MILITARY’S USE OF SIMULATION

by

Donald Ray Wilson and Amanda Phipps

A Graduate Research Paper Submitted to the Extended Campus

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of
Master of Aeronautical Science

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Extended Campus
Sky Harbor Resident Center
October 2006
 ABSTRACT

Researches: Donald Ray Wilson and Amanda Phipps

Title: Military Use of Simulation

Institution: Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Degree: Master of Aeronautical Science

Year: 2006

This paper discusses the virtues of the various forms of simulation, how each

branch of the military uses it to train their military forces from breaching a room,

training aircrew members to operate a multi-million dollar aircraft, to using virtual

simulation to train forces in preparation for battle. The authors will briefly discuss

new programs that each branch of the military is in the process of procuring.

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

CHAPTER I

BACKGROUND/INTRODUCTION

Use of Simulation

There are common applications for the use of simulation by the military.

These uses range from training, mission rehearsal, testing and evaluation, and

modeling for procurement, to combat effectiveness analysis.

Military Training Classification

Military training normally occurs in one of two settings: technical training or

at the unit level. At the Schoolhouse, training is structured from start to finish.

However, at the unit level, training normally occurs using the actual piece of

equipment that the individual will be required to operate.

Currently there are two forms of military training - individual and collective.

The individual training program primarily focuses on, as the name implies, tasks

that are executed by the individual (for example aiming a weapon or

troubleshooting a simulator malfunction). However, collective training focuses on

tasks that are performed by a group of individuals such as flight crews, and tank

crews who must function together and coordinate various activities including

conducting a wing-level attack on a formidable objective.

The training setting and type will traverse to form a four-element

classification (see Table 1) (Gorman, 1990). The classification table depicted in

Table 1 illustrates the various methods of training that can occur.

iii
 TRAINING ENVIRONMENT
SCHOOL UNIT
Participation in training
Participation in a formal
class, conducted by a
training program to learn
MODE OF supervisor or FTD
INDIVIDUAL techniques and methods
TRAINING instructor to learn how to
to repair a flight
more accurately fire a
simulator
weapon
Unit/operational training
Training to work as a
in the field, to learn how
COLLECTIVE team to operate an
to network computers,
artillery device
simulation devices
Table 1. Four Element Training Table

Forms of Simulation

There are numerous types and forms of simulation that are associated

with military operations and training. When considering simulation it is sometimes

easier if you break it down into two subgroups. The first subgroup would be in

terms of (1) people and (2) systems; the second subgroup would be in terms of

whether the simulation would depict both people and systems, neither people nor

systems, or it could be people or systems (knowledge of subject based on 20

years of military experience as trainer).

The first type of simulation that will be discussed is live simulation. Live

simulation normally consists of “live people and live systems” in an environment

engaging hundreds, if not thousands, of people in a simulated battle. This

simulated battle will make use of live weapons and munitions. The intent of this

type of simulation is to prepare the soldier or aviator for war. Simulation of this

type is as real as it gets without going to war. To train the soldier or aviator in live

simulation the military has various facilities located throughout the United States

iv
including the Army has the National Training Center located at Fort Irwin, and the

Air Force has Red Flag exercises located at Nellis Air Force Base (DMSO, 1995).

The second form of simulation is what is known as the “stand-alone

single-system simulator.” This entails having real people interact with simulated

systems. Examples of this range from the use of the weapons training simulator,

flight simulator, to possibly a tank simulator (Frost & Sullivan, 1994).

The third form of simulation is known as virtual simulation. Virtual

simulation may involve the networking of various military computer systems

located throughout the world. This enables participants scattered across the

globe to engage in virtual training exercises that will permit these soldiers to hone

their war-fighting skills. Virtual simulation can support both individual and

collective forms of training (normally at the unit level). The following are some

examples used by the various military branches: the Army’s SIMNET (Simulator

Networking) and Close Combat Tactical Trainer, and the Navy’s In-port Trainer

and Combined Services’ Multi-service Distributed Training Testbed,” (DMSO,

1995).

The last form of simulation is called constructive simulation. Constructive

simulation entails the combining of simulated military forces and simulated

weapons systems. This form of simulation is a computer model based on

simulated combat forces primarily used to train field commanders and members

of the battle staff in areas of strategic planning, tactical planning, and logistical

planning. Some examples of constructive simulation include JANUS (Joint

v
Theater Level Simulation), Enhanced Naval War Gaming, and Air Warfare

Simulation (Department of Defense, 1994).

Capabilities of Simulation

Simulation is used for many reasons - to reduce operating costs, safety,

provide necessary feedback to instructors regarding students’ knowledge, and to

limit damage to the environment.

There are many advantages to using a simulator over a live piece of

equipment. The cost of operating a KC-135 air refueling tanker is approximately

$5,000/hour, whereas the operation of the simulator is roughly $300 – 500

dollars/hour (Department of the Air Force Budget, 1993). Other advantages are

safety and environmental reasons. It is much safer to accomplish certain

maneuvers in the simulator. For example, autorotation in the simulator is by far

safer than the same maneuver in the real aircraft (any mistake can have

devastating effects), and it is better on the environment. With the simulator, you

have no exhaust emissions nor any other environmental problems, like you

would experience when operating an aircraft.

The use of simulators was extensively used in preparation for the first Gulf

War. As you are well aware, you cannot practice in the enemy’s territory.

However, with the use of satellite photography and combining these images with

available ground images, out military was able to develop simulation scenarios

based on this information (Dept of the Air Force, 1993).

Finally, with dwindling resources, increasing costs, and political and

military situations, the use of simulation is one answer to a multi-layered problem.

vi
 Restrictions on the use of Simulation

As we, all know simulation training is not a replacement for operations

training. The level of fidelity will have a direct impact on whether or not the

soldier, sailor, or airman will interpret the simulation as being close to the real

thing. This will determine if the simulator can be used in lieu of the actual piece

of equipment or device.

The layman must be made aware that all military jobs are explained in

terms of tasks. It is unfortunate that the simulator is not sophisticated enough for

the individual to complete all applicable training tasks. It is apparent that

whatever training cannot be accomplished on the simulator must be

accomplished on the actual piece of equipment.

Other limitations that are associated with simulation will be directed in the

area of flight simulation. With flight simulation, you are visually stimulated via the

external world as viewed through the cockpit windscreen. The stimuli that you

receive is generated and viewed on some form of screen(s). This stimuli if not

properly synchronized and controlled can induce what is known as “simulator

sickness”. Simulator sickness can have a debilitating effect on the aviator and

greatly impair their capabilities to continue with the training scenario. If the

problem persists, the aviator may even become incapacitated (Frank, L. H.,

Kennedy, R.S., Kellogg, R.S., & McCauley, M.E., 1983)

However, even with these known limitations, the use of simulation is just

one form of training that is both cost effective, readily available, and can be used

vii
for completing whatever mission(s) the military may have, based on available

resources.

viii
 CHAPTER II

SIMULATION TRAINING USEFULNESS AND COST

Live Simulation

Simulated combat experience will have a direct impact on whether the

soldier or aviator will survive a real combat engagement with the enemy. This is

where live simulation comes into play. Historical data has proven many times that

if combat training is provided on the level that a member of the military might

experience then that individual has a good chance of survival.

One form of live simulation comes in the form of fighter weapons school

that both Navy and the Air Force employ. For the United States Air Force this

type of live simulation training takes place over the Nevada desert using actual

aircraft in simulated battle with an aggressor squadron flying aircraft similar to

that of the enemy and trained in the same tactics that are used by the enemy.

This type of training is monitored by personnel and computer systems on the

ground. Feedback is provided at mission completion so that changes in tactics

and training can take place. This form of training is so real that for that short time

you actually think you are engaging in battle with the enemy. The purpose of this

training is to hone the skills of these fighter pilots so that when they are engaged

in battle with the real enemy, their chances for survival are greatly improved. This

form of training has been used since the Vietnam Conflict; many surviving pilots

had attributed their survival to the training received in either “Top Gun” or “Red

Flag” (Gorman, 1990).

ix
 Today, all military services make use of all forms of live simulation to train

and sharpen the warrior skills. The leaders of each branch of our military know

the value of live simulation and the impact it has on the success of our military

forces in combat (Gorman, 1990).

Stand Alone—Single System Simulation

No one actually knows the exact number of simulators that each branch of

the military may have, however, you can easily estimate that number to be in the

thousands (based on the number of aircraft, ships and tanks) that are currently

employed. This number does not even take into account the number of Part-

Task-Trainers, Fixed-Based simulators, and other training devices that the

military owns and operates. Based on information gleaned from the Department

of Defense budget for FY2007, the military as a whole is projected to spend well

over $20 billion on all forms of simulation. This was an increase of over 10%

based on FY2006 budget (DoD Budget, 2006).

All branches of the military use some form of stand-alone single system

simulator. The Air Force and Navy are one of the world’s largest procurers of

aviation simulators, these simulators are used as an aid in training aviators to

safely operate the aircraft that they are responsible for. The Army uses stand-

alone systems to train gunners, tank crews, and helicopter crews in the safe

operation of each system. Based on numerous studies regarding the use of

simulators to train aviators, simulation is primarily used in initial and

familiarization training. However, these systems are not used to train aviators to

fly the aircraft.

x
 Based on several DoD studies, the use of simulators in aviation

contributes to the safe operation of the aircraft. Simulators are great tools to be

used and contribute on a daily basis to the outstanding safety record of each

branch of service (DMSO, 1995).

Virtual Simulation

One of the newest forms of simulation to enter the military is virtual

simulation. This is one of the leading forms of technology that the military has

taken hold of. The armed forces are in the process of using this new technology

to train the soldiers and aviators of the future to fight and win on the battlefield.

Earlier in this document, it was stated that the Army uses tank simulators

to train tank crews to correctly and safely operate the multi-million dollar

Abrahams Main Battlefield tank. (DMSO, 1995)

With the introduction of virtual simulation soldiers and tank crews located

at different bases can now through computer networking, orchestrate and

participate in simulated battles that only a decade ago would not have been

possible due to the cost prohibitive nature of transporting the personnel and other

resources. This form of training is now possible and enables all associated

personnel to hone their war-fighting skills through their participation in these

simulated exercises. When the Army had live exercises there were always

accidents, and, unfortunately, some personnel were injured, or worse yet, killed

in a training accident. It is not to say that the Army has done away with live fire

training exercises, but that when the Army does have these exercises, all

xi
participants have already ran through all possible scenarios through the use of

virtual simulation.

Today, with more powerful computers available, it is now possible to have

all the services link up and participate in battlefield simulations that were only a

dream a decade ago. The use of virtual simulations allows the military to train as

they fight and fight as they train. Virtual simulation allows the military to save tax

dollars and at the same time ensure that each member of a fighting unit is

properly trained. In addition, when a large exercise like REFORGER is executed

all personnel know what they are supposed to do, because they have already

received training prior to their deployment.

xii
 CHAPTER III

MILITARY SIMULATION PROGRAMS AND PLANS

Over the last several decades, the United States military has invested its

resources in simulation and simulator devices to better train its military forces.

The types of trainers and simulation devices range from the Antoinette trainer

used in World War I, to the Link training device used to train pilots in World War II

(Scans, 1979), to various other devices leading up to the full motion simulator

with 6 DOF.

United States Army

Today the military uses all forms and types of simulation devices to better

train its military forces. In the late 1970s and early 1980s the Army developed the

“MILES gear” to be used as a force on force training device to better train and

hone the soldier’s war fighting skills. This device has reached its life cycle and is

now in the process of being replaced by new state of the art technology. The

Army calls this new program “MILES XXI”. This new contract yet to be awarded

will be worth approximately $140 million. The MILES XXI equipment will be

available for and used on both mounted and dismounted soldiers and motorized

equipment. Based on preliminary information the Army stated that the new

system will improve weapon fidelity, reduce the logistics burden and provide

essential after action reviews. (www.global-defence.com/2001/TSpart2.html)

The Army also stated that the reason for the replacement of the current

MILES gear is that “it has reached its economic lifecycle and needs to be

replaced with modern and up-to-date equipment that included features not

xiii
available on the current basic MILES system,” (www.global-

defence.com/2001/TSpart2.html).

Based on the FY2006/2007 budget the Army is projected to spend

approximately $32 billion on Operations & Maintenance, a percentage of these

funds will be used in the areas of training and readiness

(www.asafm.army.mil/budget/fybm/FY07/greentop.pdf).

United States Air Force

The United States Air Force, over the past 50 years, has invested

hundreds of billions of dollars in training and various forms of simulators and

simulation devices to ensure that the pilots and crewmembers who fly the various

types of aircraft are the best trained.

L3Communications, Link Simulation & Training is the subcontractor

responsible for developing and building the F/A-22 training devices for the USAF

(www.airforce-technology.com/contractors/training/link/ ). Based on available

information, the complete F/A-22 training package will be valued at over $720

million: “$220 million for 10 prototype trainers and courseware, and $500 million

for 96 production trainers. Boeing is a one-third partner in the F/A-22 aircraft

program, but has 100 percent of the trainer work. Lockheed Martin is the prime

contractor for the aircraft,”

(www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2003/Nov/Planned_upgrades.htm).

Based on the FY2006/2007 budget estimates, the Department of Air Force

is projected to spend well over $17.7 billion on training its aircrew and the

xiv
procurement of the necessary training materials and devices

(www.saffm.hq.af.mil/FMB/pb/2006/afoandm/AF_FY06_PB_OM_Vol%201.pdf).

United States Navy

Based on FY2006 with an operating budget of well over $105

Billion, the Navy is projected to spend just slightly over $3 billion on training

programs

(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/budget/fy2006/navy/OMN_FY06PB.

pdf).
One example of how the Navy is improving its training is in the area of

upgrading its Landing Signal Officer Training device. The Navy has recently

awarded a $3 million contract to Aero Simulation, Inc. “The multi-year effort

requires the upgrade, refurbishment and relocation of the Navy’s only major

training system in this critical technical field. ASI’s upgrades will include

development of the VISUAL LSO Workstation and a new Instructor Operator

Station, as well as replacement of the Image Generator and related database

environment and models. ASI will also perform a technical study of the visual

display system, investigating potential performance improvements. In parallel

with these upgrades, ASI will also correct a number of existing deficiencies within

the training system,” (www.aerosimulation.com/).

xv
 CHAPTER IV

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on research and available case studies the Department of Defense

and all branches of the military have invested trillions of taxpayer’s dollars on the

defense of the homeland. It is also readily apparent that all branches of the

military understand how important it is to have a properly trained fighting force

that is capable of meeting any mission that they are confronted with. That is why

each year billions of dollars are invested in the training of our military. The

training dollars invested range from basic military studies to investing hundreds

of millions of dollars on flight simulators that are used to train aviators who

operate multi-million dollar aircraft.

The military is attempting to find smarter and better ways to spend the

limited training dollars that are budgeted each year. The 21st century technology

revolution has led the DoD and the military to invest heavily in virtual simulations

and simulators. Based on past reports, the Army, Navy, Marine Corp and Air

Force would spend hundreds of millions of dollars on large joint exercises.

Unfortunately, with reduced operating budgets, the military is now turning to new

technology to help stretch the O&M dollars. That is were simulators and virtual

simulation comes into play. For years, the military has been using various types

of simulators and training devices to train its aircrew members to fly and operate

multi-million dollar aircraft. Now, they are turning to virtual simulation. In one

example, the Army is using virtual simulation to train soldiers to fight in urban

areas.

xvi
 The use of simulators and virtual simulation is just one way the military is

ensuring that they get the most bang for the training buck.

xvii
 REFERENCES

Adams, C. LtCol. (1995). Defense Modeling and Simulation (M&S) Office.

Modeling and simulation master plan. Alexandria, VA. Unpublished

manuscript.

Department of the Air Force (2005). Air Force O&M Budget Estimates for

FY2006/2007. Retrieved on Sep 30, 2006, from

https://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/FMB/pb/2007/afoandm_3400/AF3400_FY07_

PB_OM_Vol%201.pdf

Department of the Air Force (1993). FY 1993 Budget. KC-135 operating costs.

Washington, D.C.

Department of the Army (1993). Simulations and their relationship to

OPTEMPO/training ammunition. Washington, D.C.

Department of Defense (2006). FY2007 Military O&M Budget. Washington, D.C.

Department of the Defense (1994). Military manpower training report, FY 1995.

Washington, D.C: Office of the Comptroller of the Department of Defense.

Frank, L.H., Kennedy, R.S., Kellogg, R.S., & McCauley, M.E. (1983). Simulator

sickness: Reaction to a transformed perceptual world. Orlando, FL: Naval

Training Equipment Training Center.

Gann, T. Col. (1995) Department of the Air Force. Response to air force

simulation questions. Washington, D.C. Unpublished manuscript

Gorman, P.F. (1990). The military value of training. IDA Paper P-2515.

Alexandria, VA: Institute for Defense Analysis.

Hudson, C., Davis, C., & Loomis, K. (2003). Manual of the American

xviii
 Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, D.C.: American

Psychological Association.

L3 Communications (n.d.). Link simulation and training—Military simulators and

training systems. Retrieved Sept 30, 2006, from http://www.airforce-

technology.com/contractors/training/link/

Miles Ahead in Weapons Systems. (n.d.) Retrieved Sept 30, 2006 from

http://www.global-defence.com/2001/TSpart2.html

National Defense Magazine (2003, Nov). F/A-22 Pilots Begin Training at Tyndall

AFB Planned upgrades: air-to-ground capabilities, connectivity with other

trainers. Retrieved Sep 30, 2006, from

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2003/Nov/Planned_upgra

des.htm

US ARMY NEWS RELEASE. ARMY BUDGEY FY2007 (2006, Feb 6). Retrieved

Sep 30, 2006, from

http://www.asafm.army.mil/budget/fybm/FY07/greentop.pdf

Wilson, D.R. (2006). 20-years military experience as KC-135 flight crewmember

and training instructor

xix