanned Aircraft Systems Minimum Training Standards. All DoD UAS programs are transitioning to comply with these standards by October 2011. According to this document, this instruction “standardizes the minimum knowledge of basic UAS and joint UAS mission qualifications for joint UAS crew members. These qualification standards meet or exceed existing FAA manned aircraft training standards in order to facilitate UAS access to the NAS.” “There currently is no civilian standard through which you can say that a person is qualified for UAS operations or not,” Tanner pointed out. “So we got collaboration amongst the services to agree that there should be some baseline UAS training standard, because there is no civilian standard which the services can use to look at and compare their programs with.” “ In the long run,” Tanner continued, “the FAA will use that kind of document because nobody else is producing these things to look at when the agency comes about to make civilian (training) requirements for UAS operational issues. We are trying to provide a more concise, formal message about what is necessary for the DoD and present that to the FAA using the background expertise and opportunity that we have had to operate UAS for the past ten to fifteen years to kind of

Above MQ-1 Predator training mission at Creech Air Force Base, Nevada. Image credit: U.S. Air Force/Nadine Barclay.

mold the way the FAA is going. We can now say that our pilots and operators are trained to a certain level. We can then use that to help us gain greater access to the NAS, which helps our training readiness ultimately.”

UAS Classification System Also embedded into the UAS Minimum Training Standards document is a UAS classification system developed by the JUAS COE staff, which will also be required to be adopted throughout the DoD next year. This system categorizes various types of UAS into five groups, based on characteristics such as weight, maximum operating altitude capability, allowable airspace categories and speed. For example, Group 1 is made up of UAS with aircraft that typically weigh less than 20 pounds, and can operate under visual flight rules (VFR) in Class E, G, and Restricted and Uncontrolled airspace at speeds less than 250 knots. “Every service has had their own UAS classification scheme and different names for the systems, so it was almost impossible to get a size, altitude and dollar cost comparison when everyone was referencing platforms with similar capabilities as having different attributes and names,” Ridenbaugh said. “So we came up with the Group I through 5 classification system and linked those with FAA objectives.”

Training Transformation

“This is a home run,” he continued, “because now all the services, all the programs on the acquisition side and the FAA are all talking the same sheet of music. So now we have basic UAS standardization across the DoD and the Federal enterprise, like the DHS.”

Data Standards and Training

it. Just recently, the DoD is looking at the way the sports networks are able to quickly access video recorded at sporting events to help resolve this problem. Defense Industry Daily recently reported that the Air Force will acquire a $500 million computer system that will enable it to employ such TV broadcast techniques for UAS data analysis. “There is a tidal wave of information, and we try to bring it back to the commanders in the field,” Ridenbaugh said. “With more UAS capabilities out there, we have to stay one step ahead of the game.”

As the number of operational UAS increases, so too does the torrent of realtime video for immediate situational awareness interpretation and other UAS sensor data for later analysis. According to Ridenbaugh, there was no standard for interpreting video data, so there was nothing for analysts to train to for qualiCombined Efforts fication. The JUAS COE helped push In addition to helping resolve UAS operathrough such standards, so now the tional and training issues for the US servservices have minimum training criteria ices in CONUS, the JUAS also coordiin their analyst training programs, he nates with NATO and Coalition partners pointed out. to help facilitate joint international UAS Reportedly more than 24 million minoperations. The agency has incorporated utes of video data has been recorded by NATO Standard Agreements (STANAGs) DoD UAS aircraft and stored in reposifor UAS operations and interoperability, tories, but except for real-time data and helps to resolve restricted airspace piped to field commanders, much of issues for UAS training in countries with what remains for later analysis can be US bases and operations. useless if there is no way for analysts to Representatives six UAS operJST 2010 HP Advert:JST 2010 HP Advert 15/6/10 14:42from Page 1 know what is available or how to retrieve ating partner countries – Canada, Ger-

many, Denmark, Finland, Italy and Spain – participated in the semi-annual JUAS COE Advisory Council meeting held this May at the Joint Warfighting Center in Suffolk, Va., along with nearly 200 US service, combatant commands and government agency personnel to discuss current UAS issues and future priorities. Some of the recommendations that were made at the meeting included joint training requirements for ground unit intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance planners and integrators and the updating of motion imagery (video) analyst competency requirements. “We are pretty much able to connect the dots and have a wide group of people that we operate with to propose and advocate UAS solutions,” Tanner summed up. “We also work to identify the best of breed – great ideas that need to be championed to the other services. We bring the unbiased part into the conflict, with credibility for all sides. There is more effective work being conducted on UAS at all levels. This is going to be critical. If we enter into a fiscally constrained environment in the future, we really are going to have to work together to come up with joint solutions.” ms&t

Two Day Conference: 27th and 28th September 2010 Post Conference Workshop: 29th September 2010 10.00-13.00 Venue: Le Méridien Piccadilly, London

www.JointSimulationAndTraining.com 16 keynote speakers from major defence, military and high-tech industry stakeholders have been carefully chosen to provide up-to-date insights into: • Joint forces operations, Live-Virtual-Constructive integration and interoperability in training simulations. • Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) as the weapon of choice in asymmetric warfare and enhanced Counter-IED (C-IED) training capabilities. • Increased training effectiveness for less risk, time and cost. Leveraging real benefit from human factors. • An increased emphasis on integrating live training with advanced technologies, presenting far greater scope for soldiers to be prepared for the unexpected.

MS&T MAGAZINE • ISSUE 3/2010

SAVE UP TO £250 WHEN BOOKING BEFOR E 2ND JULY For a full list of keynote speakers, videos, podcasts, the meeting agenda and more information about the event, please visit www.jointsimulationandtraining.com or telephone: +44(0)207 368 9301 Please quote "MS&T" when registering “The Joint Simulation and Training Conference in London is a well organised and effective event for those who wish to keep abreast of the latest technologies and techniques used in this sector”

David Wortley, Serious Games

UAS C R E W S R E Q U I R E M I S S I O N R E A DY T R A INING.

That’s why at L-3 Link we’re advancing the capabilities of UAS training systems. This is visible today as L-3 Link continues to field the Predator Mission Aircrew Training System. This high-fidelity training system offers a new level of simulation realism for training unmanned aircraft pilots and sensor operators. And, as the line between training, mission rehearsal and mission execution begins to blur, we’re ready with our Blue Box HD solution to provide crews with total immersion. To learn more, visit www.link.com. Link Simulation & Training

L-3com.com

Training Technology

Far Left Maybe the most important patent in simulation history. Image credit: I/ITSEC. Above & Left Ed Link was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame. His Flight Trainer was declared “A Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmark”. Image credit: L-3.

Ed Link – Pilot Maker Mr. Link’s Pilot Maker trainer kicked off 8 decades of pilot training. Many experts consider that the 1929 patent marks the start of the simulation age. Walter F. Ullrich writes.

ebruary 11, 1934 in Newark, N.J. was cold and foggy, with low-hanging clouds and shivering rain. The Army Air Corps officials standing alongside the airfield concluded that the man they wanted to talk to about his pilot training device would not be arriving on that soupy day. About to leave, they heard an engine humming overhead and saw an aircraft breaking through the clouds. Its pilot was Ed Link, and he had flown all the way from Binghamton, N.Y. despite the inclement weather. It was clear to the waiting officials that anyone who could make the 200-mile journey from Binghamton, N.Y. to Newark flying by instruments alone could fly anywhere. Officials in Washington, D.C. were immediately notified that funds needed to be secured to purchase Mr Link’s Pilot Maker. On June 23, 1934, the Army took delivery of the first six trainers.

Flying on the Ground No-one could have dreamed up this suc24

MS&T MAGAZINE • ISSUE 3/2010

cess story just seven years before when, in 1927, Ed first became seriously involved in flight training. He had learned basic flying roaming around with “barnstormers” – stunt pilots and aerialists. And it was one reason why his father had thrown him out of the family business. Yet Ed still desperately wanted to become a licensed pilot. Since he had no plane of his own to fly, he got a feel for aeroplanes simply by taxiing them along the tarmac. He also found out that the French had used this method, dubbing it “penguin system” during World War I, with the result that they had better pilots than the Americans and the British trained in a fraction of time the others had taken. At that point Ed realised that a device that provided all the movements and motions of taxiing aeroplanes would enable preliminary training to be done without ever having to leave the ground. It was a shortcut to flying that would considerably reduce overall training costs. He started assembling a mobile cockpit replica that was intended to respond to the

controls in a similar way to an aeroplane. Ed largely benefited from the expertise he had gained in his father’s factory, which produced coin-operated electric pianos and movie theatre pipe organs. He used prefabricated piano and organ parts, electric vacuum pumps and bellows to provide the air pressure needed for the movements his device made. At the same time, Ed continued taxiing up and down the Bennett Field runway in a friend’s aeroplane to get a feel for what was needed to transfer the sensations of a moving aircraft to a stationary simulator as closely as possible. In the end, this proved to be the most difficult part of the process. His Pilot Maker, as he called it, was finally operational in early 1929. In April 1929 he submitted an initial patent application. Many experts consider this to be the start of the simulation age.

From Gadget to Serious Hangar Flying Link’s first apparatus consisted of the control base with a universal joint on which

was mounted a scaled-down plywood fuselage. It looked quite simple, but in its day it was a masterpiece of mechanical engineering. The physical movements of the control devices were translated into pneumatic signals that moved the flight control surfaces and caused the trainer fuselage to roll, pitch or yaw just as the real aeroplane would. A series of bellows and motors gasped and wheezed as they whirled the mock-up aircraft, with its stunted wings, around. Ed’s device was fitted with a recording device for automatic scoring and recording the number of errors the student had made while operating it. And he equipped it with a coin slot! “My invention relates to a combination training device for student aviators and entertainment apparatus,” was how Ed described his invention. The first advertisement listed the Pilot Maker as “an efficient aeronautical training aid” and “a novel, profitable amusement feature”. Though his device was received as an aviation novelty, even the magazine “Science and Invention” stressed the device’s great entertainment value, suggesting that it would make “a valuable adjunct to the multitude of golf courses that now dot the country”. To Link’s great regret he saw his device belittled as a training feature and downgraded to some sort of coin-operated hobbyhorse. At that point he decided that he had to open his own flying school to prove the training value of his Pilot Maker. He set up a classroom and trainer in the basement of his father’s factory in Binghamton. With his novel training approach, using a groundbased training device to impart basic flying skills, he managed to reduce the usual fifteen hours in the air to two. In turn this enabled him to advertise that pilots could “learn to fly for eighty-five dollars”, thereby attracting more than one hundred flight enthusiasts in 1930 alone. But the scenario suddenly changed when his flying school lost its home after his father’s piano factory folded in the aftermath of the 1929 depression. One bright spot in these dark early 1930s was his marriage to Marion Clayton, which put the Link Aeronautical Corporation, as his company was now called, on a more business-like footing. Marion also wrote the curriculum for the flying school – based on Ed’s dictations. Thus she most probably published one of the first books on how to fly. By 1932, his company had sold almost fifty Pilot Makers to amusement parks, but only three to aviation professionals. Just one flight school, the JVC Corporation, bought three trainers for “hangar flying”, as ground training was sometimes disparagingly called. True business success failed to materialise. Sales prices ranging from $300 to $500 a piece hardly covered production costs. Despite this, Ed continued improving his trainer. One trainer he had sold in 1932 to the U.S. Navy in Pensacola was completely instrumented. The officials there were deeply impressed and would have liked to buy five more for their instrument training. The naval authorities in Washington, however, did not feel that it would save enough time and money. In the same year, Ed loaned one trainer to the New Jersey National Guard at Newark Airport, which in turn presented the device to officers of the Army Air Corps for validation. Although most of the military experts agreed that the Army should make the Pilot Maker standard equipment at all airfields, no orders were received – for budgetary reasons. It would take a national disaster to help the Pilot Maker finally win through.

Learning from Bad Experience In early 1934, the U.S. Army Air Corps was tasked with delivering domestic airmail. It was an attempt to save money, but brought death and disaster instead. During the first week the Army lost MS&T MAGAZINE • ISSUE 3/2010

Training Technology

five pilots, mostly because military pilots were not qualified to fly in bad weather and at night-time. At that point Ed Link’s Pilot Maker came to the fore. On February 10, 1934, he was summoned to come to Newark the next day to present his trainer’s blind flying training capabilities to Army officials. That was when he made his very convincing 200-mile instrumentonly flight. Due to the sluggish procurement process, however, his trainers did not enter the Army’s inventory until after the airlines had resumed airmail service. The chaotic experiment had killed twelve pilots and crashed sixty-five Army planes. Yet it meant the big breakthrough for Ed’s Pilot Maker. By this time all the experts had recognised that pilots needed instrument flying skills. Since “blind flying” training in the actual aircraft was both dangerous and costly, a ground trainer needed to take over. A month later, Link Aeronautical Corporation started exporting the first of ten trainers to Japan. Ed Link later found out that one trainer had been completely taken apart, obviously in an attempt to copy every detail. The Japanese, however, failed in their attempts to reassemble it. The next foreign order came from the Russian Amtorg Trading Corporation, purchasing four “Model A” trainers. England and France joined the buyer list and, following more military orders, Ed established a new company, Link Aviation, Inc., to manufacture the training devices. Link’s “C-series” appeared in 1936 and featured a full-scale instrument panel and a separate desk assembly for an instructor. Some improvements – a mechanism to simulate wind drift and a remote indication panel for the instructor – resulted in the new “D” trainer only a year later.

Supplying the Good Guys and the Bad Most “D” types were sold to Europe, where nations were gearing up for war. Even though the instruments were standard, the markings conformed to the customer’s language and practices. A contract with the British Royal Air Force for the delivery of some one hundred Link D trainers led to the founding of a company in Canada. The “E-type” was produced from 1938 onwards. It offered indications for a simulated instrument landing system (ILS) and an automatic direction finder (ADF). Its panel was no longer generic, but featured exactly 26

MS&T MAGAZINE • ISSUE 3/2010

that panel found in the aircraft the pilots were training to fly. The Link E trainer was exported in large numbers to user nations worldwide, including Germany and Japan, even after war had broken out in 1939, in a fairly naive attempt to maintain the United States’ neutral role. When, in December 1941, the United States entered World War II, thirty-five nations from both warring parties were using Link trainers, and it seems an irony of fate that the pilots of the Japanese Imperial Navy might have acquired their instrument flying skills for their attack on Pearl Harbor on a Link trainer. Now, with the United States at war, the Air Corps, Navy and Coast Guard took over overall production in the Link facilities, demanding new and even more realistic trainers. If more young men had to become pilots in less time, there would have to be trainers that were able to reproduce as many flight characteristics as possible. The improvements and modifications Ed Link and his engineers made to the previous model resulted in a new model designation: the ANT-18 (Army Navy Trainer model 18). It was one of the first training devices that followed military standards and was the most advanced state-of-the-art at the time, both in terms of realism and accuracy. A further development followed two years later, when the ANT-18 was adapted to the AT-6-SNJ single-engine training aircraft. It was the first time that a ground trainer was designed to represent the characteristics and peculiarities of a specific aeroplane as closely as possible. The C-8/IC-A1 trainer delivered to the Army/ Navy in 1945 was an early version of an operational flight trainer and was used to teach all phases of elementary and advanced instrument flying, including radio navigation, radio range and loop

Over half a million allied airmen qualified on more than ten thousand Link trainers during World War II. Image credit: L-3.

orientation, instrument landing systems, voice procedure, and flight and engine instrument familiarisation.

Great Merits By end of the War, more than ten thousand Link Trainers had been produced. At the height of production the “Blue Boxes”, as the Link Trainers were called on account of their blue paintwork, had left the assembly line at a rate of one every forty-five minutes. During World War II, over half a million Allied airmen qualified on Link Trainers. The great contribution Ed Link and his Pilot Maker made to wartime aviation training has been noted in official reports on more than one occasion. His Trainer saved lives, costs and freed up men and aircraft for combat. In 2000 the Link Flight Trainer was declared “A Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmark”, and in 2003 Ed Link was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame. However, the finest compliment Ed received came from one grateful customer, Air Marshall Robert Leckie, wartime Chief of Staff of the Royal Canadian Air Force, who observed that, “the Luftwaffe met its Waterloo on all the training fields of the free world where there was a battery of Link Trainers.” ms&t Acknowledgements The author wishes to thank L-3 Link Simulation & Training for providing indepth information about Ed Link and his famous Pilot Maker. Particular thanks goes to Rick Oyler, whose interesting anecdotes about the inventor gave the author great impetus to write the article.

naTional Training and simulaTion associaTion

THe worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s largesT modeling & simulaTion evenT

I/ITSEC

InterservIce/Industry traInIng, sImulatIon & educatIon conference

why I/Itsec? u 18,000 Industry experts u 550 exhibiting companies u 160 technical sessions/tutorials

Save the da

te!

er â&#x20AC;&#x201C; b m e v o N 9 2 2 December

w w w . I I t s e c . o r g 29 november-2 december, 2010 u orlando, Florida

Show Report

ITEC 2010 Holding up well in tough times, ITEC 2010 was considered a success by organisers, exhibitors and attendees. Walter F. Ullrich reports.

his year’s ITEC was held from 18 to 20 May 2010 at the ExCeL London, UK. While most attendees felt there were fewer people in the corridors and most exhibitors spoke about rather slow traffic, the organisers, Clarion Events, has confirmed attendee numbers of more than 2,900 at this year’s show – a 20% increase on 2009 – and the quality of the visitors counts. Exhibitors were consistently full of praise when it came to valuable contacts. Even better was that last year’s absentees gave a positive assessment of the event: “We have had a very good show … and we have seen customers from several continents,” said Thorsten Heinzen, Rheinmetall Defence’s Senior Vice President, Simulation and Training. “ITEC has proved to be an excellent platform for Metrix in the past,” explained Christopher Moseley, Communications Director, Metrix UK, “and in this critically important year we thought it very important to return to the event.” And Anders 28

MS&T MAGAZINE • ISSUE 3/2010

Løkke from projectiondesign, first-time exhibitor in 2009, confirmed that the show exceeded their expectations in terms of visitor quality: “It created a lot of interest from visitors and professionals working in the simulation and education markets.” The ITEC 2010 conference committee, chaired by Anne O’Reilly, Managing Director Mabway UK, had been very ambitious with regard to the variety of subjects and the number of presentations. Most topics revolved around training, looking at all domains of training, investigating the most diverse uses. Practical applications that directly help soldiers and operators to execute their mission were covered, including current topics like counter-IED training. But modeling and simulation other than training was also on the agenda, for example data farming, support across the acquisition life cycle and decision support. Overall, conference participants appeared satisfied.

Senior Panel Keynote speaker Lieutenant General Paul Newton, recently appointed Commander Force Development and Training, British Army, UK, said that his command had been giving some thought to how to ensure that the army is a learning organisation. “An institution does not learn until it has done something with the knowledge it has gathered, and we intend to put our lessons learned right at the heart of constantly adapting our doctrine and our training,” he said. “We are looking at ways to involve our partners, be they providers of training support or of equipment, more directly in that.” Rear Admiral Chris Snow, Flag Officer Sea Training and Rear Admiral Surface Ships, Royal Navy, UK, the event’s senior host, sees the real challenge as “Training regular forces to face an irregular threat”. He also took up an idea introduced by the previous speaker, namely that training has to go beyond Afghanistan. For Rear Admiral Joseph F. Kilkenny, Commander,

Naval Education and Training Command, US Navy, United States, today’s challenge is that we have to train “multiple foes”, and some may not be found in conventional military areas, for instance cyberspace. Captain Rainer Endres, GE Navy, Director Naval Development, Training and Education, stressed the importance of standards when training with partners. However, despite all the technological evolution in training, the primary asset was personnel. The only civilian on the panel, John D. Harris, President of Raytheon Technical Services Company, United States, presented a most effective business model. At the U.S. Army Intelligence Center School in Fort Huachuca, Arizona, 1,700 civilians, nearly all of them former soldiers themselves recruited for their in-theatre experience, are providing more than 40% of the training force for irregular warfare training. “Substituting industry for military personnel enables more warfighters to serve where they are needed most – on the front line – while still maintaining the ethos required to perform the mission,” he said.

Exhibitors More than 150 companies displayed training and simulation products and services. 47 companies were new to ITEC, among them Northrop Grumman and Havelsan from Turkey. All the big North American players had booths; RUAG and Barco were missing from the big European league, as was Thales. The trend is towards modesty: smaller stands, less hands-on hardware, and more models and memory sticks. Here are some items that caught MS&T editors’ eyes. The FR12 Remote Light Source projector series designed by Norway’s projectiondesign® revolutionises the way a projector is installed. The Remote Light Source technology removes the projector bulb from the projection head; locates it up to 30m away, and does away with all traditional concerns such as noise and heat management, installation orientation, lamp replacement and maintenance scheduling. Equipe’s G10 IG powered visualisation on the projectiondesign booth. MSE Weibull showcased ILTTUS, an instrumented training system for forceon-force training in an urban environment. It is based on Vitrius, a real-time 3D motion-tracking system, developed by the Swiss company TENETEC. It identifies

and tracks passive smart tags extremely efficiently down to the centimetre. Kongsberg’s Protector Training System, a training solution for armoured vehicle personnel, follows the trend towards conscious simplicity. The modular system supports the full spectrum of training from basic skills to crew, and networked multi-crew training. Originally developed for the Protector Remote Weapon System, its generic design approach permits adaptation to any vehicle and remote weapon station. SAIC presented the newly acquired OLIVE 3-D (Online Interactive Virtual Environment), now a member of the company’s The SimInsight™ Platform. Integrated into an Afghan checkpoint scenario, it demonstrated how the SimInsight products are able to quickly develop rich synthetic environments for training and mission rehearsal. NavShoe™, an inertial-based personnel tracking system, has obvious military utility in built-up areas where GPS is denied, but could also have application for fire and police activity. Accuracy is given as 1% of distance travelled, and the inertial equipment can be built into a boot or shoe. An I-Pod®-based version of the Insight identification and recognition tool from DTM Global can hold up to 1500 3-D models of ground vehicles, aircraft, warships and missiles. The images can be viewed from any aspect or range. Insight™ Mobile is shortly to be trialled for the first time by the UK Army Aviation Centre. Bohemia Interactive Simulations demonstrated their Virtual Battlespace (VBS) 2 system, which now also simulates air and sea environments, for a variety of applications, including mission rehearsal and tactical training up to Combat Team

Above Exhibitors made some valuable contacts at this year’s event. All images: Walter F. Ullrich.

level, combined arms or joint training, and specialist procedural training. Boeing is marketing new classroom training software in which an ‘intelligent instructor’ sets tasks for the students – in this case, Chinook maintainers – and provides feedback and associated logic as the student correctly or incorrectly performs the assigned tasks. The Defence Training Review (DTR), ‘seeks to transform the way specialist training is delivered to better support the future needs of the Armed Forces’. Package 1 of the DTR involves the provision of the Defence Technical College at St Athan in Glamorgan, which will subsume existing technical training for the 3 services. A mood of optimism is evident in the Metrix Consortium, the preferred bidder for Package 1; the consortium, led by QinetiQ and Sodexo, has been awarded an early-works contract, and a full contract decision is anticipated before the end of this year. The role-playing services offered at the small booth of the UK company Amputees in Action Ltd. are very different from any other on offer at ITEC. By using and combining the techniques of amputees acting the part of casualties and clinical special effects (SFX), the company replicates traumatic injuries that are so close to reality that trainees can scarcely bear it. Yet it is simulation, preparing users for real situations they must bear. ITEC 2011 will be held from 10 to 12 May at the Koelnmesse in Cologne, Germany. ms&t MS&T MAGAZINE • ISSUE 3/2010

Image credit: USAF/Val Gempis.

Conference Report

UAV Training and Simulation Participants at the 2010 UAV Training and Simulation conference shared experiences with the ongoing challenges of meeting growing demands for capability. Dim Jones reports.

he operation of UAVs, given prominence by wide employment in Iraq and Afghanistan, is one of the most rapidly developing areas of defence today. IQPC’s UAV Training and Simulation Conference 2010, London, 25/26 May, focused on the training and other issues that enhance – or in some cases limit – their exploitation. The programme included presentations from the US Air Force, Army and Marine Corps; the RAF and Army, the Belgian, Canadian, Swiss, and Italian Armed Forces, and NATO. Micro-, mini- and tactical UAVs are operated by ground forces, and the operational and strategic by air forces. Presenters unsurprisingly reflected the size of their UAV forces, the complexity and roles of the vehicles, and the intensity of operations. Nevertheless, some common themes emerged. Perhaps the most pressing issue discussed was not UAV training, but recruitment and retention. It is estimated that there will be a world30

MS&T MAGAZINE • ISSUE 3/2010

wide annual requirement for 1500 new UAV pilots at the tactical level and above. The increase in UAV pilot requirement is partly mitigated by budgetdriven decreases in manned aircraft; however, there is an insatiable appetite for more capability in operational theatres. The USAF goal for the Predator/ Reaper force is a total of 65 permanently manned CAPs (Combat Air Patrol); this requires 1650 aviators. Both USAF and RAF recognised some time ago that this could not be met from existing sources. Both have taken qualified aircrew from other systems to plug the gap, and both have diverted students from the pilot training system to UAV. It is recognised that this may create a mismatch between aspiration and achievement, with consequent implications for retention. The creation of a specialist career in UAV operations is the preferred USAF solution; the Beta Program was a trial of abinitio UAV training and this has recently been formalised as a new career path.

On a much smaller scale, the RAF is trialling the training of non-rated officers from the Ops Support Branch. If adopted, this option may attract candidates who score highly in aptitude testing but who are unable, usually for medical reasons, to undertake pilot training. ‘Crew’ composition also varied, with 2-man (pilot and payload operator) the most common. The USMC’s RQ7 Shadow concept involved a rated Unmanned Aircraft Commander, supervising an unrated Air Vehicle Operator and Mission Payload Operator. The UK Army’s tactical UAVs required an ‘Authorising Officer’ to supervise less qualified operating crew, and the Belgian B-Hunter crew comprised an officer Mission Commander leading NCO Pilot/Navigator and Real-Time Observer, none of them rated or with any flight time. The extent to which the mission analysts were an integral part of the team also varied. The crew of the Canadian Heron includes 3 intelligence analysts.

Image credit: USAF/Val Gempis.

Another major topic was the qualification and clearance necessary to fly UAVs in civil airspace, and over populated areas. Flight over populated areas is essentially an aircraft safety issue, and UAVs must satisfy the same airworthiness criteria as other aircraft. Flight outside restricted areas (ie with no positive co-ordination) relies on an element of ‘see and avoid’. To what extent the ability of a UAV to ‘sense-and-avoid‘ might satisfy this requirement is open to debate. In Bosnia and Kosovo, UAVs shared airspace with civil traffic, albeit imposing restrictions on that traffic which would only be tolerated in wartime. The dictionary definition of ‘pilot’ is “a person who operates the flying controls of an aircraft”; ICAO states that “The pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall, whether manipulating the controls or not, be responsible for the operation of the aircraft in accordance with the rules of the air”. Arguably, a UAV pilot meets these criteria and, provided the aircraft is suitably equipped and the pilot properly qualified, procedural flight in controlled airspace ought to be possible, although opinion on the rating requirement varied widely. Training packages and simulators are often ‘late additions’ to any procurement piece, but as civil airspace opens to UAV operators, and the licensing requirements become more defined, this aspect will drive a significant level of commitment. Simulation tended to take a back seat in this

forum; however, the eternal argument about simulator fidelity and form-fitfunction in manned aviation falls neatly into the lap of UAV simulator supporters: no G-force required! With limitations on training airspace, frequencies, non-combat airframes and representative target sets, the use of ‘live fly’ UAV training has even fewer advocates. Simulator companies need to be aware of this window of opportunity. The approach taken to manning and training UAV forces reflected the type and intensity of operations envisaged. The Belgian Forces, although having deployed UAVs in Bosnia and Congo, are now home-based, albeit in the “worst place in Europe to fly a UAV” – dense population, congested airspace and a saturated EM environment. The Italian Air Force has operated Strip-C in Afghanistan and Somalia, and Predator/ Reaper in Iraq. However, pride of place in the intensity stakes must go to the Predator/Reaper operation covering the Iraq and Afghanistan theatres and controlled from Creech AFB in Nevada. I have mentioned the 65 CAPs and 1650 aviators required. At a time when RPA (Remotely Piloted Aircraft) are set to become the largest weapons system in the USAF, experience and proficiency are at an all-time low; the Reaper training unit is manned at 40% of authorization, and any UAV pilot “with 2 years experience and a pulse” becomes an instructor. In this environment, there

is no such thing as measured testing – every new piece of capability goes straight to theatre. The Reaper arrived in March 2007 and was in combat by September. The development of the aircraft has far outstripped the provision of simulators; the Predator has a full-scale simulator, but it is not network capable; the Reaper has no simulator at all. As regards initiatives to get more from less, some sort of award has to go to ‘Multi-Aircraft Control’ whereby 4 UAVs are controlled by one pilot, with help from 4 sensor operators, the whole ensemble accommodated in a converted NASCAR trailer. This lucky individual has 4 keyboards, 4 mice and 10 displays to keep him occupied, and make a one-armed paper-hanger look underemployed. His tactical situation display is auto-scaled, so that if one of his CAPs is over Nevada and another over Afghanistan, it looks like an atlas. In sum, this was an entertaining and informative conference. I will leave the last word to the Conference Chairman, Squadron Leader Keven Gambold: “This was the first IQPC UAV Training and Simulator Conference, and showed considerable promise for the future. To get many nations in the same room, highlighting the same problems and mulling over the various solutions is the raison d’être of these gatherings. Ironically, these unmanned meetings need the men (and women) to meet in person to push the field along”. ms&t

MS&T Magazine has an unrivalled background in the defence simulation and training industry, and has been serving the military community for over 25 years. Target the industry’s key decision makers by choosing to buy advertising in the next issue. What’s in the next issue: • Year in Review • Industry Trends and Innovations Review • Future Combat Systems • Training Systems Opportunities • Training Transformation – An Update

www. halld

Includes:

Military Flight Simulator Census

naTIo The InTer

nal

TraIn Ing Defe nce

The InTer naTIo

nce of Excelle rmATion

nal Defe nce

g TrAnsfo

TrAinin

er UAS Cent

Technolo

TraIn Ing

Jour nal

www. hallda

le.com

gy appl

Langua on the ge and Culture Run

Training

MS&T Issue 4/2010 Advertising Deadline: 26 July 2010 • Publication Date: 17 August 2010 Advertising Contacts: [RoW] Jeremy Humphreys [t] +44 (0)1252 532009 • [e] jeremy@halldale.com [US] Mary Bellini Brown [t] +1 703 421 3709 • [e] mary@halldale.com

ale.c om

Jour nal

icATion

gy Appl

Technolo

Simulation

at a Price nology

nce Tech

performA

ory into

Putting The Tech

Care ine, Health

Medic

ISSN 1 471-10

52 |

Practice

icATion

Appl nology

icaTion

Techn

Leveragin ology g Game When are Games Technology: Training the Ans Techn wer? ology Germa Traininn Distributed g Networ Army Avi Training k ation Tran Virtuali sformaTion zing M& Shape the S: Future Field Tests to

ISSN 14

71-105

2 | uS $14/£8

tunity

and Oppor

Issue 2/201 0

0 Issue 3/201

uS $14/£8

www.halldale.com/mst MS&T MAGAZINE • ISSUE 3/2010

world news & analysis

Seen&Heard Edited by Chuck Weirauch. For daily breaking S&T news - go to www.halldale.com.

US Military M&S Market Stable The U.S. military training and simulation market is showing stable growth, according to a Frost & Sullivan report. The new US Military Training and Simulation Market report says the Department of Defense (DoD) spent $22.2 billion on training and simulation products and services in 2009, and estimates this to reach $24.1 billion by 2015, as it works to keep up with advancements in technology.

Army Training EADS Spanish ComFut System – The Spanish Future Soldier System ComFut (Combatiente del Futuro) is nearing the finishing line. In March, EADS Defence & Security (DS) in Spain delivered 36 equipment sets to the Spanish Army as specified in the Design and Development (D+D) contract signed with the Ministry of Defence. These sets have been used to train the first 25 soldiers from the Academia de Infanteria (Infantry Academy) on the ComFut system. The soldiers carried out users tests in flat and mountainous terrain and the system evaluation trials will continue in Toledo until its final validation at the end of June. LM launches Prepar3D Training Solution – Lockheed Martin launched its next-generation Prepar3D software interface that provides soldiers with realistic war game simulations. The simulation technology is based on the open standard Distributed Interactive Simulation and stems from Lockheed’s 2009 agreement with Microsoft to develop the company's ESP flight training technology. The Distributed Interactive Simulation is used by military forces for conducting real-time war games across multiple computers for air and ground vehicle platform-level applications, according to Lockheed Martin, which developed Prepar3D to provide soldiers a robust training solution in a simulated environment. 32

MS&T MAGAZINE • ISSUE 3/2010

Alion Army Radar and Combat Identification – Alion Science and Technology won a $3 million contract from the U.S. Army to provide spectrum management and electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) analysis that will allow the Army to test and provide training for the new radar systems it is developing. The groundbased and airborne radar and combat identification (ID) systems are being designed to give warfighters the best target tracking, aircraft surveillance, perimeter protection and superior technologies to identify friendly forces from foes. Organic Motion STAGETM Military Tracking System – Organic Motion sold Lockheed Martin its STAGETM Military Tracking System (MTS), which eliminates the use of attached tracking devices. The computer vision system will be installed at Lockheed Martin Simulation, Training and Support's Orlando, Fla., office, where Lockheed is developing multi-platform simulation and training solutions. Having it there will allow Lockheed to leverage STAGE MTS for future applications of multi-person tracking and virtual reality training programs.

Above EADS Defence & Security has delivered 36 ComFut systems to the Spanish Army. Image credit: EADS

Air Force Training InterSense, Link - US Air Force F-16 Mission Training – InterSense will integrate its IS-900 precision motion tracking system into Link’s SimuSphere HD display to for a solution designed to support the Air Force to increase pilot readiness and reduce costs. Link will supply up to 20 F-16 MTCs at Air Force bases in the U.S., Europe, and Pacific regions. Each MTC will have four training devices with InterSense’s IS-900 inertial/ ultrasonic tracking technology that produces precise, low-latency motion tracking of a pilot’s movements in real time and is critical for a more realistic training environment. It provides head tracking over an immersive, 360º field of view when integrated into solutions such as Link’s SimuSphere® HD, Advanced Helmet Mounted Display (AHMD), or other fixed or rotary wing training platforms.

The overall solution will allow F-16 pilots to detect, identify and engage targets from the same apparent distance as when flying a real mission – creating an optimum environment for advanced pilot training, tactics validation and mission rehearsal.

IED Training Metal Storm IED Training – Metal Storm delivered the first of 45 Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Training Kits to the US Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center in Palms, California. Metal Storm is manufacturing the kits to be delivered to U.S. Marines Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) teams around the world. The IED Training Kits include equipment and materials that replicate IEDs found in combat. With the kits, EOD personnel can construct their own IED devices using the same or similar components that are found in IED's used by the enemy – making training as realistic as possible.

Naval Training Boeing, L3 Deliver Super Hornet Trainers to US Navy – Boeing and L-3 Link Simulation & Training announced that they have delivered two F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Tactical Operation Flight Trainers (TOFT) to the U.S. Navy at Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceana, Va., and have declared them "Ready for Training." The devices offer aircrews the same Operational Flight Program used in the Boeingbuilt Super Hornet aircraft. SAIC - US Naval Surface Warfare Center Award – Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) won an $80 million follow-on Seaport-e task order from the U.S. Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) Dahlgren Division to provide systems engineering and training analysis services to the Center for Surface Combat Systems (CSCS) in Dahlgren, Va., and at other CSCS Elements and Detachments. CSCS prepares and qualifies sailors to correctly maintain, operate and employ surface ship weapon and combat systems during sustained combat operations at sea. SAIC will provide systems engineering and training services to CSCS and the Aegis Training and Readiness Center including manpower and personnel; infrastructure; training management; and technical and international programs. New DCNS Royal Malaysian Navy Scorpene Sub Simulation Contract – DCNS has signed a contract with the

Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN) for the supply of a Scorpene submarine simulator and services allowing extensive training around navigation safety, combat system, including sensors, and periscope operations for Scorpene submarines. This contract, worth around Malaysian Ringgit 128 million (about 27 million Euros), underlines the continuous collaboration of the Royal Malaysian Navy with DCNS on the Scorpene submarines program. TCG - US Navy Training Squadron Contract – Tactical Communications

Group (TCG) won a contract with the U.S. Navy to provide realistic Link 16 training for operators at the Whidbey Island, Washington Naval Air Station – the home of all Navy tactical electronic attack squadrons flying the EA-6B Prowler and EA-18G Growler. The Navy's West Coast EA-6B / EA-18G training squadron awarded this contract to TCG to train pilots and ground operational personnel on tactical data link tactics, techniques, and procedures, so pilots and operators can "train as they

CANSEC 2010 The CADSI (Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries) sponsored CANSEC 2010 was held 2-3 June in Ottawa’s Lansdowne Park. Some 250 exhibitors demonstrated their capabilities and their wares in three indoor halls and in a large outdoor display space. CANSEC provides a venue for military, security, first responders, and government officials to learn about existing industry capabilities and new technologies - in a sense, to learn the art of the possible - across the broad range of military technologies. Likewise it provides an opportunity for industry to speak directly with their customers. the vast majority of exhibitors displayed and demonstrated current capabilities and accomplishments, but with a sharp focus on future procurements in all domains, such as shipbuilding. In a significant announcement, the Canadian Defence Minister, Peter MacKay, laid out the government’s plan for for a restructured naval and coast guard shipbuilding programme - focussed on two ‘national’ shipyards and $35 billion over the next 30 years. The Chief of Defence Staff, General Walter Natynczyk, earlier in the day noted wryly that it has been 14 years since the last major warship had been launched in Canada, and that Canada would soon own the oldest frontline warship in the western world 38 years old, adding “We need to cut steel on new ships!” Even amongst the general broad thrust of the show, simulation and training companies were well represented. Some companies with significant simulation and training capabilities, like Thales and Elbit downplayed these capabilities preferring to focus on the bigger picture. Looking for a training focus, MS&T noted

the presence of CAE, Presagis, Atlantis Systems, Christie, Meggitt, NGRAIN, and Rockwell Collins. All were showcasing their capabilities with respect to the present as well as the future. MS&T also noted two emerging Canadian companies - C4I of Calgary, Alberta, and MILSIM-FX of Tillsonburg, Ontario. C4I Consultants showcased their two simulation products - EDMSIM, an emergency and disaster management simulation, and MILSIM, a “flexible, portable, constructive simulation.” Both products are said to be characterised by ease of set up and ease of use. MIL-SIM-FX specialises in a line of non pyrotechnic, reusable, IED detection/ reaction training simulators that create an effective audio and visual report - with compressed CO2 and talcum powder. The devices can be integrated with MOUT, convoy and live fire training systems. And finally a non technical initiative where success depends on how the technology is being used. FTCE, (Flight Test Centre of Excellence), Ottawa, is achieving a significant measure of success in flight test training using a problem or scenario based learning approach that leverages simulation (both ground and flight based) to provide the problem space. They noted significant gains in both training effectiveness and efficiency over traditional lecture heavy formats. Tim Page, President of CADSI, notes that the over 9000 registrants, from 75 government departments, was the largest number ever. Page observed the show is growing in size, scope and depth. “The show provided a clear demonstration of the capability available to defence and security customers in the Canadian industrial base” – Jeff Loube

MS&T MAGAZINE • ISSUE 3/2010

world news & analysis

MS&T_

fight" using TCG's Ground Tactical Data Link System (GTS). Digimation Virtual Training for Navy Platforms – Digimation delivered two virtual training projects for Global Technical Systems (GTS) and RiverHawk Fast Sea Frames. Digimation developed a realistic interactive trainer for GTS’ Advanced COTS Enclosure rack system for Navy platforms that mitigates the effects of combat and environmental shock events on the mission-critical computer equipment housed inside.

Ship Simulation Kongsberg Maritime has delivered a Polaris ship's bridge simulator to the Royal Norwegian Naval Academy in Bergen, Norway. The specially developed 1:1 simulator features a 240 degree visual system offering highly realistic scenarios for officer training. It is designed as an exact replica of the bridge aboard the Skjold class MTB (Missile Torpedo Boats), which are regarded as one of the fastest warships in the world with speeds of more than 60 knots/h (110 km/h).

Training Aircraft and Sims China Delivers Training Aircraft to Egypt – China has delivered a localmanufactured K-8E advanced training aircraft to the Egyptian Air Force (EAF) in a ceremony celebrating the SinoEgyptian co-production program. It is the 120th and the last aircraft that the Egyptian side receives from the Chinese Aviation Technology Import-Export Cooperation (CATIC) within the co-production program. Atlantis advanced Grob-120 FTD – Atlantis Systems Corp. has announced that it has signed a new contract with Allied Wings for the design and development of an advanced Level 5 Grob-120 FTD. Also included in the agreement are upgrades to existing courseware and flight training equipment to enhance the Canada Wings Aviation Training Centre in Southport, Manitoba.

Pilot Training Boeing and RAAF Graduate First Locally-trained C-17 Pilots – Australia’s first in-country C-17 pilot training program led by Boeing Defence Australia graduated its first two RAAF C-17 Globemaster III pilots. David Whyte and Pilot Officer Stephen Maunder received more than 350 hours of Pilot Initial Qualification 34

MS&T MAGAZINE • ISSUE 3/2010

(PIQ) programmed training from Boeing instructors at RAAF Base Amberley, including 120 simulated flight hours in the C-17 Globemaster III Aircrew Training System (ATS). The Boeing-developed C-17 ATS consists of a Loadmaster Station, Learning Center, various support systems and a Weapons Systems Trainer (WST), which is a realistic, full-motion simulator used for pilot training.

Helicopter Training New CAE Contracts – CAE announced several contract awards for helicopter training, including a contract to perform a major upgrade to the Puma helicopter training program at CAE's Medium Support Helicopter Aircrew Training Facility (MSHATF) in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom Ministry of Defence (UK MoD) has also awarded CAE a contract to perform a major upgrade on the Puma helicopter simulator located at CAE's MSHATF at Royal Air Force (RAF) Base Benson. The UK MoD is upgrading 28 helicopters as part of the Puma life extension program. Germany's procurement office BWB (Bundesamt fur Wehrtechnik und Beschaffung) has awarded CAE Germany a contract to continue providing a range of maintenance and training support services at the Hans E. Drebing simulator centre of the Germany Army Aviation School in Bueckeburg. The new contract covers the on-site maintenance for the next six years of the 12 CAE-built helicopter simulators operated at the German Army Aviation School. Helicopter Training Centre Opens in Czech Republic – A new centre was opened in April 2010 at the Ostrava International Airport, Czech Republic. The facility in run by HTP Ostrava CZ, which is a joint venture of LBS Trading, THT Ostrava CZ and VR Group. At the heart of the training facility is a modern FTD (flight training device) produced by CSTS Dinamika, the Centre for Scientific and Technical Services Dinamika. The Russian aircraft simulator manufacturer, who also produced the training CBT, is a leading provider of simulation technology for Mi helicopters.

Maintenance Training CAE Canadian CC-130J Maintenance Training Contract – CAE won a C$90 million contract from Lockheed Martin for

a CC-130J aircraft maintenance technician training solution for the Government of Canada. The contract was awarded under the CC-130J In-Service Support (ISS) program for Canada's new fleet of 17 CC130J Hercules transport aircraft. This is the second major CC-130J contract awarded to CAE, following the contract award last year directly from the Government of Canada for a CC-130J aircrew training solution under the Operational Training Systems Provider (OTSP) program. HiQ Swedish Defence Order for Gripen Fighter Sim Maintenance – HiQ has received a new SEK 14 million order from the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) to maintain JAS 39A Gripen jet fighter flight simulators. The simulators, which are used to train both Swedish and foreign pilots to fly the JAS 39 Gripen, are being developed in parallel with the aircraft. Thales UK Royal Navy Maintainer Training – Thales UK has been awarded the second phase of a contract for the provision of interactive 3D media to be used for training maintainers of the long-range radar on the Royal Navy new Daring-class (Type 45) destroyers. This second phase, under contract with BAE Insyte, is to provide SCORM conformant, web-enabled, training media for Type 45 maintainer trainers.

Command & Control Training Elbit Systems Launches NextGeneration Joint Command and Staff Trainer – Elbit Systems launched its Next-Generation Joint Command and Staff Trainer (CST) at Eurosatory 2010. The CST is designed to enhance the operational readiness of commanders and staff personnel up to the division level, as well as joint operations of ground, air and maritime forces. Ternion Wins $1.2 Million C2WSPTT Contract from US Air Force – Ternion Corporation won a $1.2 million contract from the US Air Force 505th Communications Squadron (505 CS) to continue development on the Command and Control Weapon System Part Task Trainer (C2WSPTT), which is based on Ternion's FLAMES Simulation Framework. Ternion worked with the 505th Communications Squadron (505 CS) under the 505th Command and Control Wing (505 CCW) to develop the Command and Control Weapon System Part Task Trainer (C2WSPTT).

MS&T_VISPROM_206*277_Layout 1 08/06/2010 15:21 Page 1

1 0 0 %

H e l i c o p t e r s

Uniting

E x h i b i t i o n

C o n f e r e n c e

S t a t i c

D i s p l a y

the

Helicopter Community

Exhibition 4 4

4 4 4

Meet and do business with key rotary personnel Learn about new and innovative product solutions Watch live Aerial Firefighting demonstrations View a variety of helicopters in the onsite static display Fly directly into the Helitech site at Airport Cascais free of charge

To Register www.helitechevents.com/regpt Organised by:

Conference 4 4 4 4 4

Aerial Firefighting contracts tendering and negotiations Military technology finding its place in the civil arena Reducing rotary environmental impact A greener future How do you get young pilots the needed experience Conference facility located in the exhibition hall.

To Register www.helitechevents.com/conferencept

www.helitechevents.com

world news & analysis

Missile Systems Training Thales Selects XPI's Tempest for ADAPT – XPI Simulation has been awarded a contract by Thales UK to supply Tempest simulation software for the use in the MoD/Thales ADAPT programme. Thales was awarded the contract from the MoD earlier this year for the Air Defence Availability Project (ADAPT), which includes through-life support of its advanced Starstreak missile system and capability insertion for the next 10 years. Its choice of Tempest for the real time generation of 3D imagery is not surprising considering its long experience with the software and the number of other projects based on the Tempest API application programmers interface. Boeing Delivers Trainer for US Missile Defense System – The Boeing Company, working with industry teammates and the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, delivered a second GMD System Trainer (GST) for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system at Fort Greely, Alaska, that lets warfighters train in a number of conditions and operating environments. GMD is the United States' only defense against longrange ballistic missile threats.

Synthetic Training Environments BAE Systems Employs Presagis Software – Presagis announced that BAE Systems is using Vega Prime and Creator

software to create and display terrain and entities to provide a synthetic emulation of an airborne advanced targeting pod to enhance training for frontline Royal Air Force aircrew and Forward Air Controllers. This is one application of BAE Systems' Integrated Aircrew Training (IAT) program, integrating live, virtual and constructive elements, into increasingly complex training environments including electronic warfare and air-to-air combat. Presagis Terra Vista Support for OneSAF -– Presagis has announced the availability of Terra Vista 6.1.1 with support for OneSAF Terrain Format version 8.0 (OTF-8). This new release provides users with the ability to generate highly detailed and correlated OTF-compliant databases for OneSAF Objective System (OOS) version 4.0 runtime environments. Presagis Partners with Scalable Network Technologies – Presagis has announced a partnership and reseller agreement with Scalable Network Technologies (SNT). This agreement creates an out-of-the-box solution for highly complex simulations requiring wired and wireless network effects. STAGE users will be able to take advantage of SNT's cutting-edge communication models in simulated scenarios, adding the rigors and uncertainties of in-field communications like urban environment effects, message delays or drops, signal jamming and sophisticated cyber attacks.

Virtual Worlds Daden Wins US Federal Virtual Worlds Challenge – UK Virtual Worlds solution provider Daden Limited has won first place and second place prize respectively in two categories of this year’s inaugural US Federal Government’s Virtual World Challenge (FVWC). Birmingham-based Daden entered both its PIVOTE and Datascape systems into the Challenge. The PIVOTE system was announced winner in the skills building category and Daden’s Datascape was runner up in the collaboration category.

Mobile Device Training British Army Developing iPad Application – The British Army is one of the first organizations in the UK to develop an application for the new Apple iPad. Currently in the testing stage, the Fire Control Orders application will be used by soldiers at the Royal School of Artillery in Larkhill, Wiltshire, replacing more conventional training methods. Using interactive individual and multi-user exercises, the iPad application aims to provide a more engaging - and therefore more effective training exercise.

Training Range Support Boeing Team - US Air Force Test and Training System Proposal – A team led by Boeing submitted a proposal to the U.S. Air Force for Phase 2 of the Com-

...ITEC NEWS...ITEC NEWS...ITEC NEWS...ITEC NEWS...ITEC NEWS ITEC 2010 was the selected venue for the signing of an innovative cooperation agreement to boost the effectiveness and resource efficiency of the training undertaken by the United States Navy, the Royal Navy, the Canadian Forces Navy and the German Navy. The four navies have agreed to create a series of formal collaboration agreements to maximize the effectiveness and resource efficiency of their training and education activities. Bohemia Interactive and Caspian Learning announced their partnership to bring new military offerings to market that, the companies expect, will help solve current training and simulation issues defence customers currently face. Bohemia Interactive brings its VBS2 – Virtual Battlespace 2; Caspian Learning brings its 3D simulation 36

MS&T MAGAZINE • ISSUE 3/2010

authoring software and engine, Thinking Worlds. Other companies showcased new products and developments at ITEC 2010: • 3D perception launched its Northstar brand for its automatically aligning simulation display solutions called Northstar. Central to the launch was the introduction of a new image-processing appliance called Northstar nBox, a next-generation version of the company’s CompactUTM. Northstar nBox is a plug-and-play, zero frame latency controller with Intelligent EDID technology that scales, warps, blends and color corrects content, outputs to multiple projectors and seamlessly displays imagery across all screen shapes. • VT MÄK announced the launch of VRThe World Server, a new streaming terrain solution. This new solution supports a "virtual globe" style approach where

simulation and visualization applications stream terrain directly from a server as users move about the world. The server was developed in conjunction with MÄK partner Pelican Mapping, a company that specializes in GIS, 3D visualization, mapping, and location-based services. MÄK also revealed the release of the company's latest visualization product, VR-Vantage XR. • Raydon showcased its brand-new MTRS Talon Robot virtual simulator and Foster-Miller's Talon Robot at ITEC 2010 in London. Making its premiere this year at ITEC as part of Raydon's Route Clearance Training System, the manned Talon robot virtual simulator will simulate the durable, lightweight, tracked Talon robot vehicle. This vehicle is used by combat engineers when investigating a suspicious object to determine if it is an IED.

mon Range Integrated Instrumentation System (CRIIS) program to help improve the accuracy and realism of joint-service test and training activities. CRIIS is designed to integrate with ground soldier, low-dynamic ground and air vehicles, watercraft, and highly dynamic and maneuverable aircraft.

Corporate News Alion DoD SNIM Technology Support Contract – Under the Software, Networks, Information, Modeling and Simulation (SNIM) Contract, Alion will focus on the DoD achieving better control over and insight to data that supports national security objectives. Alion's team will provide expertise and technical assistance for software analysis, information assurance, knowledge management, and modeling and simulation. SNIM consolidates the customerfunded efforts of three of the DoD's Information Analysis Centers (IACs) that work under the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) and act as clearinghouses for expertise and assistance with technical challenges. The contract combines Technical Area Tasks (TATs) previously performed under the Data and Analysis Center for Software (DACS), Information Assurance Technology Analysis Center (IATAC) and Modeling and Simulation Information Analysis Center (MSIAC). Antycip Partnerships – Antycip Simu-

lation Ltd. has announced a partnership with Organic Motion, a leading computer vision company. Antycip is now the exclusive European provider of Organic Motion's STAGE™ military tracking systems (MTS), a breakthrough technology for a wide range of military simulated training programmes. Antycip will be working with Autodesk as a channel partner for the management of Autodesk training and simulation activities. Antycip Simulation will provide support for training and simulation customers in Europe using Autodesk’s Kynapse middleware, its artificial intelligence (AI) product. Autodesk Kynapse is a widely used AI middleware that can be used to help create highly realistic military, security, industrial, and urban planning simulations. Cubic – Cubic Corporation is collaborating with RhinoCorps to develop a deployable and expandable immersive training system to improve the performance of security teams and planners. The "core" system will be designed to deliver training in the computer-based constructive training domain and can be expanded to include virtual and live training domains. Cubic's Innovation and Technology Center, based in Orlando's Research Park complex, is leading the development effort. A defense division of Cubic Corporation developed a new weapon simulator called the M134D Virtual Trainer that

replicates the characteristics of a Gatlingstyle gun, firing up to 3,000 rounds a minute – and Cubic already has $5 million in contracts to supply it and other training equipment to multiple locations in the United States. he simulator is modeled after the M134D Minigun, a six-barrel electric-powered machine gun that fires 7.62mm rifle rounds. A team of three Cubic employees working at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune in North Carolina won first place in the first GameTech2010 "Innovations in DoD Gaming Award." Luke Devore, a lead analyst; Pat Maloney, a scenario developer; and Brian Libretto, a simulation analyst work in the Deployable Virtual Training Environment (DVTE) section of the II Marine Expeditionary Force Battle Simulation Center at Camp Lejeune. In a move to bolster its strategic presence in the defense, maritime and homeland security sectors, Cubic Corporation acquired the assets of Impeva Labs, Inc., an international provider of global asset management, tracking, monitoring and security solutions. Cubic acquired Impeva's contracts, inventory, fixed assets and intellectual property and formed a new subsidiary called Cubic Global Tracking Solutions, Inc., that will build on Impeva's current military and civilian contracts to globally grow the business. Cubic's Simulation Systems Division marked the first sale of its new

EC NEWS...ITEC NEWS...ITEC NEWS...ITEC NEWS...ITEC NEWS...ITE • LINE launched its new i-Pad multiuser interaction program and showed a range of content examples for the i-Pad; UMPC Tablet; i-Phone and i-Touch and covered subjects like Bowman, Electronic Performance Support System (EPSS) / Technical Publications; Fire Control Orders (FCO), Royal School of Artillery multi-user interaction programme; SLDT (P) vehicle maintenance (EPSS) and cultural awareness. • Luciad presented a number of software solutions for dependable situational awareness with its latest advances in high performance visualization and graphical analysis solutions for mission-critical defense and security applications. On display was LuciadMap, the company's flagship software suite designed to build highly accurate situational awareness applications and for

rapid application development in support of advanced C4ISR training, responsive mission preparation, real-time and fasttime simulation, and computer-assisted exercises. Luciad also introduced LuciadEarth Enterprise, its new data fusion platform to manage, fuse, and serve massive data streams into one combined operational picture across multiple applications. • XPI Simulation demonstrated its capability in real time ray-tracing graphics, which provides simulation users the ultimate image quality, and enhances interoperability by using a single dataset for displaying optical, thermal and NVG images in different domains. Also on display was its simulator, which uses one of the most advanced artificial intelligence systems to reproduce local driving culture.

• The Fighter Collection demonstrated "The Battle Simulator", which creates a synthetic environment of elements of modern air, land and sea warfare. This solution is a development of The Fighter Collection Simulation Engine (TFCSE) which is currently integrated into "serious game" air combat simulations and military applications such as the A-10C desk top simulator (DTS) for the US Air National Guard and AC-130U IR sensor operator training. The company also demonstrated the desk top simulator of the A-10C, the Ka-50 helicopter, the JTAC workstation and the artillery commander workstation, all linked over a LAN demonstrating typical joint fires exercises. Also at the exhibit, SDS International showed its MQ-9 Reaper mission training device (MTD) simulator currently in use by the US Air National Guard. MS&T MAGAZINE • ISSUE 3/2010

world news & analysis

COMBATREDI system that immerses users in a highly realistic 360-degree "virtual reality" environment with a $4.8 million contract with the Florida Army National Guard. Cubic will supply 27 of its COMBATREDI systems and four 180-degree Warrior Skills Trainers (WST), a vehicle trainer that works with COMBATREDI. L-3 Link – Four F/A-18C Tactical Operational Flight Trainers (TOFTs) L-3 Link Simulation & Training provided for Switzerland’s F/A-18 Flight Simulator Upgrade program have achieved readyfor-training status one month ahead of schedule. The TOFTs, installed and networked at Payerne Air Force Base in Switzerland, were fielded with the Swiss F/A-18C’s latest operational flight program upgrade to stay concurrent with the Hornet platform. L-3 Link Simulation & Training and the U.S. Air Force were given the Governor’s Award by the National Training and Simulation Association (NTSA) for their joint efforts on the U.S. Air Force’s Predator Mission Aircrew Training System (PMATS) program. The Governor’s Award recognizes an organization, program, project or individual for outstanding achievement in the field of modeling, simulation and training. The high-fidelity training provided by PMATS units allows the U.S. Air Force Predator and Reaper crews to conduct networked training exercises and practice procedures to counter potentially catastrophic emergencies. NGRAIN introduced two new products to help move training and support out of the classroom and into the field. NGRAIN® Virtual Task RefresherTM (VTRTM) and NGRAIN® Virtual IndexTM (VITM) products are designed to save time and increase knowledge on the job and are targeted to organizations that need to quickly access information in any environment. The Virtual Task Refresher delivers program and procedural updates and support for modified equipment or tasks that are infrequently performed. NGRAIN also introduced a new version of its 3D simulation production software, NGRAIN® Producer 4.1, that is designed for non-programmers with no 3D graphics experience.

Personnel News Change of Command for NAWCTSD – Capt. Bill "Roto" Reuter replaced Capt. 38

MS&T MAGAZINE • ISSUE 3/2010

Harry Robinson as commanding officer of the Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division and Naval Support Activity Orlando during a change of command ceremony on June 18. The ceremony will be held at 10 a.m. in Warfighter Park, adjacent to the de Florez Building at NSA Orlando. Retired Navy Vice Admiral Al Harms, Vice President for Strategic Planning and Initiatives at the University of Central Florida is scheduled to be the keynote speaker at the ceremony. The Navy and UCF enjoy a long-standing partnership in modeling and simulation research. Robinson will retire from the Navy following 28 years of honorable service. Antycip Simulation Appoints Chief Scientist – Antycip Simulation has announced that Jean-Louis Igarza has joined the company in the position of Chief Scientist. With his experience, Jean-Louis will provide Antycip with invaluable technical advice and support to strengthen its customer service in the application of technologies used in various programmes. ms&t

Index of Ads BAE Systems www.baesystems.com CAE www.cae.com/healthcare

6 OBC

Environmental Techtonics Corporation

www.etcAircrewTraining.com Haptica www.haptica.com Helitech www.helitechevents.com IAI www.mlm-iai.com I/ITSEC 2010 www.iitsec.org IQPC

IFC 13 35

Calendar 14-15 September 2010 APATS 2010 - Asia Pacific Airline Training Symposium Shangri-La Hotel Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia www.halldale.com/APATS 9-10 November 2010 EATS 2010 - European Airline Training Symposium WOW Hotel Istanbul, Turkey www.halldale.com/EATS 19-21 April 2011 WATS 2011 - World Aviation Training Conference & Tradeshow Rosen Shingle Creek Resort Orlando, Florida, USA www.halldale.com/WATS 19–25 July 2010 Farnborough International Airshow Farnborough, Hampshire, UK www.farnborough.com 22–23 September 2010 Annual International Flight Crew Training Conference London, UK www.raes.org.uk 5-7 October 2010 Helitech 2010 Estoril, Portugal www.helitechevents.com

15 27

www.jointsimulationandtraining.com 22 L-3 Link Simulation & Training www.L-3com.com 23 MetaVR www.metavr.com 21 Raydon www.raydon.com 4 RGB Spectrum www.rgb.com 11 & 25 RUAG Electronics www.ruag.com 17 SAAB www.saabgroup.com 3 SAIC www.saic.com/olive IBC

12 October 2010 Low-Cost and Systematic Approaches to Training London, UK training@andrich.com

Advertising contacts Business Manager: Jeremy Humphreys [t] +44 (0)1252 532009 [e] jeremy@halldale.com Business Manager, North America: Mary Bellini Brown [t] +1 703 421 3709 [e] mary@halldale.com

Enhance Collaboration in a Virtual 3-D World SAIC’s On-Line Interactive Virtual Environment (OLIVE™) is a dynamic software platform that enables users to collaborate over computer networks using a 3-D user interface. OLIVE-based virtual worlds bring together physical presence, action, voice, data, and media in a context-specific, simulated environment. Today, OLIVE supports virtual world implementations in healthcare, financial services, energy, transportation, retail, government, and higher education. To learn more, visit us at saic.com/olive

Energy | Environment | National Security | Health | Critical Infrastructure © Science Applications International Corporation. All rights reserved. OLIVE is a trademark of Science Applications International Corporation in the U.S. and/or other countries.

NYSE: SAI

CAE Healthcare: Bringing best practices to life

CAE Healthcare, working with you to: Provide operational peace of mind Building from a global experience we offer consulting, centre design, operations and managerial services for your military medical simulation centre.

Target performance improvement Improving military clinical outcomes by identifying practice gaps in your medic training program, designing and developing educational interventions, establishing measurable objectives and deploying simulation-based solutions for medics in the field.

Help you transition to simulation-based learning Whether customized or from our courseware library, our curriculum is designed to be easily adapted to the pace, learning speed and agenda of military medical professionals.

Enhance mission success Implementing cost-efficient, simulation-based learning solutions that help prepare combat medics for mission success.

Simulation centre management solutions * Imaging simulation solutions* Surgical simulation solutions* Transport medicine curriculum and training

cae.com/healthcare