Military Training International Oct/Nov 2016

October/November 2016 • Volume 21 • Issue 6

Military training, modeling and simulation solutions with a global perspective

Inside This Issue...

Trainer Jets Page 14

U.S. Army’s Virtual Training Devices Page 16

Close Air Support Training Page 20

Small Business Training Innovations Page 25

Tackling Global Challenges Page 28

International Vector: Brigadier General Uwe F. Klein Commandant International Helicopter Training Centre and Director of German Army Aviation

Q&A With

Lieutenant Colonel Merrick “Tron” Green Commander 505th Combat Training Squadron

navdexuae.ae

The leading naval defence and coastline security exhibition in the Middle East and North Africa region returns to Abu Dhabi in February 2017. NAVDEX 2017 will continue to attract influential VIP’s, naval decision makers and investment companies from around the world to do business with international manufacturers and suppliers. Attracting more than 1,200 exhibitors and 101,000 local, regional and international trade visitors and officials from governments industry and armed forces.

For detailed plans about NAVDEX 2017, please visit www.navdex.ae To book an exhibition stand or a berth, please email shahla.karim@adnec.ae or alya.almarzouqi@adnec.ae

Strategic Partner

Principal Partner

Organised by

Host Venue

In association with

Military Training International Features

14

Train as You Fly

16

Army’s Virtual Training Devices

20

United States Air Force pilots will be bidding a fond farewell to the T-38, the primary training aircraft for jet pilots, after more than five decades of service. The fact that the aircraft has remained in service for so long is testimony to its capabilities and to the esteem with which it is held by the Air Force and by generations of pilot trainees.

By Peter Buxbaum

October/November 2016 • Volume 21 Issue 6

Table of Contents Departments

Q&A with Lieutenant Colonel Merrick “Tron” Green Commander 505th Combat Training Squadron

2 6 27 28

To provide realistic, operationally-focused training, the Army relies on a combination of live, virtual, constructive, and gaming training. According to the Army, virtual training is used to hone individual and units skills in tactics, techniques, and procedures prior to live training. Virtual training also replicates conditions that are not possible to achieve in live training. A report looks at the implementation of virtual training devices by the U.S. Army and their effectiveness.

By Cary Russell

28

people Resource Center TEAM ORLANDO

10

Developing Training and Doctrine for Forward Air Controllers

International Vector

Distributed operations, especially in Afghanistan, have generated a perceived requirement for more JTACs; the near exponential increase in aircraft capabilities and weapon systems demonstrated a need for robust initial training; and the increased use of unmanned aerial systems and artillery munitions.

By Andrew Drwiega

25

Program Highlights

Brigadier General Uwe F. Klein Commandant International Helicopter Training Centre and Director of German Army Aviation

Training Innovations The most recent Small Business Innovative Research and Small Business technology Transfer offering includes only two topics that relate directly to training or simulation

Team Orlando Early this spring, the University of Central Florida Research Foundation established an institute to assist in securing large collaborative research projects and enhance the university’s interdisciplinary work and growing partnerships.

Military Training International 2016

Simulation & Training

TOP

COMPANIES

Visit the Directory at www.mti-dhp.com/topcompanies/

Program Highlights German Air Force Training in U.S. Celebrated

On September 23, the inspekteur der luftwaffe, equivalent to the chief of staff of the German Air Force, marked the 50th anniversary of German pilot training at Sheppard Air Force Base during a secpail roll call.

Lieutenant General Karl Müllner, who began his flying career after graduating from pilot training at Sheppard in 1982, was joined by fellow EuroNATO Joint Jet Pilot Training Program graduate Lieutenant General Darryl Roberson, commander of Air Education and Training Command, as well as German Consulate General Ricarda Redeker and other senior German Air Force officers.

“The benefits of Sheppard Air Force Base as a training location were, and still are, evident to the German Air Force,” Müllner said.

“Ideal climatic conditions, a large air base providing the best support for pilot training and the very kind acceptance by the people of Wichita Falls and all friends at Sheppard Air Force Base” Mullner listed as contributing factors to the ongoing success of the joint partnership.

German Air Force pilot training at Sheppard began in 1966, and served as an important precursor to the formation of ENJJPT in 1982. In all, more than 2,500 German pilots have been trained at Sheppard.

“Generations of NATO pilots have jointly gained a comprehensive understanding of flying that ranges from flight safety regulations to first insights into operational procedures,” Müllner said.

“However, the true value of Sheppard Air Force Base cannot be derived exclusively from these facts and figures. This place also has an influence on the way our officers think and act.”

In highlighting the partnership at Sheppard, Müllner cited the broader German-American partnership.

“This year, the German Air Force celebrates its 60th anniversary, and in 10 days’ time, October 3, we will see the 26th anniversary of German reunification,” Müllner said. “But even earlier, we learned that the United States reliably stood by our side. In the center of our capital, Berlin, stands a memorial to the Berlin Airlift. It commemorates the support provided by our western allies to the citizens of 2 | MTI 21.6

West Berlin during the Soviet blockade from June 1948 to May 1949.”

“These anniversaries,” Müllner said, “give us cause for joy and gratitude since they would not have been possible without the United States, without the trust and support of our American friends.”

As reported by George Woodward

Russia Expects to Produce SR-10 Trainer in Late 2017 The first combat-training SR-10 aircraft for the Russian Air Force will be produced late next year.

By 2020 it is planned to begin test trials of the first batch of some 20 aircraft, representative of Modern Aviation Technologies’ (SAT) design bureau which deals with told TASS. The production of the first craft is scheduled for late 2017. According to Russian defense ministry plans, a test batch of some 20 aircraft has to be produced in 2018-2019 for government acceptance tests. “Serial production will follow,” he said.

At present the only existing demonstrator of the new craft is undergoing test trials. Test flights are ongoing at Kubinka airfield near Moscow. The first flight took place in December 2015.

Serial production is to be launched at Smolensk Aircraft Works which specializes in light aircraft, including Yak-18T and SM-92, the representative said.

SR-10 created for the Russian Air Force will be equipped with engines from defense ministry stockpiles, the SAT representative said.

“The SR-10 which undergoes trials has the AI-25TL engines which are also mounted on L-39 training aircraft. The defense ministry decided to use the engines for the test batch of the aircraft.

It is important there are enough engines to supply the fleet of SR-10 in the coming years,” he said.

SR-10 designers stress that AI-25TL engine has proved its reliability during many years of operation. It has sufficiently high characteristics and is well known to operating organizations.

“However, jointly with Saturn Company the use of a new Al-55I engine on SR-10 has been considered for two years. It is fully produced in Russia and has a modern digital control system, lower weight and the same thrust and a possibility to use new motor aircraft designs,” the representative said.

As reported by TASS Russian News Agency

ATNAVICS Training Simulators On September 28, Adacel Systems Inc. announced it had been awarded a contract by

the U.S. Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division for the provision of air traffic navigation, integration, and coordination system (ATNAVICS) training simulators.

The ATNAVICS training simulators are standalone, portable systems which will be used to provide training to Marine Corps air traffic control detachments. The devices replicate the air traffic control (ATC) functions of the AN/TPN-31 ATNAVICS. The systems will provide individual radar ATC training using speech recognition and/or pseudopilot capabilities along with the ability to create, edit and save training scenarios. The systems are to be deployed to 10 locations in the United States and overseas. These initial deployments will occur over a 12-month time period. The program also includes three years of system support, operator training and the application of the appropriate DoD information assurance cyber security protocols.

Virtual Reality Training Awards Raytheon was recently honored with two Brandon Hall bronze awards for virtual reality training systems developed for the U.S. Army.

Often called the ‘Academy Awards’ of the training industry, the Brandon Hall Group Excellence Awards Program is the most prestigious awards program in the learning and training industry.

“This special recognition reinforces Raytheon’s position as a premier provider of training and training support services,” said Pete Vangjel, vice president of Raytheon’s Global Training Solutions business. “We’ve trained millions of people around world to help prepare them for the world’s most important missions.”

Raytheon won a bronze award in Best Use of Games or Simulations for its Joint Multinational Readiness Center Mobile Instrumentation System.

The company partnered with the U.S. Army Europe to develop the system, which blends virtual, live (including live-fire), and constructive training into a simulated training environment that literally spans the globe. The system consists of a mobile suite of sensors, cameras, training instrumentation, communications and computer networks all working together to create a blended training environment that can extend over hundreds of miles.

Raytheon won a second bronze award in the same category for the Joint Pacific Multinational Readiness Capability Instrumentation System. The system provides U.S. Army Pacific a “strategic readiness bridge” to ensure enhanced home-station unit readiness between Combat Training Center rotations and when CTC rotations are not available and extend training and readiness opportunities with joint and multinational partners. www.MTI-dhp.com

Program Highlights Commonwealth C-130 Crews Train Together

a shared appreciation of each other’s skills and tactics.”

Recruit Fire Fighting Trainer

C-130 Hercules crews from Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom trained together and engaged in friendly competition in the skies during Exercise Bullseye, a tactical air transport exercise that wrapped up at 8 Wing Trenton, Ontario, on September 30, 2016.

The exercise ran from September 26 to 30 and provided members of the Royal Air Force, Royal Australian Air Force, Royal New Zealand Air Force (as observers) and the Royal Canadian Air Force a unique and collaborative learning opportunity for the tactical operation of the C-130J Hercules transport aircraft.

Exercise Bullseye was an annual exercise from 1975 to 1999, but entered a hiatus while exercise participants transitioned to the new J-model Hercules from the older H-model.

“It was a great honor to host our Commonwealth partner-nations for the first international Exercise Bullseye to be held since the C-130J Hercules began joining our respective fleets,” said Colonel Colin Keiver, the commander of 8 Wing. ”This year’s exercise was a fantastic opportunity to exercise and showcase the capabilities of this great airframe, its aircrews and its maintainers.”

The C-130J Hercules (designated CC-130J by Canada) is a four-engine, fixed-wing turboprop aircraft that can carry up to 92 combat troops or 128 non-combat passengers. It is used for a wide range of missions, including troop transport, tactical airlift (both palletized and vehicular cargo) and airborne operations. Highlighting the versatility of this aircraft, crews often train to drop cargo by parachute in order to supply military or humanitarian cargo to areas inaccessible by land.

“436 Transport Squadron was proud to participate in this year’s international Exercise Bullseye,” said Lieutenant Colonel Spencer Selhi, the commanding officer of 436 Transport Squadron.

“As the commanding officer of the RCAF’s CC-130J Hercules squadron, I know our crews of highlyskilled and enthusiastic airmen and airwomen represented Canada well. More importantly, I know all participants came away from this exercise with www.MTI-dhp.com

Aero Simulation Inc. (ASI) has announced a contract award for the Recruit Fire Fighting Trainer Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) Update Program. Awarded by the Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division, the program directly supports the U.S. Navy’s Recruit Training Command in Great Lakes, Ill. U.S. Navy recruits use the trainer during basic training to learn to escape smoke-filled compartments, open and close watertight doors, use self-contained breathing apparatus, carry fire hoses, and learn to extinguish fires.

The program requires the replacement of obsolete PLCs with current technology PLCs. “ASI is pleased to continue to support the Navy fire fighting training by adding this new program to our current surface warfare fire fighting trainer update work” said Dr. Michael McCarthy, ASI’s president. “This program ensures new sailors continue to learn the skills necessary should a disaster ever happen aboard their ship by enhancing the reliability and maintainability of their training device.

We’re excited to continue our work developing great training solutions in partnership with the Navy and look forward to our successful upgrades of these important devices.”

Advanced Simulation Combat Operations Trainer Advanced Simulation Combat Operations Trainer (ASCOT) is a real-time interactive simulation tool that easily manages the entire battlespace from single ship close air support (CAS) missions to multi-axis, multi-ship special operations. Multiple systems can be networked together at a single site, or at multiple sites around the world for dynamic large-scale joint and coalition exercises.

ASCOT creates a realistic virtual battle-space by using real-world data and models.

Through its flexibility it provides instructors and exercise directors the ability to control exercise tempo and dynamically direct the exercise focus

to meet training needs. By creating radar tracks that can then be utilized by the different agencies of the Marine Air Command and Control System (MACCS), ASCOT allows MACCS to simulate actual radar operations without having to have live flights.

ASCOT, a service only offered by Plexsys, possesses all of the required specifications to tie in MACCS equipment into the pre-built and approved backbone provided by Tactical Training Group, Pacific (TTGP). MACCS operators and TTGP have in depth knowledge of ASCOT operations and its connectivity requirements to support distributed simulated exercises.The simulation shall simulate a radar input which is capable of injecting an air operations scenario directly into the Mobile TAOM. The Plexus ASCOT has internal data used to simulate friendly, neutral, and hostile aircraft. The simulation is capable of presenting the aircraft first as an unevaluated radar track, forcing the Marine to evaluate the track based on the Air Defense Identification Matrix. This is the same method a Marine would use in combat live flights. Other systems are built to satisfy operational and strategic level simulations, while ASCOT can simulate the tactical level. The USMC tactical air operations center must be able to perform tactical level functions, such as evaluate individual air tracks and classify them. At the operational and strategic levels of war, the operator is simply using the data that was evaluated at the tactical level.

UK Conducts Survivability Training for Ukraine Transport Aviation Brigade UK instructors recently trained members of the Ukrainian military transport aviation brigade in survivability at Vinnytsya. The course also covered field medicine and EOD training.

During the one-week course UK instructors conducted different theoretical and practical training which included military pilots learning how to handle wounded soldiers, render first medical aid and prepare them for evacuation, find explosives, and mark dangerous points and sites.

Meanwhile, SAR experts were taught basic survivability methods according to NATO standards.

Human Capital and Training Solutions On October 4, Cubic Global Defense (CGD), a business unit of Cubic Corporation announced the award and receipt of notice-to-proceed on a $5.75 billion multiple award, indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (MA-IDIQ) task order contract from the General Services Administration (GSA) in partnership MTI 21.6 | 3

Program Highlights with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) for Human Capital and Training Solutions (HCaTS).

Under this contract, CGD will have the opportunity to provide customized training and employee development, human capital strategy and organizational performance improvement services across the federal government at all levels. CGD is one of 72 unrestricted contracts awarded under the HCaTS vehicle and 37 that were set aside for small businesses under the HCaTS SB vehicle.

“As part of our NextTraining strategy, Cubic is focused on raising organizational readiness and optimizing human performance in all government settings,” said Chris Bellios, senior vice president of defense and intelligence services for Cubic Global Defense. “We look forward to working with GSA, OPM and various government organizations to expand the impact and accessibility of organizational government performance solutions.”

HCaTS is considered to be the first government-wide human capital solution using category management, an enterprise-wide approach to acquiring goods and services used in private industry and by other government agencies. HCaTS contracts will allow federal agencies to take an efficient and innovative approach to their workforce and training requirements. The GSA will handle administration of the contracts while OPM will manage the programs.

Major Upgrades for Navy College Program

The Naval Education and Training Professional Development Center (NETPDC) launched a major redesign and upgrade of the Navy College Program (NCP) website October 1.

Designed to complement and support the NCP’s Virtual Education Center (VEC), the redesigned NCP website greatly improves the ability for sailors, commands and academic institutions to access voluntary education (VOLED) information.

“The Navy has taken the lead in modernizing its VOLED program, ensuring sailors have the same opportunities as their civilian counterparts,” said Captain Lee Newton, NETPDC commanding officer.

4 | MTI 21.6

“Our goal is to provide online access and support to sailors pursuing voluntary education at the time and place that’s most convenient for them, using the virtual tools with which they are already familiar.”

According to Navy VOLED Director Ernest D’Antonio, the website enables sailors to find specific educational information tailored to their individual needs.

“From getting started on their degree path, to applying for tuition assistance to taking those final classes for a master’s degree—it’s all here on the newly redesigned site,” said D’Antonio.

“The enhanced customer service system in the new website is a quantum increase in capabilities for our customers,” added D’Antonio. “They now have the capability to live-chat with the VEC, submit a call-back request or search the new knowledge management database, all from a smartphone, tablet, home or NMCI computer.”

The URL for the new Navy College Program website is: www.navycollege.navy.mil Sailors can also get the latest information by following Navy Voluntary Education on Facebook: www.facebook.com/NavyVoluntaryEducation/.

As reported by Ed Barker

F-15C/E Mission Training Centers The Boeing Co., Defense, Space & Security, St. Louis, Mo., has been awarded a $13.2 million modification to previously awarded contract for F-15C and F-15E mission training centers (MTCs). Contractor will provide Mission Package 16 (MP-16) into F-15C and F-15E MTCs to be compliant with Combat Air Force Distributed Mission Operations Standards updates. MP-16 updated changes will be installed into the F-15C and F-15E MTC trainers. Work will be performed at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, N.C.; Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho; Langley Air Force Base, Va.; Kadena Air Base, Japan; and Royal Air Force Lakenheath, England, and is expected to be complete by September 30, 2018.

LCS Training Facility Opens

Explosive Effect Simulators The Marine Corps Systems Command, Program Manager for Training Systems (PM TRASYS) recently announced its intention to procure range training systems (RTS) through W.S. Darley & Co. using other than full and open competition, conducted under the authority of the GSA Multiple Award Schedules program.

The requirement is to replace training systems that simulates realistic blast effects of IEDs, road side bombs or artillery. Due to a “Deadline Safety of Use Memorandum” released in November of 2015, Marine Corps Base Quantico and Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton lost the use of half of their Explotrain X-05 Enclosed Blast Simulators, and X-Large Explosive Effects Simulators or X-OMGs. The use of these systems were suspended due to a malfunction that was identified in IED simulators manufactured prior to November 2011. A simulator fired and the oxygen and propane valves stayed open, resulting in a fire that burned a hole in the cannon. A similar malfunction was discovered on a second system. Some of the requirements for these systems as identified in the RTS-Il P-Spec include, must be waterproof, semi-submersible, have the ability to be concealed, be interoperable and backwards compatible with current systems and their controllers/transmitters, and uniquely controls 10 separate blast simulators concurrently.

The Center for Surface Combat Systems (CSCS) hosted a ribbon-cutting ceremony for the Littoral Combat Ship Training Facility (LTF) at Naval Base San Diego (NBSD), September 22.

The speakers for this significant event were Captain Bill McKinley, CSCS commanding officer; Captain E. Scott Pratt, Program Executive Office Littoral Combat Ship (PEO LCS) Fleet Introduction and Sustainment (PMS-505) program manager; and Captain Ron Toland, Fleet Anti-Submarine Warfare Training Center commanding officer.

“Our relationship with the LCS community began in 2012 when the LTF was internally realigned from CSCS Detachment San Diego to Fleet Anti-Submarine Warfare Training Center,” Toland began. “Today, you will experience this relationship firsthand and observe how our training continues to exceed the standard naval surface warfare training.”

Pratt highlighted some examples of technology and training that will reside in the new LTF. “The LTF will be home to three Independence variant integrated tactical trainers, or ITTs,” he explained. “The ITT is comprised of a high-fidelity full mission bridge, a bridge wing trainer, a fullywww.MTI-dhp.com

Program Highlights functional combat system trainer, and a mission package trainer. Each trainer can be operated independently to focus on team training with that specific team. They can also be linked together to train all three teams in more complex missions and tasks.”

McKinley outlined CSCS’ essential role in the LCS community, and the team approach that has resulted in the very successful unveiling of this cutting-edge training facility.

“Numerous Navy commands and organizations including Naval Surface Forces, Program Executive Office Littoral Combat Ship, Surface Warfare, Naval Education and Training Command, Navy Region Southwest, Surface Warfare Officers School Command, Center for Information Warfare Training, Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, Naval Base San Diego, Training Support Center San Diego, Coronado Council United States Navy League, and industry partners have come together to deliver a gold-standard LCS training facility to the fleet,” McKinley said.

Training operations began in 2007 at Building 3292, located on the “dry side” of NBSD, becoming the first surface warfare training facility to provide integrated bridge and combat systems tacticalscenario training for sailors serving aboard a LCS. From 2009 through 2015, however, the amount of LTF training equipment has significantly increased to support fleet requirements.

As reported by Kimberly Lansdale

New Helicopter for Australian Helicopter Aircrew Training Program

Army and Navy have been able to achieve with existing training systems.

Senior Army Instructor, Major Anton Leshinskas said it was exciting to be part of the team to have commenced flying operations.

“The EC-135T2 is a great aircraft to fly and it is exciting to be part of the initial team of instructors getting this training system off the ground.”

“We are now on the path to realizing an excellent training capability for both Army and Navy,” Leshinskas said.

The EC-135T2 helicopter will provide the live training environment as part of the new Helicopter Aircrew Training System (HATS) being delivered under Joint Project 9000 Phase 7 by both Boeing Defence Australia and Thales Australia.

Helicopter Aircrew Training System Pilot Instructor, Lieutenant Commander Tony Hammond said the aircraft will deliver state of the art, contemporary training.

“The array of systems imbedded in the new EC-135T2 means that we are going to be able to much better prepare aircrew for the more complicated operational helicopters that they will then transition to.”

“The Helicopter Aircrew Training System concept is all about providing better training in a more efficient manner,” Lieutenant Commander Hammond said.

Along with a suite of simulator training devices, the EC-135T2 will provide initial helicopter conversion training to Army and Navy pilots and aircrewmen, along with Navy aviation warfare officers and sensor operators.

The first students will commence training on the EC-135T2 in 2018, with the focus now on aircraft familiarization and training design efforts.

As reported by Commander Darren Murphy

Decision-Making and Firearm Simulators on Display

It was up, up and away for the EC-135T2 helicopter, the latest aircraft to be acquired by the Royal Australian Navy and Australian Army as part of the new Helicopter Aircrew Training System (HATS).

On September 22, the first aircraft lifted off from HMAS Albatross with the first tranche of flying instructors from the Royal Australian Navy, Australian Army and Boeing Defence Australia.

The modern twin engine helicopter will provide a generational change in training to what both www.MTI-dhp.com

VirTra Systems, Inc., a provider of use of force simulators and firearms training simulators, recently demonstrated the V-300 and the V-ST PRO. The V-300 is the higher standard for decisionmaking simulation and tactical firearms training and includes five screens and a 300-degree immersive training environment ensures that time in the simulator translates into real world survival skills. V-ST PRO, a scalable firearms shooting and skills training simulator that offers a superior training environment. The system supports a combination of marksmanship and use of force training on up to five screens from a single operator station.

Aircrew Instruction Contract Alpha-Omega Change Engineering Inc., Williamsburg, Va., has been awarded a $26.9 million modification to the previously awarded contract for academic and simulator formal training and continuation training for multiple mission design series. the contractor will provide aircrew instruction including initial and mission qualification, refresher, upgrade, and currency; student services; contractor logistics support, concurrency management, training systems support center, courseware, and cybersecurity. The locations of performance are Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M.; Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz.; Joint Base Andrews, Md.; and Moody Air Force Base, Ga. The work is expected to be complete by November 30, 2018.

CBRN Mission Readiness Exercise

Planning isn’t exactly the easiest of jobs to capture accurately on camera nor is it the most eye-catching of job titles, and yet Joint Task Force Civil Support (JTF-CS) and the Joint Enabling Capabilities Command (JECC) make it look good.

Carrying out the mission in the field is only part of what the military does. Some have, instead, made a career out of working behind the scenes to plan for the future. They look at current events and then plan accordingly, using trends, statistics and numbers to prepare for what might happen.

JTF-CS plans and prepares for a chemical, biological, radiological or neurological (CBRN) event.

Using possible real-world scenarios, the JTFCS team puts constantly test their plans to ensure they have the best options in place to assist their fellow Americans in the event of a CBRN incident.

The JECC, on the other hand, cultivates their skills as planners. They step into situations where the organization has the experience on the ground but needs some tightening with their forward thinking plans.

That’s where a JECC mission readiness exercise (MRX) held at Norfolk Naval Base comes in and is just one of several opportunities for JTFCS and the JECC to work together.

MTI 21.6 | 5

Program Highlights “This MRX is the capstone training event we offer that provides real world scenarios with mission partners in order to train the JECC members through the joint operations planning process,” explained Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Joe Vanoni, the Training, Readiness and Exercise Division chief with the JECC. They do these types of exercises four times a year spread across different services and units, all with different missions.

The MRX brings in not only the JECC planners but also subject matter experts (SMEs) from U.S. Transportation Command, JTF-CS, Joint Task Force National Capital Region, Joint Combat Camera, FEMA and Joint Contingency Acquisition Support Office. With JTF-CS sending in 11 members to act as planners and SMEs, they are the largest outside mission partners at a JECC MRX.

“The collaboration of both headquarters provides positive results for the high priority mission at the nation’s capital,” said Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Chris Kurinec, a planner with JTF-CS. “The National Capital Region is the number one focus area of JTF-CS so this mission fits perfectly into what we do.” Kurinec was invited by the JECC to be a CBRN expert for this MRX. “Collaboration with our mission partners allows us two things,” explained Vanoni. “It builds personal and professional relationships with organizations we could one day be called on to support. It also increases the JECC planner’s knowledge of potential problem sets.”

Although this is the first time JTF-CS has acted as SME for a JECC MRX, this isn’t the first time the JECC and JTF-CS have worked together.

JTF-CS holds exercises twice a year, sometimes more, calling in their more than 5,200

troops to train and to ensure that they will be ready any time they are called up for a CBRN event. JTF-CS often relies on the invaluable help of the JECC members for their expertise in operational planning to work out the best course of action for logistics and intelligence.

As reported by Tamara Cario

Ocular Reaction Area Weapon Simulator Conflict Kinetics Corp., Sterling, Va., has been awarded a $15.6 million firm-fixed-price, indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract with options for incidental services for the Conflict Kinetics Tactical Ocular Reaction Area weapon simulator. One bid was solicited with one received, with an estimated completion date of September 21, 2021. 

PEOPLE Major General Joseph M. Martin, commanding general, National Training Center and Fort Irwin; director, Joint Center of Excellence; and deputy director-training, Joint Improvised-Threat Defeat Agency, Fort Irwin, Calif., has been assigned as commanding general, 1st Infantry Division and Fort Riley, Fort Riley, Kan.

Joint Command, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Operation Freedom’s Sentinel, Afghanistan, has been assigned as commanding general, National Training Center and Fort Irwin; director, Joint Center of Excellence; and deputy directorTraining, Joint ImprovisedThreat Defeat Agency, Fort Irwin, Calif.

Brigadier General Jeffery D. Broadwater, director, CJ-35, Resolute Support Mission

Rear Admiral (lower half) Mary C. Riggs will be assigned as commander,

Navy Reserve Expeditionary Medicine, Falls Church, Va. Riggs most recently served as deputy chief of staff, Navy Reserve, Navy Medicine Education and Training Command, Jacksonville, Fla. Air Force Colonel Brian E. Hastings has been nominated for appointment to the rank of brigadier general. Hastings is currently serving as the commandant, Air Command and Staff College; and

vice commander, Carl A. Spaatz Center for Officer Education, Air Education and Training Command, Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala. Brigadier General Leela J. Gray, U.S. Army Reserve, commanding general (Troop Program Unit), 86th Training Division (Operations), Fort McCoy, Wis., has been assigned as director, Army Reserve Engagement Cell (Individual Mobilization Augmentee), U.S. Army

Central, Shaw Air Force Base, S.C. Brigadier General Jason L. Walrath, U.S. Army Reserve, commanding general (Troop Program Unit), 100th Training Division (Operations Support), Fort Knox, Ky., has been assigned as deputy commanding general (Support) (Individual Mobilization Augmentee), U.S. Army Recruiting Command, Fort Knox.

WHO IS THE WORLD’S LEADING TRAINING SYSTEMS INTEGRATOR? We are.

Your global training partner of choice. milsim@cae.com

AM353-EN-QuarterPageAd_MTI_v01.indd 1

6 | MTI 21.6

@CAE_Defence

cae.com

2016-08-24 14:43:52

www.MTI-dhp.com

Q&A Lieutenant Colonel Merrick J. (Tron) Green is the commander, 505th Combat Training Squadron (CTS), Hurlburt Field, Fla. The 505 CTS is a subordinate unit of the 505th Command and Control Wing. The 505 CTS is the home to the Air Force’s Professional Control Force and the Blue Flag Exercise Program.

Green leads four flights and contractor staff sections in providing the Air Force’s operational level exercises synthetic operating environment and the Air Force’s professional control force for Live, Virtual and Constructive Air Operations Center training. In concert with the Air Force’s Warrior Preparation Center in Germany and the Korean Air Simulation Center, the 505 CTS provides cross-command, high-fidelity synthetic operating environment simulations and world-class exercise control to joint and coalition warfighter activities at the strategic and operational levels of war, and also provides support for command and control systems testing and experimentation.

Green is a 1998 graduate of LSU’s Air Force ROTC program.

He is a senior air battle manager with 2,000 flying hours, principally in the E-8C JSTARS and E-3B AWACS. Green served two tours in Southeast Asia, accumulating more than 420 combat hours during Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. He has served on air component staff, combatant command staff and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Staff.

His awards and decorations include: Defense Meritorious Service Medal; Meritorious Service Medal with 1 oak leaf cluster; Air Medal with 1 oak leaf cluster; Aerial Achievement Medal; Air Force Commendation Medal; Joint Service Achievement Medal; Air Force Achievement Medal; Joint Meritorious Unit Award; Meritorious Unit Award; Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with two oak leaf clusters; Air Force Expeditionary Service Ribbon with Gold Border with one oak leaf cluster; Combat Readiness Medal; and the National Defense Service Medal.

Q: Tell me about the 505th Combat Training Squadron (CTS).

Green: The 505th CTS is a subordinate unit of the 505th Training Group, 505th Command and Control Wing, and the United States Air Warfare Center, Nellis Air Force Base, Nev. The 505th CTS is the home to the Joint Command and Control Exercise and Training Integration program, and the Blue Flag Exercise.

There are 132 military/civilian and contractor personnel that make up the six flights in the squadron: Non-Kinetic Effects flight, Intelligence flight, Exercise Plans and Higher Headquarters replication flight, Model and Simulation control flight and the Operations flight, which includes an Air Operations Center Replication Cell and the Professional Control Force. Finally the sixth flight is the Command and Control Weapons System Part Task Trainer Scenario Development Flight.

Q: Who are the airmen that make up your staff? (modeling and simulation architects, programmers, project/program managers, IT specialists, etc.?)

Green: We have a myriad of different Air Force specialty codes and civilian pay grades in the squadron. It ranges from command and control experts, strike and mobility, intelligence, model controllers, simulation system controllers, exercise planners, higher headquarters replicators system administrators and Air Operations Center weapons systems experts.

It takes a very diverse group of individuals to support air component training, from creating an air tasking order and air control order to flying it out in www.MTI-dhp.com

Lieutenant Colonel Merrick “Tron” Green

Commander 505th Combat Training Squadron

a constructive simulation—it takes experts in each of these specialty skills to make the training as realistic as possible. But we are not just a squadron of airmen, I have two highly skilled Army officers that are experts in space and field artillery to round off what makes this such a unique organization to work in.

Q: 2016 is a big year for the Blue Flag Exercise. Tell me about this year’s event.

Green: Blue Flag (BF) 16-2 was the second Blue Flag exercise we conducted in FY16. It was a continuation training exercise, which occurred July 22-28 at the 609th Air Operations Center Detachment 1, Shaw Air Force Base, S.C. This training was scaled and tailored to the ARC-gained units aligned with the 609th AOC. Primary units were the 193rd Air Operations Group, 193rd Special Operations Wing, Pennsylvania Air National Guard (ANG), State College, Pa., and the 710th Combat Operations Squadron and Air Combat Command Detachment MTI 21.6 | 7

Q&A 4, Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Va. Additional training audiences were the 4th Battlefield Coordination Detachment, Shaw AFB, and the 32nd Army Air and Missile Defense Command, Fort Bliss, Texas. The exercise also included a robust naval air liaison element and Marine air liaison officer, sourced by the U.S. Navy’s Fleet Forces Command, participating in the AOC. The total training audience numbered 140 command and control warriors.

The senior member of the training audience was Colonel Aaron Vance, the acting combined air operations center (CAOC) battle director with the 193rd AOG from State College. A key factor in the overall success of the exercise was the participation of Brigadier General James Eifert, Florida Air National Guard adjutant general, who served as the joint force air component commander.

Leaders regarded the following as significant training successes at BF 16-2: • BF 16-2 successfully met both exercise and training goals. The TA met 65 of 69 training objectives identified during the planning phase. A few examples of these training objectives include: • Exercises C-NAF commander, AFFOR staff, and AOC in a robust exercise environment • Plan and execute the air tasking order (ATO) and airspace control order (ACO) • Robust Phase II operations for the air component • Replication of higher headquarters and wing operations centers • Multiple boards bureaus centers cells and working groups (B22C2WG) to cover a full 24-hour battle rhythm • Enable decision superiority through multiple staff touchpoints The AOC training audience worked 32 dynamic targets. Some events were written to force them to devise a decision matrix that encompassed targeting, weaponeering, rules of engagement, engagement authorities and collateral damage estimates.

Participants successfully used the Joint Training Enterprise Network during BF 16-2. The best part about executing this Blue Flag was that in December of 1976, the first Blue Flag was held at Shaw AFB. There was a bit of poignancy in having the 609th Detachment 1 as a training audience again 40 years later.

Q: Other than running through various scenarios, how is Blue Flag—or any exercise—designed so that the participants are challenged and that the maximum real-world training value can be extracted by each player?

Green: We have a robust and intense planning process that focuses on what the training audience objectives are. We spend a lot of time planning and focusing on what the training audience wants to improve in their processes and with their unit members.

We want the exercise to be as intense as any real-world operation can be so that the first time you find yourself in the fog of “real war,” you will have been through the stress in a simulated environment. Whereas pilots cut their teeth during Red Flag exercises, our airmen are best prepared to deploy when they’ve learned in simulation.

Q: Blue Flag is not the only event that you manage? What is the scope of the other events and how do they differ from Blue Flag?

Green: Blue Flag is just one of 22 events we supported in FY16. The other events are support to the Army Warfighter Exercise, Marine Large Scale Exercise (LSE) and Marine Expeditionary Force Exercise (MEFEX).

8 | MTI 21.6

These events differ from Blue Flag because we not only provide the modeling and simulation of the air component but we also simulate being the air component. There are many training events that would love to have an AOC creating and delivering the ATO, but there is not enough AOC to go around to all of the exercises—the AOC’s are focused on supporting real-world events. The 505th CTS has the ability to replicate the AOC and the ATO/ACO process to deliver the capability to these exercises that is needed to make them successful.

The other events that we support are the combatant commander exercises, Ulchi Freedom Guardian, Austere Challenge, Vigilant Shield and Key Resolve. We normally will do this in support of the Korean Air Simulation Center, Warrior Preparation Center and Joint Staff J7. Our team can be anywhere in the world at any time supporting an exercise. It is not uncommon for the 505th CTS team to be spread across the globe executing or planning an event.

Q: What are some of the elements of an exercise that you can control to up the realism and have the trainees operating outside of a comfort zone?

Green: The biggest thing that we can do to control the realism is to inject anomalies and deliberate imperfections into the exercise. In a perfect world the simulation gives you a pristine picture with no errors. We have found ways to inject civilian air, naval or land traffic to make the training audience work through a rigorous identification matrix to ensure they are following their ID procedures.

The wonderful thing about modeling and simulation is that from the controller aspect you can steer the training audience down a path to make them consider all of the possibilities—but when you do this, the scenario and the model and simulation has to be there to support it, otherwise you will expose the training audience to the dreaded “sim-ism.”

Q: Do any other countries have commands doing a mission similar to yours? What is your level of interaction with international partners?

Green: Currently outside of the U.S. we primarily participate in events with the Warrior Preparation Center at the Einsiedlerhof air station, Germany, the Korean Air Simulation Center Center at Osan Air Base, Republic of Korea and the Pacific Warfighting Center on Ford Island, Hawaii.

Currently we do not interact with any of our coalition or NATO simulation centers, but due to the nature of coalition warfighting and the advances in modeling and simulation, it is only a matter of time before we do.

Q: What can you tell me about some of the tools that make the exercises work in the LVC environment? Are you looking to bring in other technologies or innovations into the training and simulation environment to further enhance the experience?

Green: We have a number of tools that we use to make the exercises work in the LVC environment. Primarily we are using an Air Force Modeling and Simulation Training Toolkit. The existing suite of software tools in AFMSTT utilizes a Red Hat Linux and Oracle operating environment on commercial off-the-shelf personal computer equipment and servers.

Currently, there are three tool suites in AFMSTT including Air Warfare Simulation (AWSIM), Air, Space and Cyberspace Constructive Environment Information Operations Suite (ACE-IOS), and Graphical Input Aggregate Control–GENIS Data Server (GIAC-GDS). Additionally, we have been leveraging the Command and Control Weapons System Part Task Trainer (C2WSPTT) to support training www.MTI-dhp.com

Q&A venues that require a low-cost, high-fidelity modeling and simulation capability with a small footprint that would allow Air and Space Operations Center units to conduct in-garrison training. The C2WSPTT provides an on-demand, single-server, resident modeling and simulation capability to stimulate an AOC environment—and yes, we are using new innovations in the training and simulation environment to further enhance the experience.

During this past Blue Flag, we demonstrated the use of the LVC Cost Counter. This software allowed us to calculate the cost of what we were not spending by doing Blue Flag in a simulated environment. The way the software works is it monitors the simulation network and accumulates and displays the individual, category and total costs associated with LVC simulation events. For our Blue Flag, we only measured the cost of the air platforms and munitions associated with them. The best thing about the cost counter, in my opinion, is the ease of use and GUI to configure the system—because you should always be able to see what the training audience view is during these live vitual constructive modeling and simulation events. We also use the AOC WS tools, TBMCS, MAAPTK and ADSI with TacView to provide us maximum situational awareness during each of these events.

Q: Tell me about the work that was done at the control facility and what is the return on the investment?

Green: The team at the 505th Combat Training Squadron developed a plan that was supported by the leadership here at the wing and ACC, to overhaul the “mezzanine” to bring it into the 21st century.

We literally tore everything out from the floor to the Lieutenant Colonel Merrick “Tron” Green, commander of the 505th Combat Training Squadron, speaks during a ribbon ceiling to start with a clean slate. Then the team cutting ceremony for the re-opening of the Air Component Control Facility at Hurlburt Field, Fla., June 27, 2016. The designed a floor plan that would allow us maximum 505th Combat Training Squadron building has been under renovations for seven months to update their facilities in flexibility to conduct exercises, sometimes multiple order to increase mission readiness for the squadron’s live virtual and constructive training. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Andrea Posey) exercises on the control floor.

The first objective was to create a work enviOver the past 20 years, we have been very successful in the use of LVC ronment that could support multiple exercises and also create a work space simulation technologies to prepare warriors for combat. If we are going to as comfortable as possible for the men and women that work here and visit continue the use of this capability, the technology we use needs to be flexible the CTS for any of the 21 exercises a year that we participate in. I believe we and agile enough to grow with the current warfighting technologies. were really successful in accomplishing this objective and we have created We cannot afford to train for 21st century combat with 19th century a state of the art facility to support air component exercises. We created the simulation technology—we have to grow our simulation technology with the capacity for over 100 workstations to control the model and simulations and 5th generation technology we would like to employ in the future conflicts.

Air Operations Center Replication.

These 5th gen capabilities, including those used in a training environment, will ensure lethality and survivability against emerging high-end threats. Both Q: Any closing thoughts? the F-22 and the F-35 bring state of the art technology and unprecedented situational awareness to air combat—training and simulation must be able to Green: Live virtual and constructive modeling and simulation is key to the employ and capitalize on these capabilities. military being able to test new technologies and train warriors in the 21st Efforts like the Jumper Room at the DMOC and Virtual Warfare Center century. The capabilities that exist currently are providing a level of realism Nellis will help us achieve this end. We don’t want a “sim-ism” to be the reason that we can cost effectively train thousands of warriors across multiple we make a bad decision.  domains, preparing them for the current and future conflict. www.MTI-dhp.com

MTI 21.6 | 9

International Vector An Exclusive Military Training International Q&A with

Brigadier General Uwe F. Klein

Commandant International Helicopter Training Centre and Director of German Army Aviation

Q: Let’s start with an overview of the International Helicopter Training Centre.

Klein: Let me start with the historical background for a better understanding.

From early 1960 until mid-2015, the German Army Aviation School was located in Bückeburg. As part of the new conception of the Bundeswehr, the Army Aviation School was succeeded by the International Helicopter Training Centre as of 1 July 2015.

The town with its approximately 20,000 inhabitants is situated roughly 50 kilometers west of the state capital Hannover and 10 km east of Minden at the northern edge of the Weserbergland in the Schaumburg district. It directly borders the federal state of North Rhine-Westphalia in the west, south and north.

Upon the end of the Second World War, Bückeburg was occupied by British troops.

The headquarters of the Royal Air Force Germany, situated in nearby Bad Eilsen 10 | MTI 21.6

until 1955, prompted the construction of the aerodrome in close by Achum in 1945. During the Berlin Blockade in 1948-49, it served as a diversion aerodrome for the airlift.

Between 1952 and 1954, British formations were successively deployed to Gütersloh and Laarbruch.

In 1958, the Bundeswehr took over the aerodrome. The German Army Aviation School, which had been founded in Niedermendig (Eifel) in 1959, was deployed to Achum in 1960. The new developments in the helicopter sector as well as the changed foreign policy and security policy parameters after 1990 necessitated the introduction of new, modern aircraft. With the tactical transport helicopter NH90 and the attack helicopter Tiger as well as the implementation of the latest simulator technologies, the German Army Aviation School, today’s International Helicopter Training Centre, became one of the most modern training centers in Europe.

At the moment, approximately 1,500 soldiers, civilian employees and civil servants work for the International Helicopter Training Centre; around 1,000 of these are employed at the Bückeburg garrison. In addition, there are students participating in trainings of durations ranging from one week to a year.

These trainings cover a spectrum spanning general military training and leadership training as well as specialized trainings with national and international students such as basic helicopter pilot training or helicopter qualification and combat skills training, and also different technical trainings.

Our structure is made up of different sections which are headed by the commandant of the International Helicopter Training Centre and director of German Army Aviation: The Training and Education Division including Training Wing A, Training Wing B, the German detachment at the German-French Tiger Army Aviation Training Centre and the German detachment at the French-German www.MTI-dhp.com

Training Centre for Tiger helicopter technical and logistic personnel.

The Support Division including the NH90 Maintenance Squadron, the Technical Media Centre, the Air Traffic Services Squadron and other support elements.

Other sections include the Army Apprenticeship Workshop, the Flight Surgeon and the Aviation Safety sector Q: Tell me more about the Training and Education Division.

Klein: We have five subordinate sections to the Training and Education Division, two of which are located in BĂźckeburg: Training Wing A, which is in charge of basic flight training and NH 90 type rating and Training Wing B, which takes care of our leadership development and basic helicopter maintenance training.

Furthermore, we have the DEU/FRA Tiger Army Aviation Training Centre in Le Cannet Des Maures, which is self-explanatory, the FRA/DEU Training Centre for Tiger Helicopter technical and logistic personnel in Fassberg, and our Subunit 900, in charge of the remaining BO105 training flights until the end of 2016.

While our satellite elements in Celle and Fassberg are within a two hours driving distance, the DEU/FRA Tiger Army Aviation Training Centre is located in southern France, approximately seven flight hours away by helicopter or two days by car, which is not easy with regard to organization and supervision.

Q: In terms of available training hours on an annual basis, how busy is the facility? Is the facility near capacity?

Klein: The flight hours requested annually from and provided by Airbus Helicopters Germany (AHD) for the training planned for the year to come are currently fully exploited.

Your Training Partner Leonardo Helicopters deliver the highest standard of OEM training; Comprehensive training for aircrew, maintainers and technicians.

State of the art training environments, including flight simulators, support all phases of training in a cost effective, safe and realistic training environment.

Finmeccanica is now Leonardo - inspired by the vision, curiosity and creativity of the great master inventor - designing the technology of tomorrow.

leonardocompany.com Helicopters | Aeronautics | Electronics, Defence & Security Systems | Space

M-16-0104 MTI AW159 Training.indd 1

www.MTI-dhp.com

08/09/2016 13:59:01

MTI 21.6 | 11

Flight hours which are freed up at short notice (e.g. due to the prevailing weather situation) are used by young pilots in order to fulfill their qualification program.

We are planning to increase the IHTC’s capacities in the near future.

Q: To be able to instruct and train in a common environment does that mean that there are common standards that the countries using the facility have agreed upon? How are specific country requirements handled?

Klein: Yes, there are common standards regarding the flight training. The German syllabus for our basic helicopter pilot training corresponds to the European civil aviation requirements by almost 100 percent.

The content of the syllabus is constantly revised and adapted to the requirements of the respective states (currently Sweden and the Netherlands) in meetings of a group of experts which take place on a regular basis and which, for example, representatives of the Swedish flight school also take part in.

Q: Tell me about your approach to incorporating virtual/simulation, procedure/ task trainers and live training into a complete package.

Klein: Following the so-called “Bueckeburg Model,” the training consists of a structured mixture of all the above-mentioned training means. In order to provide a highly effective training, the challenge begins with the simple items and increases, until the most complicated contents have to be anticipated.

So, to describe it as clearly as possible,

12 | MTI 21.6

we start with easy-to-handle procedure trainers, switch over to the full flight simulators and finally end on the flight line in the live aircraft. This training set up is repeated until all necessary parts of the training have been accomplished.

Q: Your simulation center is the biggest in Europe, I believe with 14 full mission simulators. Let’s first talk about the simulators themselves. Are there any open requirements or near-term plans for additional simulators?

Klein: Using simulators, especially in flight training, is one of the safest and most reliable ways of training you can imagine. Our technicians provide us with a rate of more than 90 percent of flight time and even if a problem with one of our cockpits occurred, we usually have a technical reserve on hand.

The different types of simulated helicopters we have in stock are provided with most of their live functionality. Be it external load, be it EWS, nearly every feature can be trained.

If necessary, for example in a tactical scenario or in preparation of the first days on the flight line with other air traffic, we can network the cockpits.

That means that the crews have air targets in their visual system to detect, other crews to communicate with, procedures to be coordinated.

Brigadier General Uwe F. Klein was born on August 29, 1954, in Ludwigshafen am Rhein (Germany). He holds a degree in Business and Administration Sciences (the German degree of “Diplom-Kaufmann”).

He spent his career in primary rotary wing aviation in staff, training and operational units. He became commandant of the International Helicopter Training Centre and director of German Army Aviation in November 2014.

For the time being, there is no request for additional simulators on the way nor is one in the planning stage.

Q: Tell me about the acquisition process to go through to acquire additional larger, more expensive systems?

Klein: In the course of the restructuring of the Bundeswehr, the Federal Ministry of Defense also commissioned the introduction of a new, efficient and unified procurement and in-service support process. This process shall be characterized by clear responsibilities as well as unambiguous decision-making powers and a reduction in interfaces.

The new Customer Product Management (CPM) constitutes the department-internal framework directive regarding the capabilityoriented determination of requirements, the timely and economic provision of operational products and services and their efficient use. It is the new CPM’s paramount aim to combine quality, efficiency and flexibility www.MTI-dhp.com

with clear responsibilities, unambiguous decision-making powers and a reduction in interfaces in order to optimally support the armed forces in particular.

The CPM is divided into three phases: analysis, realization and in-service use.

Q: How capable are your simulators to tie into partner country systems and operations in their own county to create larger LVC opportunities?

Klein: The German Forces have been provided with quite an amount of different types of simulators and simulation means. All this equipment has to follow the very different needs of different branches. An infantryman has to train his shooting abilities, a technician has to be trained on his systems, a pilot has to handle his aircraft safely and effectively. The more complex the needs are, the more individual are the solutions. To network this very sophisticated equipment is extremely challenging, but not impossible, and we made some positive experience on an experimental level in the past.

But to make training as effective and reliable as possible, you have to keep it as simple as possible, and that is also true for simulators!

Q: Are your instructors German only or multi-national? What does an instructor have top do to become qualified to instruct there?

Klein: At the moment, only German instructor pilots work at the IHTC; a flight instructor from New Zealand has already returned to his home country. However, we have established posts for liaison officers from the respective states (Sweden, Netherlands) at the IHTC. These are filled by instructor pilots as well, and in the case of Sweden, the liaison officer also supports in the training of his student pilots.

For this purpose, the liaison officers have to have the same qualifications as the German instructor pilots. This means that, in addition to the instructor pilot license, they must provide additional qualifications such as proof of their medical fitness, a valid proof of participation in aviation physiology training and participation in the CRM course.

Regarding the revalidation of their pilot’s license, they are subject to the same regulations as the German instructor pilots. This means that, beside the required 50 flight hours (which can partly be flown in the www.MTI-dhp.com

simulator), they must also pass an annual written test containing different questions.

Q: Are you in regular communication with the training commands of the participating countries to make sure that you are meeting their needs and they are fully aware of what your capabilities are to help them with their training regime?

Klein: We communicate with our partner nations regularly in order to adapt to their requirements. We have a certain basic concept but this can be adapted specifically to the relevant nation. In future, we will lean on training in conformity to the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and with military content.

Q: Similarly, how do you stay current on the latest training and simulation technologies and innovations and go about incorporating those advances when warranted?

Klein: Whenever possible, the personnel of the simulator center takes part in congresses on an international level—for example I/ ITSEC in Orlando and ITEC in Europe—in order to keep in touch as closely as possible with up-to-date developments. Whenever there is a change in the helicopters represented by our simulators, we have the obligation to follow up as fast as manageable. A certification of changes is done by our trained instructor pilots before the modification is used in flight training.  MTI 21.6 | 13

The U.S. Air Force, and others around the world are looking for the next best jet trainer.

By Peter Buxbaum, MTI Correspondent

United States Air Force pilots will be bidding a fond farewell to the T-38, the primary training aircraft for jet pilots, after more than five decades of service. The fact that the aircraft has remained in service for so long is testimony to its capabilities and to the esteem with which it is held by the Air Force and by generations of pilot trainees But for all of its resilience, the T-38—and the T-1, the other primary jet trainer aircraft—is simply not equipped to properly train pilots on fifth-generation Air Force jets like the F-22 and F-35. To put it in economic terms, it will be less expensive for the Air Force to acquire a whole new platform than it would be to upgrade the T-38 with fifth-generation technologies.

So, replacing the T-38 is exactly what the Air Force is doing, with the T-X program. But T-38 aficionados will not have to part with the old platform just yet: the T-X won’t be arriving before 2024 and will be phased in over a number years. That puts the U.S. Air Force quite a few years behind several of its non-superpower cohorts—such as the air forces of South Korea, Indonesia, the Philippines, Israel, Iraq, Poland, Singapore, Thailand, and Italy—all of which have already acquired fifth-generation jet pilot trainers from vendors that will be competing for the T-X contract.

In a way, that has been the Air Force’s intention, because it has adhered to a strategy that called for acquiring a T-X platform equipped with existing technologies. The Air Force has been proceeding with the utmost care on the T-X contract and with an eye towards containing contract costs. Going back to the initial market research, the T-X has been in the works since 2009. Work on the T-X predated the Air Force’s Bending the Cost Curve program and now is one of that initiative’s key exemplars. The Air Force has taken an interactive approach with industry in developing the system’s requirements, with years of dialog and feedback on capabilities and cost drivers, all of which the Air Force is confident will produce a cost-effective platform that will meet its requirements.

14 | MTI 21.6

A draft request for proposal for the T-X was recently released, with the final document expected before the end of this year. The requirements included in the draft RFP reflect an integrated training system approach, which includes not only the aircraft itself but also a ground-based simulation training system.

The T-X documents also reflect a requirement for including air refueling in the training system for the first time.

“The T-38 has been around since 1961 and was originally designed to emulate the capabilities of third-generation aircraft,” said Skip Hinman, Advanced Pilot Training Requirements Branch team lead at Air Education and Training Command. “As we progressed to fourth-generation aircraft like the F-15 and F-16, capability gaps developed between the more advanced fighters and the T-38. As we move to the F-22 and the F-35, the gaps progressed to the point where portions of the training tasks within the mission sets are now being taught in the jets themselves. That is a whole lot more expensive than if they were performed in a training aircraft.”

“The T-38 is a very old but a very good aircraft,” added Mike Griswold, director of T-50 business development at Lockheed Martin. “Everyone loves it.

But upgrading the T-38 could not fill the Air Force’s training gaps, one of the main ones being air refueling. The cockpit in the T-38 can’t be brought up to

www.MTI-dhp.com

the same level as the F-35. The T-38 has become more expensive to maintain.

While it’s a great airplane, the T-38 is no longer sufficient to train fifth-generation pilots.”

All of this has taken a toll on the efficacy of the training pilots receive on the T-38, according to Lieutenant. General (ret.) Dan Darnell, vice president of strategic initiatives for Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems. “There is not one sensor on the T-38,” said Darnell, who trained U.S. Air Force pilots on that aircraft. “The training syllabus for the F-15 I trained for in 1976 is virtually the same as it is today.”

The ground-based system that is included in the T-X program means that the Air Force will be acquiring a multi-faceted training system, noted Hinman.

“This reflects the Air Force’s current training philosophy that calls for capturing modern technology,” he said. “We will be able to offload training into the ground-based system and that will also save quite a bit of money.”

The air refueling requirement for the T-X, which is new for the Air Force, includes this capability for the ground-based simulator. It is not anticipated that Air Force trainees will be practicing air refueling on the T-X aircraft itself.

The Air Force expects to entertain between four and six proposals for the T-X. Two of them will be submitted by Raytheon and Lockheed Martin.

Raytheon’s T-100 is designed to be the transition for training to fifth generation aircraft, noted Darnell. “It’s difficult to teach the skills for fourth- and fifth-generation fighters in the T-38,” he said. “The T-100 hits the sweet spot between stability and maneuverability.”

The sensor management system in the cockpit of the T-100 allows for training on skills involving beyond the visual range, something which is completely absent from the T-38. “It allows students to train on defensive maneuvers and maneuvering to advantage,” said Darnell. “The T-100 will also train pilots on fighting at slow speed, something that is also impossible in the T-38.”

The T-100’s ground-based training system allows trainees to develop levels of proficiency before they ever see the cockpit of the aircraft. “The point is never to have trainees get into an airplane if they haven’t already demonstrated proficiency in the simulator,” said Darnell. “The constructive capability we are proposing includes the ability to practice air refueling.

Completing training events required to get into the cockpit represents cost and time savings.”

The simulated elements of the T-100’s on-board training system are extremely realistic, according to Darnell, as he relates from his own experience. “I flew the aircraft a few months ago and ran an intercept against a simulated target,” he said. “Pilots flying the aircraft for the first time don’t realize it’s not a real adversary they are engaging.

“Integrated systems represent the future of pilot training,” Darnell added.

“The X-box generation will easily assimilate everything we have to teach them in the simulator and make the transition to the aircraft that much easier.”

The T-100 has already been designed and built for several international customers. The air forces of Poland, Israel, Singapore and Italy are already flying the trainer.

The T-50A will be Lockheed Martin’s entry into the T-X fray. The T-50A is a configuration of the company’s preexisting T-50 jet trainer which is already being flown by the air forces of South Korea, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Iraq. The aircraft was co-developed with Korean Aerospace for South Korea’s jet trainer solicitation.

“Most of the requirements for the T-X were already met by the basic T-50,” said Griswold, “including aerodynamic performance and maneuverability.”

The T-50A cockpit was updated to emulate that of the F-35, with flatscreen displays replacing mechanical dials. “The display is also programmable,” noted Griswold, “so that it can be configured to resemble the displays of other aircraft we will operate. The software and sensors provide instructors with the flexibility to create different scenarios and targets. All of the weapons and sensor systems students need to learn are simulated on the www.MTI-dhp.com

aircraft.” The last big change Lockheed Martin made to the basic T-50 was to add an air refueling capability in response to the U.S. Air Force’s requirements.

Lockheed Martin’s ground-based training system completes the family of systems the company will be presenting to the Air Force. “The ground-based training system works on a range of devices all the way from a laptop or a tablet to a full mission simulator,” said Griswold. “Bundled with the courseware and learning management software, they form a comprehensive family of systems that the Air Force is procuring.”

The T-50 A will be assembled and checked out in the United States. “We will then set up all of the logistics and depot support just was if it is a U.S. aircraft,” said Griswold.

One jet fighter trainer that may not be participating in the T-X competition is Textron AirLand’s Scorpion, an aircraft that was designed for multiple missions, including jet pilot training. Textron AirLand will not make a final decision on whether to commit to the program until a final set of requirements is in place, noted Bill Anderson, president, Textron AirLand.

“As the requirements stand today, the Scorpion or Scorpion derivative aircraft does not meet the current T-X performance specifications,” he added.

Like the aircraft that will be vying for the T-X contract, the Scorpion is already fully designed and built. “Textron AirLand is engaged in serious discussions with potential buyers,” said Anderson. “The first production conforming aircraft is expected to complete its first flight very soon and potential customers are excited to see this aircraft.”

Textron touts the Scorpion for its acquisition and operating costs. “The Scorpion is also very versatile in terms of mission flexibility with its center payload bay, six hard points, high dash speeds, and extended endurance and loiter time at cruise speeds,” said Anderson. “The Scorpion is built to excel in many roles, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, close air support, armed reconnaissance, maritime and border patrol, and jet training missions.”

Although the genesis of the T-X program preceded the launch of the Air Force’s Bending the Cost Curve initiative, the jet trainer effort is now considered a test case for the newer program.

“We have had a continuous and very transparent exchange with industry,” said Kevin Buckley, assistant director of the T-X program executive office.

“We discussed everything with them from emerging requirements to the structure of the solicitation to how we would be choosing the winner. The whole idea was to share with industry the draft plans and to seek feedback to make sure we didn’t unintentionally introduce risks or costs.”

The Air Force shared its documents with industry over a period of 24 months, soliciting specific feedback. The T-X program office received hundreds of comments from industry participants that guided the direction of the program. The interaction between the government and industry was much more constant and intensive than it would have been with an ordinary solicitation.

“In some cases we actually adopted selection criteria and elements of the aircraft based on the industry feedback we were receiving,” said Buckley.

“Some of the industry comments gave us insights into things that were cost drivers and other things we could do better in the selection process. This process allowed us to propose an acquisition strategy to leverage technology that already exists in the marketplace. Our solicitation describes a minimum set of requirements essential for this new capability and how much we are willing to pay for it. We expect the result of the competition to be the acquisition of a system that is both capable and affordable.”

Buckley expects the final T-X RFP to be released by the end of 2016 and that source selection will be completed around a year after that. An initial operating capability for the T-X is anticipated for the second half of 2024. At that point, the Air Force will begin to phase out the T-38, a process that is expected to take approximately 10 years.  MTI 21.6 | 15

A report looks at the implementation of virtual training devices by the U.S. Army and their effectiveness. By Cary Russell, Government Accountability Office For more than a decade, the Army focused the training of its forces on counterinsurgency and stability operations as commanders established training requirements deemed necessary to support operations in the Middle East, including Iraq and Afghanistan. According to reports, in the coming years the Army will confront an increasingly complex security environment that will demand a wider range of skill sets and different capabilities than those used during operations in the Middle East. However, according to these reports, the recent focus on counterinsurgency operations has resulted in large numbers of soldiers who have not experienced or trained thoroughly on the tasks required to perform a broader range of military operations. For example, according to the Army, from 2004 to 2010 all of its major training exercises were focused on counterinsurgency and stability operations.

To provide realistic, operationally-focused training, the Army relies on a combination of live, virtual, constructive, and gaming training. According to the Army, virtual training is used to hone individual and units skills in tactics, techniques, and procedures prior to live training. Virtual training also replicates conditions that are not possible to achieve in live training.

16 | MTI 21.6

Given some of the challenges of training in a live environment, such as limited range availability and resource constraints, the Army has sought opportunities to increase the use of virtual training. However, several factors have limited the Army’s ability to conduct training with virtual training devices. To dive deeper, the Government Accountability Office recently issued a report entitled: Army Training: Efforts to Adjust Training Requirements Should Consider the Use of Virtual Training Devices.

Virtual Devices Background The Army has an inventory of more than 800 types of items that support operational training, including system and non-system virtual training devices. Virtual system-based training devices are designed to train individual and/or collective tasks associated with specific weapon systems. Virtual system training devices are part of the system’s acquisition program and are fielded in conjunction with the system and funded by that system’s program manager. Virtual non-system training devices train tasks

www.MTI-dhp.com

that are not associated with a specific weapon system. They support general military training and non-system-specific training. The Army’s Training Support System program resources the fielding and sustainment of virtual non-system training devices.

In 2010, the Army Audit Agency reviewed a sample of eight virtual training devices, and found that the Army had evaluated the effectiveness of only one of the devices. As a result, the Army Audit Agency recommended that the Army establish additional guidance specifying when, how, and by whom effectiveness analyses must be conducted. The Army agreed with the recommendation, but stated that establishing such guidance would not provide for sufficient resources to conduct the analyses.

Instead, the Army agreed to issue an annual guidance memorandum stating which virtual devices are candidates for effectiveness analyses two years in advance, to allow agencies and organizations to program for the resourcing to conduct the analyses.

In 2013, the GAO reported that the Army considers various factors in determining whether to use live or simulation-based training but lacks key performance and cost information that would enhance its ability to determine the optimal mix of training and prioritize related investments. It recommended that DoD develop outcome-oriented performance metrics that could be used to assess the impact of simulation-based training and a methodology for comparing the costs associated with the use of live and simulation-based training. DoD partially agreed with their recommendations.

The Army has developed a proposal that describes how metrics and costs for simulation-based training could be identified but has not implemented it.

In a 2014 report, the Army Audit Agency reported that the Army had no assurance that it was maximizing the use of simulation-based training in a cost-efficient manner, because, among other factors, the Army had not defined what it considered “acceptable” or “expected” usage levels for virtual training devices it had fielded, nor had it established consistent metrics for collecting and reporting usage data. The Army Audit Agency determined that the usage data for fiscal year 2013 re unreliable, but it was also able to determine that usage was likely low for some of the devices in its sample. The Army Audit Agency recommended that the Army revise its regulation on training devices to clarify roles and responsibilities for reporting usage, establish a strategic plan on training device usage, and ensure continuous Army-wide emphasis on training device usage. The Army agreed with the recommendations and has established roles, responsibilities, and procedures to track the usage of virtual training devices.

In a 2015 report, the GAO found that the Army could not provide sufficiently reliable data for us to determine the number, total cost, or performance of DoD’s current non-major acquisition programs, which included the Army’s Synthetic Environment Core program. This program is intended to provide the Army with a common virtual environment that links virtual simulators and simulations into an integrated and interoperable training environment. According to the report, Army officials stated that increasing requirements to meet additional training needs contributed to program cost increases significant enough to require the program to be re-categorized in terms of its size and scope. They recommended that DoD establish guidelines on what constitutes a current non-major program, take steps to improve data reliability, and determine how to measure cost and schedule performance. DoD partially concurred with their recommendations and planned actions it would take in response; however, the planned actions may not fully address the issues the GAO identified in their report. www.MTI-dhp.com

Beginning in 2010, the Army began to modify its training priorities and goals as it shifted its focus from counterinsurgency to a broader range of military operations, and units have made some progress incorporating those priorities and goals in their training. The Army is currently undertaking several initiatives that may standardize operational training priorities, better define requirements and resources needed to incorporate those priorities in its training, and enable more objective measurement of training for the priorities, but in some cases the results of the initiatives will not be realized at least until fiscal year 2017.

Limitations on Virtual Training Device Implementation Various factors have limited the Army’s use of virtual training devices in operational training; the Army has taken steps to better integrate these devices into training, but some gaps in this process remain that could continue to limit their use. Specifically, the GAO identified weaknesses in how the Army (1) conducted front-end analysis to develop training requirements for virtual training devices, (2) conducted analyses of the effectiveness of the devices, and (3) incorporated devices into training strategies.

Several factors have limited Army units’ use of virtual training devices in operational training. In 2014, the Army Audit Agency reported that the usage of some virtual training devices in operational training was low across the Army. In particular, the report found that the Army had not required certain simulators to be used to complete unit training tasks and that unit commanders preferred live training over virtual training. As a result, commanders more often chose to conduct live training, which resulted in low usage of virtual training devices. The report also found that the Army did not emphasize or prioritize compliance for reporting the use of virtual training devices. Specifically, the Army did not clearly establish roles, responsibilities, processes, and procedures for installations and activities to collect and report usage data. The report concluded that, as a result, the data in the Army’s system of record for monitoring device usage was unreliable.

The GAO review identified factors that can influence usage of virtual training devices in operational training. From their interviews with unit officials, the GAO identified three commonly cited factors that influence soldiers’ usage of virtual training devices. The first factor, cited by officials from 14 out of 21 units across the four brigade combat teams they interMTI 21.6 | 17

viewed, was the amount of training time available to units. The unit officials they met with agreed that time constraints limited their ability to fully leverage virtual training devices. For example, some unit officials stated that they have forgone virtual training to focus their unit’s limited time on training in a live environment. The second factor, cited by officials from 12 out of 21 units across the four brigade combat teams they interviewed, was leaders’ knowledge of and past experience with virtual training devices. Leaders had received various levels of instruction on how to use virtual training devices and largely stated that they were more likely to use a device they themselves had trained on. The third factor, cited by officials from 14 out of 21 units across the four brigade combat teams the GAO interviewed, was the presence of detailed training strategies that prescribe the use of virtual training devices for specific training tasks. Certain devices were included in prescriptive training strategies that required specific training on virtual training devices before soldiers could train live. The devices that were included in such strategies were among the most used devices, according to unit officials.

The Army has taken steps to better integrate virtual training devices in its operational training. According to officials from Headquarters, Department of the Army, in 2014 the Army Chief of Staff expressed concern about annual spending on virtual training devices, given the constrained budget environment, and directed the Army to determine the value of its virtual training devices.

In response, the Army took actions to assess the value of virtual training, including adjusting the metric used to measure the use of certain virtual training devices. Specifically, the Army Training Support Center previously measured usage of virtual training devices with metrics that reported the number of hours a device was used compared to the number of hours the device was available. The Army Training Support Center initiated a program in fiscal year 2015 to change these metrics for selected virtual training devices by including three new elements in the metrics: the training time soldiers have available to use a device, the specific tasks a device can train, and the frequency with which a device is expected to be used. To consider available training time, the Army Training Support Center used a training model, approved by Headquarters, Department of the Army, that provides a critical path of training events that should be done, at what level within a unit, and at what frequency. The model also recommends the training environment (e.g. live or virtual) and training support that the Army will resource for a training event. With these new metrics, the Army aims to gain visibility into the use of virtual training devices and assess their value.

The Army is also taking steps to strategically develop the next generation of virtual training devices. It has developed a long-range investment requirements analysis to replace existing capabilities with new technologies that will collectively comprise the synthetic training environment. The intent of the synthetic training environment is to consolidate multiple existing programs into a single, cloud-based synthetic environment that can deliver training to 18 | MTI 21.6

points of need. The Army is still in the early stages of determining requirements for the synthetic training environment.

Understanding the Effectiveness of Virtual Training Devices Army Headquarters policy requires it to establish a policy for conducting post-fielding training effectiveness analyses. However, while the Army has implemented general policies for post fielding training effectiveness analysis, these policies did not establish a process for conducting such analyses of the Army’s inventory of virtual training devices that defined how the analysis should be conducted and the process for selecting existing virtual training devices for the analysis.

In general, existing Army policies address broad roles and responsibilities for conducting post-fielding training effectiveness analyses, but none of these policies specifically defines what constitutes a post-fielding training effectiveness analysis. www.MTI-dhp.com

During a review, Army Training Support Center officials told the GAO they had conducted seven post-fielding training effectiveness analyses on virtual training devices since 2012 based on a variety of factors, such as feedback from the field, device utilization, and return on investment. The review found that the seven analyses identified by the Army Training Support Center differed in how they were conducted.

While the Army had not established a welldefined process for selecting and conducting post-fielding training effectiveness analyses for its existing virtual training devices, some results have helped the Army make better-informed sustainment decisions. For example, the Army conducted these analyses on two of nine virtual training devices included in the case study selection—the Engagement Skills Trainer and the Dismounted Soldier Training System. The analysis of the Dismounted Soldier Training System highlighted several issues with the system, including technical difficulties that degraded training, a limited ability for the Dismounted Soldier Training System to provide collective training above the squad level, and low usage rates across the Army. The analysis determined that an event trained through the Dismounted Soldier Training System cost approximately 78 percent more than a comparable event trained in the live environment. The analysis ultimately found that resourcing full-time operator support for the Dismounted Soldier Training System was not justifiable based on low utilization, and recommended better aligning resourcing with projected utilization.

At the time of the GAO review, the Army had not conducted post-fielding training effectiveness analyses on seven virtual training devices included in their case study selection and did not have specific plans to do so. The GAO determined that the Army may benefit from conducting these analyses when determining which virtual training devices it will sustain in its inventory. For example, The Common Driver Trainer – Mine resistant ambush protected vehicle variant device, according to officials at three installations they visited, is not being used. Officials at two installations stated that soldiers who had used it found live training to be more effective. Officials at the third installation stated they lacked qualified instructors and operators to train soldiers on the device as a result of funding constraints and personnel turnover. One brigade official commented that the device does not simulate all tasks required of drivers, such as dismounting during an operation to conduct maintenance on a vehicle.

The Conduct of Fire Trainer and the Advanced Gunnery Training System are used during training because the devices are required to achieve specific training requirements in individual and crew-served weapons strategies.

Officials at two installations stated that soldiers preferred to use the Close Combat Tactical Trainer for their tank training requirements, although, according to these same officials, this device is not intended to satisfy those requirements.

At one installation they visited, officials had adapted the Virtual Battlespace gaming virtual training device for various training tasks. Officials noted, for example, that Virtual Battlespace had been adapted to replicate training that could also be accomplished with another virtual training device, termed the Reconfigurable Vehicle Tactical Trainer. Those officials stated that they believed the Virtual Battlespace virtual training device was more effective in accomplishing training. As a result, the officials stated that the Reconfigurable Vehicle Tactical Trainer had low usage at that installation. www.MTI-dhp.com

Conclusion The Army has modified its training priorities and goals, recognizing that it must prepare forces for a broader range of military operations, and it is making some progress incorporating those priorities and goals into its training programs. Furthermore, the Army is simultaneously undertaking five initiatives that may standardize operational training priorities, better define requirements and resources needed to incorporate those priorities in its training, and enable more objective measurement of training for the priorities. However, the initiatives will take time to fully implement, because they also require changes in Army policies, doctrine, and processes. As a result, it is too soon to determine if the initiatives will achieve their intended results.

The Army has taken steps to address some concerns regarding its use of virtual training devices in operational training, but opportunities exist to further improve their integration. The Army has developed requirements for virtual training devices without considering the time soldiers have available to train with the device or intended usage rates. Without more deliberate front-end analysis of these factors, the Army does not have the information it needs to evaluate the amount of virtual training capabilities needed to achieve training tasks and proficiency goals during operational training.

Further, the Army has not established a well-defined process to analyze the effectiveness of its existing virtual training devices, even though it has a requirement to establish a policy for the conduct of post-fielding training effectiveness analyses. Without a policy that defines what constitutes a post-fielding training effectiveness analysis and the process used to select existing virtual training devices for such analysis, the Army risks funding virtual training devices that have an undetermined val-ue in operational training. Finally, the Army has incorporated some virtual training devices in operational training strategies, but other devices, particularly virtual nonsystem training devices, are not fully incorporated in training strategies. By limiting the incorporation of non-system training devices to certain training strategies, the Army may be missing opportunities to improve the usage of its devices.

Ultimately the GAO offered three recommendations to the Army, two of which were concurred with and the other partial concurred with. 

Cary B. Russell is the director of defense capabilities and management for the Government Accountability Office. This article is an edited version of the original GAO document MTI 21.6 | 19

Bringing down air power to support ground troops is not as easy as it seems. Doctrine and TTPs are continually being developed to meet changing support requirements.

By Andrew Drwiega SpecOps Correspondent brown with an outhouse. From the air, without precise guidance and two-way trust, the task would be virtually impossible.

Scroll forward a few years and today’s close air support (CAS) training scenarios involving the United States Marine Corps can usually be found at their Air, Ground Combat Training center, at Twentynine Palms, Calif.

One such exercise at the turn of the year involved five joint terminal attack controller Marines from Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton Air Station flying out in a UH-1Y Huey, paired with a couple of AH-1Z Super Cobras in support of a theoretical ground unit.

The Marines were to work with these attack helicopters to support ground units by engaging potential targets. During this particular exercise it was only the attack helicopter’s M134 GAU-17 and GAU-21/A .50-caliber that were used to provide suppressive fire, rather than guided missiles.

U.S. Air Force JTACs call in close air support from an A-10 Thunderbolt II while attending the Air Force’s JTAC Advanced Instructor Course.

DoD photo by Tech. Sgt. Michael R. Holzworth, U.S. Air Force)

Back in 2011 I was fortunate enough to spend some time with the UK’s British Army Air Corps while they were located at Naval Air Facility, El Centro, just inside the California border. This was the location for part of the conversion to role stages for AH-64 Apache aircrew.

Unofficially it was also the pre-deployment training for rotorcraft crews going to Afghanistan.

While there, I was invited to spend a day with the British joint tactical air controllers (JTACs) and close combat air (CCA) personnel.

Sitting atop a hillside with a small training group watching them guiding their air support (in this case Apache and Lynx helicopters) onto specific locations in the small, dusty town that lay below us a few miles away, was excellent preparation for controllers who would need to direct air support onto targets in Afghanistan. “Hit the brown building with the outhouse,” would not have worked, for in Afghanistan every building in each village, hamlet and town is

20 | MTI 21.6

www.MTI-dhp.com

The CAS doctrine The task of training and organizing CAS is one that every branch of the U.S. military takes seriously, as well as those branches within international military forces.

Colonel J.W. “Chewy” Frey, commanding officer of the Expeditionary Warfare Training Group Atlantic (EWTGLANT) based at Virginia Beach, Va., explained that the USMC supports its own Marine units (and winged aviators with the JTAC qualification) called forward air controllers (FACs); Air Force tactical air control parties (TACP) support Army and Special Operations Command (SOCOM) warfighters; while the Navy supports the SEALs and coastal riverine squadrons.

The USMC EWTG Atlantic and Pacific course run to five weeks with an output of around 240 students per year. The SOCOM Special Operations Tactical Attack Control Course is slightly shorter at four weeks with a throughput of around 18 students per course. The Air Force’s 6th Combat Training Squadron and Joint Firepower Center of Excellence runs a primary military occupational specialty course which has a wider remit with qualification at the end of five months, although the initial qualification takes four weeks.

While Department of Defense doctrine doesn’t set out to produce specialists, Frey said that each of the component JTACs training is missionized toward what their particular service mission requires.

“The central doctrine for training is the Joint Close Air Support Action Plan Memorandum of Agreement (JCAS AP MOA) as the base line, and the principles outlined in the Joint Close Air Support publication 3.09-3. However, each service is given latitude in how they train JTACs based on mission and service philosophy, so long as they meet the mission essential task lists delineated in the JCAS AP MOA,” explained Frey, adding that all U.S. DoD JTACs are considered interchangeable.

EWTGLANT provides a wide variety of training courses sponsored by both the Marines and Navy, one of which is the TACP course.

The TACP course is specifically focused on teaching concepts, doctrine and principles used to control and coordinate close air support for Marine air ground task force or joint task force operations. The training seeks to establish not only the employment of aerial firepower, but also to understand its capability and best use. This then assists JTACs to call for and use the right type of air support for the variety of complex situations that they may be called to support on the ground.

All attendees of the course are required to read two documents: Joint Publication 3-09.3 Close Air Support and MAWTS-1 TACP TACSOP (both published in July 2014).

The 3-09.3 publication provides a concise definition of CAS: “Close air support is air action by fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft against hostile targets that are in close proximity to friendly forces and requires detailed integration of each air mission with the fire and movement of those forces.”

The introduction to the course stipulates that CAS by its nature requires very detailed planning and co-ordination to achieve success.

The training of both ground and supporting air assets needs to be well founded to ensure a safe and effective result. It prescribes that: “the supported commander establishes the target priority, effects, and timing of CAS fires…” within the relevant battle space.

The addition of CAS brings with it a whole new discipline to the warfighter. It is not simply a matter of one person on the ground talking to one pilot in the air. There is a difference between having terminal attack control (which includes the authority to control the maneuver of the aircraft and grant weapons release, to someone conducting termiwww.MTI-dhp.com

nal guidance operations who, unless so qualified as a JTAC or forward air controller (airborne) (FAC[A]), does not have those higher authorities of aircraft control and weapons release.

Part of the utility of aircraft to ground troops is that they can attack quickly and, with the right weapons, effectively enabling a rapid change in the tactical situation on the battlefield. But planning for air support is not an instantaneous effect but through an air tasking order and for the most part is factored in by the joint force air component commander at the planning stage.

There are three critical phases that all trainees who are to become CAS operators need to know. The first is working up a complete joint plan including everything from type of weapons that will be available through to ensuring that quick and efficient communications will be in place between all those potentially involved, something that is obviously particularly important when a multinational operation is being organized. Little could be worse than having an urgent need for CAS, with an armed and available aircraft above, with no way of either direct communication or ensuring that any weapon employed will be directed at the precise point where the ground forces need it.

With the heightened focus on reducing collateral damage, particularly to civilians not involved in supporting enemy action, and when in multinational operations to avoid a blue-on-blue engagement taking place, it is a basic principal that both the attacking aircraft and the ground force receiving the support have sufficient situational awareness to successfully carry out an attack on the correct and intended location.

When the attack itself is initiated, the JTAC must ensure that the aircraft adheres to the plan as briefed and concludes with an assessment of that attack.

Analyze. Develop. Build. Test. Render.

Go beyond the game engine.

Develop comprehensive virtual training environments for maximized interactivity with VE Studio . ®

Learn more, visit www.disti.com/gobeyond

DEVELOP. CREATE. INTERFACE.

MTI 21.6 | 21

The latter manual that all EWTGLANT trainees need to read and understand, the TACP TACSOP, establishes standard tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) for planning and execution carried out by TACPs. It is based on professional knowledge and experience and is grounded in doctrine and is the basis for the development of efficient and proven procedures for providing CAS support. While no manual procedure will ever survive first contact with the enemy, in that there are always likely to be extenuating factors that alter the influencing factors on the battlefield, it does provide a guidance that should be followed.

The need to absorb both of the documents is highlighted in the scope of the EWTGLANT TACP course: “graduates must demonstrate both an ability to apply mission essential tasks and a comprehension of the concepts that links the three critical phases of terminal attack control to a successful CAS mission.”

Building on experience

Above: RAF Hawk T1 of 100 Squadron; the aircraft used to support UK JFAC training (Photo: RAF)

Lessons learned from the last couple of decades of warfighting, particularly in Afghanistan often came from the nature of the war there. Frey explained: “The distributed operations generated a perceived requirement for more JTACs; the near exponential increase in aircraft capabilities and weapon systems demonstrated a need for robust initial training; and the Increases use of unmanned aerial systems and the Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System factored into the ability to provide 24/7 fires capabilities using the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System and the M982 Excalibur extended range, close support munition.” He added that the identification of enemy personnel was also a difficult task due to the lack of uniforms and the trend of insurgents to blend themselves into the population.

Post-Afghanistan, the direction of training is moving from asymmetric warfare against an insurgent enemy, more towards toward antiaccess, area denial (A2/AD) more in line with potential peer adversaries.

Said Frey: “Marine Corps training is beginning to shift back toward high intensity combat, however in reality all services will continue to be mindful of the counter-insurgency style fight which isn’t likely to go away anytime soon. Training has become increasingly compressed as the mission sets that we have been exercising in Afghanistan and Iraq will continue to be a requirement along with high intensity conflict. We have more kit and need to understand the capabilities and limitations of the gear.”

The standard type of kit to which Frey refers, post Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) includes tablet-based fire support applications, laser designators and infra-red pointers, man portable video downlink capabilities among others. Frey added that while all services are aspiring towards digitally based communications with aircraft, implementation has been sporadic.

CAS in Multinational Operations JP 3-09.3, Close Air Support, is widely used among NATO partner nations as the basis for conducting CAS. This helps ensure inter22 | MTI 21.6

British JTACs train with Army Air Corps AH-64D Apaches and Westland Lynx near NAS El Centro, Calif. (Photo by author)

national familiarity with TTPs among the various JTACS and FACs of partner nations. Some differences do remain between U.S. and other allied doctrine, but these are being addressed.

Frey explained that the JTAC AP MOA has assisted in operating with a coalition forces, as with so many signatories, adding that CAS has now been standardized to its greatest degree between nations in its history. Coalition based rules of engagement and national caveats www.MTI-dhp.com

are trained to in pre-deployment training for each anticipated operation.

In Europe, one of the multinational organizations that is continuing to develop CAS is the Joint Air Power Competence Centre (JAPCC), a multi-discipline organization based on a memorandum of understanding and which is sponsored by 15 NATO nations.

Under JAPCC’s Combat Air Branch, a project is currently underway to further develop a CAS Roadmap. The JAPCC can call on subject matter experts from all service branches throughout its international membership. As this is not an organization that has to answer to any single political entity, it can forces the purely military aspects of planning.

Every military organization is keen to learn the lessons of its most recent engagements and the JAPCC has been analyzing the TTPs behind the delivery of CAS during both NATO’s International Security Assistance Force mission and Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.

Recognizing that CAS here was conducted in a permissive air environment and that the operational environment of future engagements is likely to be different, the aim of the project is to recommend how the CAS and JTAC communities “should adapt and leverage emerging capabilities to meet future operational requirements (using the Security Force Assistance, Future Alliance Operations and JAPS analyses as a baseline) in the long term (defined for this study as 10-15 years).”

According to the JAPCC, the shift in environmental warfare has moved from that focused on hybrid-warfare on to one that is more concerned with A2/AD. One of the conclusions draw is that the more complex problems in delivering CAS in the A2/AD environment requires a much better integration of land/maritime/SOF with the Air Force.

Land/maritime/SOF service visions with the Air Force. It states: “CAS evolution has been dependent on technological developments and it will surely continue to evolve as technology improves. However, the means in which the Air Force will support all three services will require solutions and methods more than purely technological improvements.”

The development of joint fire support means that the inter service training will need to be increased. A study of potential future conflicts will also challenge and help to shape the role that future technology will play and contribute towards the CAS/JTACS developing capability.

According to the JAPCC planning statement: “Effort will be given in this research to clarify how CAS and the TACP will fit into the Joint Fires plan and how the ground commander will use this to meet objectives. In the future operational environment, cyber, electronic warfare, intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance, unmanned air vehicle and close combat attack assets will have to be considered” Following a period of discussion, the JAPCC will then draft its CAS/ JTAC roadmap based on a gap analysis between anticipated requirements and emerging future systems and methods. Among assumptions made as the project develops are the points that: “there is political will to endorse this initiative; emerging new crisis may alter defense priorities; sufficient information regarding current/future operational environment for CAS/JTAC capabilities exist in the unclassified realm to provide meaningful data points for analysis; and that although technological dependency of future CAS/JTAC systems and www.MTI-dhp.com

USAF Restructures CAS

On August 16 the U.S. Air Force announced a restructuring of the 57th Operations Group (57th OG) at Nellis Air Force Base to better structure its close air support integration. The move is designed to increase the focus on tactical close air support and the integration of fires in joint operations.

The 57th OG would incorporate a CAS organization within its tactical air support squadron which, among a number of duties, would provide dedicated air support to the Joint Terminal Attack Controller Qualification Course. These would comprise eight F-16 potentially growing up to 16 when fully operational, relocating from Hill AFB, Utah.

“CAS is one of the most important jobs we have, and over the past 15 years we’ve developed exceptional capabilities and expertise in this mission area,” stated General Hawk Carlise, the commander of Air Combat Command. “The changes we’re making at Nellis are an important step in refining our CAS skills through future generations of airmen so we can continue to provide ground forces with all the advantages airpower brings to close combat,” he continued.

One of the 57 OG’s component units is the 6th Combat Training Squadron (6 CTS) which operates from both Nellis and Fort Sill, Okla.

Its task to provide instruction on air-ground operations through a number of courses which include: the Joint Firepower Course; the Air Liaison Officer Qualification Course; the Air Support Operations Center Initial Qualification Course; the Joint Terminal Attack Controller Qualification Course; and the Joint Forward Air Controller (Airborne) Qualification Course.

processes may increase, technology will not be the only factor in the execution of CAS/JTAC.”

UK’s JFACTSU Within NATO, individual countries have their own approach to the CAS/JTAC requirement. At Royal Air Force (RAF) Leeming, alongside 100 Squadron who fly BAE Systems Hawks delivering numerous training tasks, is the RAF’s Joint Forward Air Controller Training and Standards MTI 21.6 | 23

The CAS simulator at JFACTSU, RAF Leeming, UK. (PHOTO: RAF

by SAC Phil Dye.)

Unit. This is the only NATO and U.S. joint services accredited schoolhouse in UK Defence to train FACs. Although small with only 24 personnel, it is guided by the Joint Air Land Organisation based at RAF High Wycombe. It combines a joint staff of fast jet CAS aircrew, communications specialists and ground based FACs, with all three services being represented. It is tasked with teaching interoperability between services as well as multinational forces. It makes use of the RAF’s Hawk TMk1 jets to train its student JFACS. Around 100 FACs from the Army, Royal Marines and the RAF Regiment (the RAF’s own soldiers) are trained at the JFACTSU school annually. In addition, pilots from the Army Air Corps’ AH-64 Apache units come to the school for their FAC(A) training.

The training school conducts three core course syllabi which are: FAC (C) (C stands for certified and is the initial FAC qualification); SupFAC (Supervisory FAC, these are the unit level continuation training facilitators post graduation) and FAC (A).

The FAC (C) is an eight-week course designed for military personnel with no or limited air integration experience. It combines classroom lectures with computer-based simulations in aircraft control and ultimately live fast jet controlling using the Hawks. At the end of this course the trainee will have basic CAS understanding including platforms and weapons across NATO together with “practical airspace management; integration of artillery and mortar fire with air support; and briefing and planning with a ground maneuver unit.” Success is based on passing live tests and written exams.

24 | MTI 21.6

The next more advanced course is that at SupFAC and lasts only four weeks. During that time the course is divided into two core modules. The first module is conducted over two weeks and is specifically for personnel who will serve with a TACP. This module includes airspace management and training on how to use land/air spaces during peacetime operations as well as during conflict. The second part of the course is for senior FACs who will be taught how to supervise FAC training. They will also achieve a qualification to manage UK air weapons ranges (those military training area within the UK that have been designated for live weapon delivery from aircraft).

Finally, the FAC (A) course is only run once every year and is for qualified aircrew from fixed wing or helicopter backgrounds. Again, this is a four-week course which follows the FAC (C) course, but is shortened due to the prior knowledge that those attending will already have.

UK forces usually deploy FACs in one of two ways. The first is as one of four people that comprise a TACP team, usually based in the maneuver unit at a headquarters. They provide the forward deployed FACs with the booking of air support for missions and integrate external factors such as remote fires like artillery that the forward FAC would not have access to or control over.

The second FAC role is that of forward deployment as part of a fire support team usually with a host unit. This is the speartip position where they are likely to be with troops in contact. They will provide the direct fire support management to those forces, integrating both air and direct surface fires.  www.MTI-dhp.com

Small business programs keep technology flowing.

The most recent Small Business Innovative Research and Small Business technology Transfer offering includes only two topics that relate directly to training or simulation.

Augmented/Mixed Reality for Live Fire Ranges The objective of this U.S. Army project is to develop a see-through augmented reality (AR) protocol and prototype to create realistic simulated human avatar overlays on top of/in lieu of standard silhouette representations and to replicate night/obscurant conditions (opaqueness) during live fire familiarization training. The research would focus on the development of AR technology that supports range scanning with one eye, and weapon sighting with the other.

The AR technology would have to operate and support M4 and M16 weapon platforms utilizing various sights (iron, red dot, CCO and ACOG).

An augmented reality solution coupled with a location of miss or hit or noncontact hit sensor (NCHS) on a live fire range would afford the Army the ability to ensure standard target representations are provided regardless of terrain.

This approach would also allow for the scripting/modeling of these target representations to support advanced training. In addition to the dual AR visual representations, appropriate occlusion algorithms for the live fire ranges would be imperative to ensure accurate display and representation of the virtual target systems within the field view of the shooter.

Phase 1 of the project has a number of stated goals: • Determine the feasibility/approach for the development of an integrated augmented reality technology to meet training requirements in support of U.S. Army basic rifleman marksmanship familiarization and qualification training.

• Study, research, and conduct initial integration and design concepts of core technology components.

• Synchronization of work being completed by RDECOM, PEO STRI and academia will be required.

• Research dual AR technologies, power management approaches, eye tracking (if required), and ruggedized for open air environments

Scene Registration Augmented Reality as an Educational Tool to Identify Underlying Anatomy during Medical Simulation Training The Defense Health Program is sponsoring a project to develop, demonstrate, test and evaluate a scene registration educational tool that registers/ transmits/updates from a simulated patient’s position/orientation using information to correlate accurately with 3-D anatomical dynamic models replicating position/orientation.

Standardized patients and medical mannequin simulators are helpful medical educational tools used during training. To complement the benefits of these simulation tools, the topic calls upon performers to leverage augmented reality technology for scene registration for use in medical training. The tool should accurately and appropriately link position and orientation of training models using accurate anatomical overlays over a 3D surface to enhance the understanding of the relationship of landmarks with its underlying anatomy. www.MTI-dhp.com

The goal of this topic is to create a system to augment a dynamic 3D scene registration using AR technology in order to produce a tool to that can recognize fiducial markers on a patient simulator or standardized patient. The performer can develop their own system or, if available, use existing or expected to be released technology (i.e. sensors, fiducial markers) that can be purchased and placed directly on/in a mannequin, attached or applied to a standardized patient or use technology already inserted into part task trainers or full body mannequin simulation systems to create a dynamic 3D scene registration using AR technology.

The scene registration AR software should be easily downloaded and be able to be used on existing mobile devices or anticipated to be released mobile devices.

The developed software should accurately and appropriately register the detection technology when the mobile device’s existing camera is aimed at a standardized patient or a medical mannequin. The software should recognize and display the gross characteristics upon detection of the anatomical markers. Accurate and appropriate representation of models representing different layers of the underlying anatomy should be designed and displayed on a mobile device and correlate with the registration data and emphasis should be placed upon dynamic models where fiducial markers change their position and orientation in space. The dynamic models should reflect the orientation and position of the standardized patient or mannequin. The developed software should display models from any anatomical position and orientation (for example, anterior, posterior, lateral and oblique views). The user should have the ability to lock and rotate models regardless of view.

Software development should focus on the development, technical feasibility, and demonstration of a low-cost tool that will complement the instructor’s ability to teach and implement realistic simulation practice procedures enhancing the learning experience at all experience levels. The instructor should have the option to become a master controller and easily share images captured with students on their mobile device. The instructor should have the ability to add/remove static/dynamic model layers.

The proposed development effort should: • Accurately and appropriately track and register an array of different anatomical positions and orientations either placed on standardized patients or mannequins, and/or ones that are already embedded in mannequins • Allow for quick capture of the underlying anatomy via mobile device and save as an image on the mobile device • Include static/dynamic models • Display models from any angle of the human anatomy • Display models from any anatomical position and orientation • Include removable ‘layer-by-layer’ models shown from any angle of human anatomy and any anatomical position and orientation • Allow instructor to control and share the scenes seen during the instruction • Incorporate simulated trauma models (i.e. burns, blast, penetrating, blunt and/or crush injuries) and other pathologies as a part of the static/ dynamic repository • Allow the ability to add complex pathology and traumatic (military relevant) models for more advanced learners.  MTI 21.6 | 25

THE RIGHT place THE RIGHT time THE RIGHT people JUNE 6-8

2017 TEL- AVIV

THE 8TH INTERNATIONAL DEFENCE & HLS EXPO

Visit us at HALL 6# Eurosatory F798

VISIT OUR WEBSITE

For details on exhibition space & sponsorship opportunities contact: sales@isdefexpo.com For general information on ISDEF 2017 contact: expoaffairs@isdefexpo.com T. +972-3-691-4564 | F. +972-3-691-4567

WWW.ISDEFEXPO.COM

Resource Center AdVertisers Index CAE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 www.cae.com

Leonardo Helicopters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 www.leonardocompany.com

DiSTI. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 www.disti.com/gobeyond

MetaVR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C4 www.metavr.com

I/ITSEC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C3 www.iitsec.org

NAVDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C2 www.navdex.ae

ISDEF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 www.isdefexpo.com

Calendar November 2-4, 2016 Military Flight Training USA San Antonio, Texas http://www.militaryflighttrainingusa.com

February 19-23, 2017 IDEX Abu Dhabi, UAE www.idexuae.ae

May 16-18, 2017 ITEC Amsterdam, Netherlands www.itec.co.uk

November 16-17, 2016 Close Air Support Conference Reading, UK www.omconf.com

February 28-March 1, 2017 Defence Simulation, Education & Training Bristol, UK www.dset.co.uk

November 28-December 2, 2016 I/ITSEC Orlando, Fla. www.iitsec.org

March 13-15, 2017 AUSA Global Force Symposium Huntsville, Ala. http://ausameetings.org/globalforce2017

May 22-25, 2017 Special Operations Medical Association Scientific Assembly and Exhibition Charlotte, N.C. www.specialoperationsmedicine.org/Pages/ scientificassembly.aspx

January 17-18, 2017 MilSim Asia Singapore www.milsimasia.com

March 28-29, 2017 Military Flight Training London, UK www.militaryflighttraining.com

January 24-26, 2017 ShieldAfrica Abidjan, Cote d’ Ivoire www.shieldafrica.com

April 22-29, 2017 Army Aviation Missions Solutions Summit Nashville, Tn. www.quad-a.org

February 13-14, 2017 Land Forces Simulation and Training London, UK www.smi-online.co.uk/defence/uk/land-forcessimulation-and-training

May 16-18, 2017 SOFIC Tampa, Fla. www.ndia.org

Associate Publisher Holly Foster hollyf@defense-house.com Correspondents PETER BUXBAUM • HENERY CANADAY • PATRICK CLARKE • ANDREW DRWIEGA • Hank Hogan • KAREN THUERMER Publication Design Jennifer Owers • James Scott Cassidy

www.MTI-dhp.com

Subscription Information ISSN 1097-0975 Military Training International is published seven times a year by Defense House Publishing. All Rights Reserved.

Reproduction without permission is strictly forbidden. © Copyright 2016. Military Training International is free to qualified members of the U.S. military, employees of the U.S. government and non-U.S. foreign service based in the United States All others: $80 per year.

Foreign: $120 per year.

June 6-8, 2017 ISDEF Tel Aviv, Israel www.isdefexpo.com September 12-15, 2017 DSEI London, UK www.dsei.co.uk November 27-December 1, 2017 I/ITSEC Orlando, Fla. www.iitsec.org

CEO & Managing Director Jeff McKaughan jeffm@defense-house.com Contact Information Defense House Publishing P.O. Box 236 Forest Hill, Maryland 21050 USA Telephone: 443-243-1710 Fax: 410-838-0224 www.mti-dhp.com­

MTI 21.6 | 27

TEAM ORLANDO UCF Launches Applied Research Institute to Tackle Global Challenges Early this spring, the University of Central Florida Research Foundation established an institute to assist in securing large collaborative research projects and enhance the university’s interdisciplinary work and growing partnerships. The UCF Applied Research Institute (UCFARI) will help the university coordinate multidisciplinary responses to major prospects and strengthen research across campus.

Michael Macedonia, Ph.D., deputy director for the UCFARI, said that UCF saw the basic research growing substantially over the last decade and that presented them with an opportunity to provide a way to transition that research to industry and government.

“The trends show us that larger businesses are having a hard time doing the development of the initial prototypes that come out of basic research,” Macedonia said. “Unlike in the past, the government has reduced its support for industrial internal research and development, so those budgets have been decreasing.”

Macedonia said that the ARI will also help bridge the gap which is sometimes described as the “valley of death”—the virtual divide that occurs between basic research and innovation. According to analyst firm Frost & Sullivan, four out of five technologies developed globally never make it to the commercial world, due to their inability to cross over.

“A lot of team effort and money go into working the basic technologies and research of an idea,” Macedonia said. “But then if you want to go to a product stage and integrate with other technologies to make it useful, it’s a major challenge.”

The institute will create a centralized location where faculty members can team together to apply for grants, and where students can find resources, training and research opportunities in areas where funding is available.

Randall Shumaker, director of UCF’s Institute for Simulation and Training, has been appointed interim director for the new Applied Research Institute.

“As a former senior civilian leader for the U.S. Navy, I see the immense value of providing a university-applied research organization to support industry and national security needs,” Shumaker said. “We are already in discussions with partners that we will work with to transition UCF’s basic research into new concepts and applications.”

When it comes to developing UCF’s ARI, Macedonia said that they are adopting the model of a number of other research institutes, for example the Georgia Tech Research Institute. “They have been doing it now for almost 70 years for very similar reasons. It took them some time to build it, but today they are working with more than $400 million each year in research.”

The UCFARI takes on an important meaning for Team Orlando. “Our ARI helps get the ideas out of the labs faster and into the hands of our warfighter—faster,” said Macedonia, who served as the chief technology officer from 1998-2007 for Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training and Instrumentation, and was part of the team responsible for the technology acquisition strategy of simulation systems for the best trained Army in the world.

“And it will help us cross the valley of death. So many ideas die because no-one can pick up the technology and advance it. Furthermore, it gives UCF another way to work and interact with our fellow members of Team Orlando.”

Macedonia said they are ahead of their schedule and plan, which is positive since the state did not allocate money for the ARI, and the plan requires 28 | MTI 21.6

the institute support itself with revenue from new projects.

“So far it’s been very successful. Industry really likes it, and our researchers and faculty like it too,” he said. “Establishing an ARI also gives UCF another arrow on the quiver because the work is being done under the UCF Research Foundation, a 501c(3) and a UCF direct support organization.”

UCF’s institute will initially focus on areas that align with Florida’s economic development needs, such as photonics, modeling and simulation, engineering and biomedicine. For example, Dr. David Metcalf, a UCF researcher, is currently working with local industry and Federal sponsors on several projects involving cyber and augmented reality technologies, taking basic research and putting it in applied context. Explained Macedonia, “this follows the model of most ARIs which are largely government funded and focused mainly on DoD.” However, in August, UCF’s Institute for Simulation & Training received a $2 million award from oilfield services company Schlumberger to analyze downhole tool operations and develop targeted learning and training programs.

UCF’s university team is creating a next-generation, simulation-based learning and training system that will allow the researchers and their corporate collaborator to assess and review worker performance using simulations.

The institute will create a centralized location where faculty members can team together to apply for grants, and where students can find resources, training and research opportunities in areas where funding is available. They are still looking for a permanent location for the institute, which currently operates out of IST.  www.MTI-dhp.com

N AT I O N A L T R A I N I N G A N D S I M U L AT I O N A S S O C I AT I O N T H E W O R L D ’ S L A R G E S T M O D E L I N G & S I M U L AT I O N E V E N T Aerospace Simulation & Training Aircrew Trainers Applied R&D Applied Systems Engineering Big Data Classroom Training Products & Services Cloud Computing Computer Hardware Construction / Mining Consultancy/Project Management Cyber DIS IEEE 1278.1x or HLA 1516 Capable Disaster Relief/Planning Simulations Distance Learning Distributed Simulation and Learning Educational Products & Services Electronic Components Electronic Training/Synthetic Engineering/Damage Control Trainers Exercise Management Flight Simulation & Training Gaming Homeland Security Simulation & Training Instructional Systems Design LVC (Live, Virtual, Constructive) Manufacturing Medical Simulation & Training Mission Planning/Mission Rehearsal Modeling Services Oil, Gas, Energy Operational & Maintenance Services Operator/Driver Trainers Physical Training Equipment Pre-Brief/After Action Review Research & Development Shiphandling Trainers Simulation Security Simulation Software Simulation Toolkits Small Arms Training Small Business Staffing/Logistics Support STEM Tactics Trainers Trade Publication / Media Training Products Training Services Transportation Vehicle Trainers Verification & Validation Visual Computing Visual Display Products Weapon Systems Trainers & Equipment

INTERSERVICE/INDUSTRY TRAINING, SIMULATION & EDUCATION CONFERENCE 14,700 Attendees u 470 Exhibitors u 150 Sessions u 58 Countries, over 1,900 International Delegates u

NOVEMBER 28-DECEMBER 2, 2016 u WWW.IITSEC.ORG u ORLANDO, FLORIDA

See MetaVR visuals at the annual Omega Close Air Support Conference, London, November 16-17 Demonstrations of complex scenarios by Close Air Solutions on: • iCASS™ JTAC/Joint Fires training simulator • Preview of Hyper Real Immersion augmented reality training system

Fully contested scenarios set within MetaVR’s

geospecific 3D terrain database rendered in MetaVR Virtual Reality Scene Generator™ (VRSG™)

High-threat environment provided by Battlespace Simulation’s Modern Air Combat Environment (MACE®) Simulators designed by former JTAC instructors to meet current US JTAC MOA and NATO ATP 80 accreditation requirements

Real-time screen capture is from MetaVR’s visualization system and 3D virtual terrain of the U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground, Yuma, NV, and is unedited except as required for printing. The real-time rendering of the 3D virtual world is generated by MetaVR Virtual Reality Scene Generator™ (VRSG™) at 60 Hz. The terrain was built with 2 cm per-pixel imagery and 2 meter elevation posts. 3D models are from MetaVR’s 3D content libraries. Hyper Real image courtesy of Close Air Solutions. © 2016 MetaVR, Inc. All rights reserved. MetaVR, Virtual Reality Scene Generator, VRSG, the phrase “Geospecific simulation with game quality graphics,” and the MetaVR logo are trademarks of MetaVR, Inc. Close Air Solutions, iCASS, and the Close Air Solutions logo are trademarks of Close Air Solutions. Battlespace Simulations MACE is a registered trademark of Battlespace Simulations.

www.metavr.com