Appendix 6
TRAINING TECHNOLOGY ISSUES
By Major (Retired) Laurence O'Neill, CD

The Romans are sure of victory...for their exercises are battles without bloodshed, and their battles bloody exercises.

Josephus

AIM

This short paper focuses on the use of training technology, particularly simulation, to enhance training effectiveness of soldiers and of formed units and formations.

INTRODUCTION

The requirement for highly disciplined training focused on specific objectives has always existed. When budgets and training opportunities afforded the luxury of over-training, this requirement was not at the forefront. In the Army's current environment, however, training resources are much reduced, roles and tasks are much broader than in the past and opportunities to prepare for each task are much more restricted. Therefore, it is imperative that every dollar spent on training must be well spent, closely focused and justifiable. The exploitation of the capabilities of training technology can go a long way to overcoming these challenges to training.

One of the most significant events in the last twenty years has been the exponential growth of new technologies in the field of warfighting. The increasing complexity of the modern battlefield and the wide range of tasks that may be assigned to the Army demand extensive individual and collective training in order for soldiers and units to develop and retain the necessary skills required for these tasks.

This requirement to master technology is both a challenge and an opportunity. It is a challenge because modem armies must constantly develop new means and devote considerable resources to retain mastery of emerging technologies. It is also an opportunity, because technology has provided powerful training tools that allow the retention of essential skill sets that previously could only be kept through expensive field training or actual operations. This is especially significant in a climate of increased constraint.

Recent technological advances in simulation have greatly enhanced the capability of this technology to act as a “training multiplier”. Simulation technology can replicate battlefield environments for individual and collective training of combat troops at a level of fidelity never before attainable outside of combat. The resulting combination of confidence in a commanders' leadership, in soldiers' skill and in a unit's equipment are keys to success on any battlefield.

CATEGORIES OF SIMULATORS

There are three generally agreed categories of training simulators. These are:

A. LEVEL 1 SIMULATORS. Level I Simulators are designed to support individual and crew skills. Gunnery trainers, small arms trainers and recognition trainers are typical examples of Level I Simulators;
B. LEVEL 2 SIMULATORS. Level 2 Simulators are designed to train crews and teams in their tactical skills. Weapons Effect Simulation and the Close Combat Tactical Trainer (CCTT) are examples of Level 2 simulators; and
C. LEVEL 3 SIMULATORS. Level 3 simulators are designed to train and evaluate the tactical skills of commanders and their staffs. Janus and the Command and Staff Trainer (CST) are examples of Level 3 simulators.

APPLICATIONS OF SIMULATORS

The broad applications of simulation in support of training are:

A. To retain the essential skill sets in individuals, crews, and units to meet the standards for operationally assigned roles and missions;
B. To maximize the value of money spent on training, particularly on field training exercises by preparing participants for the field events through procedural training and the achievement of skill “gateways” prior to live training;
C. To maintain skill sets that might otherwise be unaffordable (e.g. command of higher formations, joint and combined operations, etc.);
D. To permit evaluation and validation of training; and E. To achieve savings in O&M costs by replacing costly resource-intensive activities with simulation.

Simulation has the potential to raise operational readiness to higher levels than possible through conventional training. Traditional methods of maintaining operational proficiency have concentrated on extensive field training, shooting and practical exercises. In many cases, these methods have not provided the ability to record and accurately assess the conduct of field training. Consequently, after-action reviews have concentrated on macro problems that were subjectively observed by the participants and controllers. Furthermore, not all trainees reaped the full benefits of this training because the assessment of individual skills was limited by the span of control of the available exercise support staff.

The immense computing power of modern simulators allows continuous recording of events and performance assessment of all trainees. Therefore, the product of any simulated exercise is a true sum of the interactions of all participants. Each soldier receives benefit from all training since individual performance can be assessed and errors in procedure or judgement can be corrected. Only through simulation training can one objectively evaluate training standards and provide the feedback that is essential to improved operational readiness.

The use of simulation overcomes economic and environmental disadvantages that have limited conventional field training in the past. Severe financial constraints, a plethora of tasks that disrupt unit cohesion, the requirement to husband equipment to extend its in-service life, a lack of suitable training areas and environmental considerations have cumulatively had a negative impact on field training. Simulation is normally much less harmful to the environment and considerably cheaper than conventional training methods.

Soldiers and their commanders must be exposed to various battlefield conditions and environments in order to develop their skills and knowledge. Simulations has a significant impact in the area of refresher training, skill maintenance, retaining combat proficiency and the evaluation of units prior to live firing or operational deployment. Simulation includes the use of practice ammunition, sub-calibre devices, embedded training software in operational equipment, computer simulation of enemy activity, instrumented training ranges, etc.

Total training of soldiers and commanders is greatly enhanced by allowing them to realistically experience the friction, stress and uncertainty of actual combat. At the same time, performance can be monitored and recorded and used to enhance after-action reviews. This permits measured improvement in performance. Further, effective use of this technology will permit battlefield lessons to be learned during peacetime training, which in the past could only be learned painfully and expensively during the initial days of combat.

USE OF SIMULATION AS A RESOURCE SAVING TOOL

The US Army was the first nation to embrace the use of simulation to support all aspects of training. Ironically, during a period of almost unlimited defence budgets, they acquired a large number of simulation systems before any detailed training needs and benefits analysis was done. It was only in the past few years, when funding became scarcer, that they began to analyze the potential for savings through the use of simulation and sought proof of training transfer.

Training transfer has been clearly proven and is frankly a pre-requisite for any new simulation that will be considered for acquisition. Cost savings, however, have been more problematic. Acquisitions of simulation systems require a large investment in hardware and software. Savings are often marginal in the short term, or can only be realized by amortizing the cost of simulation by sacrificing other expenditures (e.g. ammunition). To achieve any significant saving, however, a large quantity of ammunition must be available to be cut.

For example, when the US Army decided to pursue the CCTT, a virtual crew tactical trainer for close combat arms, they paid for this project in part by cutting their M I Tank ammunition tables by 10 rounds. Over a fleet of many thousands of tanks, this freed significant funds. Canada, with its 128 Leopard tanks and very restrictive ammunition budgets, cannot even afford to attempt the same methodology. However, the Army did pursue this strategy in its acquisition of Small Arms Trainers, by offering up the .22 calibre ammunition that could no longer by fired on indoor ranges. Due to lead contamination, to partially pay for the simulator project. It was still a very small offset to the cost of the simulation.

Other resource saving expectations are equally chimerical. Command and Staff Trainers greatly enhance the training quality of Level 3 training. Controllers are still required to provide the intelligent “Man-In-The-Loop” inputs that give the simulation its fidelity since computers cannot replace this. It must be remembered, however, that computer assisted exercises or CAX are still exponentially cheaper than field exercises at Battle Group and formation level, as these exercises are conducted principally to train commanders and their staffs.

Other measures can be taken to reduce the cost of training while using simulation. An example of this would be to create mock-ups of command posts for CAX. This permits just the deployment of only the training audience and controllers to an exercise without the need to move large numbers of vehicles and support personnel that are only peripheral to exercise aim and training objectives. It is the latter personnel and equipment that significantly drives up exercise costs.

Arguments to justify the use of simulation therefore must focus on the value-added aspects of training that can be achieved through the use of simulation. Simulation is a powerful tool used to prepare soldiers, leaders and teams prior to field training or an operational deployment. Through the use of powerful analytical tools that are part of all modern simulations, weaknesses are identified and performance is carefully tracked, leading to measurable improvement in performance. As a gateway to live training, simulation provides commanders with an important tool that ensures all players are well prepared and ready for the conduct of live-fire training events. This results in higher quality field deployments, a better chance of first-time success in live fire gunnery and qualification shoots and the ability to retain those hard won skill sets in between field exercises.

THE CANADIAN ARMY'S USE OF SIMULATION

The record of the Canadian Army's use of simulation is mixed. For a brief period (1992-96) the senior leadership of the Army was receptive to using simulation to enhance training. General Gordon Sullivan, then Chief of Staff of the US Army, undertook the opportunity to guide his Canadian counterpart and other senior Army Generals through the USA in Fall 1992 to visit training facilities and see the possibilities of leveraging this training technology to enhance training. Following this visit, there was a flurry of activity that saw the acquisition of:

a. Two Command and Staff Trainer systems (Janus and CST) to enhance the training of commanders and staffs at Battle Group and formation level;
b. Direct Fire Targetry for each of the major training areas in Canada. This will permit the Army to conduct meaningful and challenging field firing events on fixed and mobile ranges;
c. A Small Arms Trainer (SAT) to replace the loss of all indoor ranges in Canada due to the restrictions on inhalation of lead emissions. This unfortunate circumstance, which advanced the approval of this project, has actually proven beneficial for musketry training. Several US and UK studies have shown that the SAT which the CF will acquire will in fact improve and maintain musketry skills in comparison with traditional methods of small arms training;
d. An indirect Fire Trainer (I FT) that will replace the outdated IFT that is currently in service; and
e. An AFV and Aircraft Recognition Trainer to till a void that is not adequately covered by current training methods.

These acquisitions are all good news for the Army. While all of these simulations are important and satisfy identified shortcomings,. the Army needs to ensure that they are introduced an integral to al I new equipment purchases - not just add-on luxuries to be bought if monies come available.

At the time of writing, it appears that the Weapons Effect Simulation (WES) project may be progressing. WES will support tactical force on force or force on target exercises during field exercises. This project would see the acquisition of a transportable Battle Group suite of WES equipment, including range instrumentation, area weapons effects, data collection and analysis and after-action review facilities.

The fidelity and training enhancement achieved from the use of WES in field exercises cannot be overstated. All exercise players use their actual combat systems fitted with simulation. Players engage and achieve results based on their tactics and gunnery skills. All players are vulnerable to enemy and friendly fire. WES delivers realistic, challenging, and objective battle focused training: The After Action Review process will provide a credible, objective evaluation of a unit's tactical engagements.

This project will fill a gap in capability that was first identified in 1978 and will give the Army the capability of objective live field training and evaluation under highly realistic operational conditions. Every other major Army in the world has acquired this type of simulation and even Armies in conflict zones, e.g. the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, have recognized its value as an essential tool that must be acquired to prepare soldiers for combat.

With WES, the Army will be able to objectively assess whether the units of the Army are operationally ready for the tasks that they may be assigned by the government. With this essential tool, training will improve and Canadian soldiers will be up to facing dangers with reasonable assurance and self-knowledge that they are indeed ready for the challenge.

CONCLUSION

To maintain effective combat ready forces, the Army needs to continue to pursue an acquisition strategy that will put in place modem training tools to maintain operational skills. It will remain a continuing challenge to assign the appropriate resources and priority to training technology in competition with other operational systems and operating practices. In this emerging Information Age, these tools are essential to prepare soldiers at units for their operational tasks.