|
July 2000 - Enhancing Readiness Through Simulation
By: Major General Anthony Jones The Army's training doctrine as outlined in FM 25-100, "Training the Force," and FM 25-101, "Battle Focused Training," challenges leaders at all levels to understand, attain, sustain and enforce high standards of combat readiness through tough, realistic, multi-echelon combined-arms training designed to challenge and develop individuals, leaders and units. Although this training doctrine is basically sound, the realities of the training challenges in the environment of the 21st century are such that it is impossible to train a modernized aviation battalion to warfighting standards without the proper mix of training aides, devices, simulators and simulations (TADSS). Advanced weapon systems, an expanding multi-dimensional battle space, dramatically increased operational tempo (OPTEMPO) and increasingly ambiguous and complex missions, combined with less time to prepare, cost constraints and environmental restrictions, require leaders to take advantage of new and innovative high-technology training techniques. Training with simulations and simulators is not a new concept for aviation soldiers, who have been at the forefront of the Army's use of simulators and part-task trainers for individual and crew training. For the past several years the Aviation Branch has extended its use of TADSS to support the preparation of aviation units for deployment to the Balkans. Directed by the Army's previous vice chief of staff, aviation units have participated in structured Aviation Training Exercises (ATXs) at Fort Rucker, Ala., to prepare them for certification for deployment to Bosnia and Kosovo. The ATXs focus on individual, crew and collective training in the Military Decision-Making Process (MDMP), staff synchronization and mission planning by maximizing use of the live, virtual and constructive environments within the Aviation Test Bed, the Army aviation Warfighting Simulation Center and the Collective Aviation Virtual Trainer (CAVT). Feedback from soldiers who have deployed to these locations is that the training, such as was done during the recent brigade-level ATX conducted for the Aviation Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division, in preparation for its deployment to Bosnia, was some of the best battle-focused, highly realistic and challenging training they had ever experienced. From a resource perspective, 693 flight hours and 20 Hellfire missiles, 300 rounds of 30mm and 34 Maverick missiles were expended for a total cost avoidance of more than $9.5 million. This could only have been accomplished via simulations. Realizing that the establishment of battle-focused, disciplined and realistic training, supported by the use of high-technology training techniques and mediums (including high-fidelity simulations and simulators) will be critical to unlocking the full potential of Army aviation on the future battlefield. It is imperative that we all work together with an understanding of our aviation battle-focused training strategy. The Aviation Modernization Strategy, briefed to and approved by the Army's senior leaders during the recent Aviation Functional Area Assessment (FAA), include the following major concepts: - The aviation training strategy must be synchronized with the Army Training XXI campaign plan. - The strategy will be a task-based, combined-arms training strategy focused on: - Resourcing proficiency vs. currency at individual, crew and collective levels; - Aviation junior-leader development; - Eliminating FAC 3 at MTOE brigade and below; - Integrating aircrew coordination training into the aircrew-training program; - Optimizing the mix of live, virtual and constructive training; - Resourcing for trained companies; - Insertion of high-technology training techniques and training mediums; - Maximizing individual, crew and collective simulations to allow units to enter live training at higher levels. The analytical foundations of this training strategy are combined arms training strategies (CATS). CATS are the Army's overarching training strategies, outlining how the Army will train the total force to standard. They are task-based, and include current and future unit, institution and self-developmental training. In addition, they identify, quantify and justify resources. Aviation CATS have been completed for the modernized battalions; they are linked to the Army's Battalion Level Training Model for resourcing; and they are linked to readiness via a new Aviation Commanders Guide and AR 220-1. In addition, aircrew training manuals and mission training plans have been completed to compliment the CATS, and are currently undergoing worldwide staffing. An important aspect of the Aviation CATS was the detailed crosswalk of individual and crew tasks with available simulators, and collective tasks with the future Aviation Combined Arms Tactical Trainer -Aviation Reconfigurable Manned Simulator (AVCATT-A). These crosswalks highlighted the advantages of the use of simulators from a cost perspective, and laid the analytical foundation for decisions to dramatically increase the Army's flying hour program beginning in fiscal year 2000 and funding for the AVCATT. Returning to my precept that it is impossible to train a modernized aviation battalion to warfighting standards without the proper mix of TADSS, let me outline a few priorities for the current and future development of aviation TADSS. The training and combat development communities must work with the acquisition community early on to insure that TADSS are focused on tasks as outlined in the Aviation CATS, with an eye on providing the necessary fidelity to train these tasks to the standards and conditions as described in aviation aircrew training manuals and mission training plans. A special consideration is needed for training at the schoolhouses, at the CTCs and during deployments. Tasks capable of being trained must include the aircraft's mission-equipment package, gunnery, night operations, emergency procedures, aircraft survivability, instruments and digital tasks, all while operating in multi-echelon, joint and combined-arms operations. Resources are limited, good ideas are everywhere, and the opportunities for misdirection abound. To insure that training is being developed concurrently with force-modernization initiatives, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC)and the Army outline responsibilities for the acquisition of TADSS. AR 350-1, "Army Training and Education," and the Warrior Modernization XXI concept of the Army Training XXI Campaign Plan define the responsibilities of this Army Modernization Training (AMT) process. The basic premise is that TRADOC determines all warfighting requirements; the system PM/manager is responsible for research, development and acquisition; and AMC NET managers support/execute AMT responsibilities as agreed upon. The challenge for us is to insure that we continue to foster the traditional trust and professional relationships that have existed among aviation training and combat developers and the Program Executive Aviation (PEO), U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM) and U.S. Army Simulation, Training and Instrumentation Command (STRICOM) acquisition communities. Where do we stand today? The rapid modernization of our aircraft fleet, declining budget allocations and the swift pace in technological advances have caused a divergence in simulator and aircraft capabilities. Concurrency between simulators and the aircraft they replicate is essential to ensure we provide the tools necessary to establish and maintain the best situational-training experience possible. The branch strategic plan for simulators will retire those no longer needed and field the fixes required to maintain realistic training capability. We are leading the charge to capture the funding necessary to bring simulators back to the standard required. Solutions are addressed in our Aviation Modernization Strategy and upcoming budget submissions. As we look into our future and at the Army's transformation, we must consider how we will support full-spectrum operations. The development of new simulation and simulator technology will provide the essential tools we need to train our battle staffs, crews and units. The introduction of the AVCATT-A will allow companies to conduct high-fidelity, full-spectrum aviation operations to a level not attainable in the live or constructive realms. AVCATT-A allows crews to integrate not only their crew skills, but the entire company's collective assets. The battalion commander will have near-perfect vision of training and can tailor his teaching, coaching and mentoring according to each of his subordinate commander's strengths and weaknesses. For a fraction of the cost of live training, AVCATT-A will provide realistic collective training that can be repeated until the standard is met. Our vision for the future is an environment in which collective and crew training can be blended, via a common system, to facilitate aviation staff training and integrated training with ground forces via the AVCATT-A. Increased portability of current and projected constructive simulations has created a new training and operations support asset that allows commanders to rehearse their missions and review their course of action analysis. During deployment, this asset allows the battalion to conduct training while most of its other equipment is in transit. "Digital terrain walks" can be conducted and crews can see the terrain over which they will operate. Recently, aviation units of the 10th Mountain Division performed digital rock drills and mission-rehearsal exercises during their train-up at Fort Rucker prior to their deploymemnt to Bosnia. The portable MPRT showed potential as a mission tracking and rehearsal tool for aviation training. The U.S. Army Aviation Center is working closely with TRADOC and the Command and General Staff College to define additonal user functionality for future systems. By linking contructive and other virtual simulations -such as WARSIM, CATT or OneSAF - to the AVCATT-A, battlestaffs can train within simulated large-scale operations in real time. If a unit is equipped with Army Tactical Command and Control Systems (ATCCS), linked simulations can drive battalion-level missions that support digital system staff planning and execution. The 4th Aviation Brigade of the 4th Infantry Div. has used MPRT linked to ATCSS to drive brigade staff exercises. These missions can be rehearsed and reviewed until the commander is satisfied with the overall training level. With appropriate home-station instrumentation (HSI), "live crews" and "virtual crews" can conduct collective operations together when maintenance posture doesn't allow all crews to fly "live." For you commanders in the field, today's simulation environment can be viewed as a half-empty glass or a half-full glass. Our challenge is to continually view it as the latter. Granted the simulators have not been fully upgraded with the modifications in the fielded helicopters, some units have access to simulators that other units do not, and some aspects of flight in the simulator do not fully replicate the actual aircraft. However, imagine the training challenges without our current set of simulators. Commanders who have fully embraced simulation are reporting a large return on investment for their efforts. The keys are analyzing each task that supports the unit's METL, determining which tasks can be trained to standard in the simulator for that unit and then using the simulators to maximum advantage. This approach spares pilots from having to learn sometimes costly lessons the hard way - in actual flight. They have the opportunity to train to standard in the simulator and then refine those skills in the aircraft. Approximately 85 percent of the emergency procedures for modernized aircraft can be practiced only in the simulator. Simulators thus offer our aircrews the only opportunity to practice before facing a real emergency. Additionally, the simulator offers the possibility of emergencies that result from hostile fire. Hostile fire adds to the realism of the training environment and creates a situation that really tests an aviator - multiple emergencies. In many units check rides are given in the simulator only or in two phases: one in the simulator and the final phase in the aircraft. Most of you know that DES currently gives two-thirds to one half of its check rides in the simulator if a simulator is available. Reports indicate that all units use simulators to some degree, but very few have a well defined simulator training program, complete with command supervision and challenging METL-based scenarios. More often, crews fulfill their required simulator hours by executing "individual training." In these units aviators are assigned simulation periods and must develop their own training objectives. Although scenarios may be available, they are not used or, if they are used, no one except the simulator operator is available to provide an after-action review. The challenge for the commanders in the field to maximize simulators is to establish a rigorous program that ensures each crew is accomplishing training goals established by the unit, not just the crew. The current simulator is a great place for the company commander and platoon leader to observe each of their crews. It is also a place for senior instructor pilots to observe less-experienced instructor pilots as they execute their duties. It is a place for safety officers to view crews in action. It is a place for maintenance officers to work through the flying aspects of a maintenance test flight. It is a place for newly arrived crews to see how to do it right as they observe more seasoned crews work through training scenarios. And, it is also a great vehicle to reinforce skills and sustain proficiency between actual flights and exercises. Here's my guidance to commanders as they work to establish rigor and unit perspective in the simulator program: Deploy to the simulator with a scenario, and fill every available seat. On this "deployment" every crewmember should have a duty to fulfill and an area to observe or to control. The end result is a deployment to the simulator where the leaders and senior instructor pilots observe every crew in a platoon and/or company as they work to accomplish the individual tasks associated with scenarios that are clearly tied to the unit METL/collective tasks. What better way is there for commanders and senior trainers to personally observe each crew as they accomplish a standardized mission? A second method is to use a simulator period that is designed to grade proficiency in emergency procedures. With most critical emergency procedures confined to simulators (dual engine failure, multiple engine emergencies, tail rotor malfunctions, etc.) we cannot afford to wait until our next actual emergency situation to learn that our crews were not as ready as they should have been. There are currently six seats in the CMS and four seats in the UH-60, UH-1 and CH-47 simulators. How many are your units filling for each ride? How well are you using simulators in your training program? Who supervises your pilots in the simulator? Can each of your pilots execute all emergency procedures to standard? Is your program doing what you want it to do? Is it focused on the combat readiness of your unit? What better place to find out than the simulator? The challenge is there, but we need the commanders in the field to put their arms around the challenges and develop better ways to maximize the training benefits of simulation. I am suggesting that structured, task-based training be planned for and executed to standard in all simulator flights, just as it is for all live flights. Although the AVCATT-A for units is still on the horizon, an AVCATT-A prototype exists at Fort Rucker today. A great success for Army aviation forces has been the Aviation Training Exercise (ATX), which is conducted for every aviation unit before it deploys to Bosnia or Kosovo. This exercise combines the use of simulations for the headquarters units and the use of simulators for the flight units. The end result is an exercise that brings the positive aspects of simulations and simulators together. AVCATT promises to bridge the gap between flight simulators and simulations like JANUS and BBS. It is not designed to replace simulators, nor could it, as such an approach becomes rapidly unaffordable. However, it does a great job of determining whether the unit plans and orders can be executed. For example, we see that three deep attacks by one unit in a single night are not possible, whereas in current simulations, it can be accomplished. I would suggest that commanders become familiar with the collective simulation training that has been conducted at Fort Rucker and at Fort Hood, Texas. The procedures used have utility for training your subordinate commanders, staffs and crews. Ask for the training support packages that have been built to support these exercises. They are available for your use. If possible, take advantage of the facilities at Fort Rucker should the opportunity provide itself. Most importantly, provide feedback on how we can make things better for you in the future. Army aviation will play an active and vital role in the security needs of the United States and will continue to play a major role in all combined-arms events ranging from war to stability and support. Our units will be modular and deployable and they will provide joint-force commanders with a lethal and flexible force to rapidly deploy from the continental United States, or abroad, to any theater. The only way we can provide force commanders this capability is by conducting tough, realistic training to standard. The best way to train to high standards is to identify and implement a holistic training framework that fully integrates live, virtual and constructive training environments. By doing so, we will build the situational experience our aviators and soldiers need to meet the challenges of the future. Maj. Gen. Anthony R. Jones is commanding general of the U.S. Army Aviation Center at Fort Rucker, Ala., and chief of the aviation branch.
|
