The magazine's staff is working hard to improve our de facto professional journal and bring you the best information from multiple sources. I encourage you to provide to the editors your comments on what you read. They need your feedback to help serve our association and make our journal better.

 By MG John M. Curran

The Army's Flight School XXI (FSXXI) program is a popular subject that's been addressed in articles in this publication and others over the past few years. Previous articles have focused on the integration of the Officer and Warrant Officer Education Systems combined with flight training to comprise a total aviator training strategy. A significant key component, and critical to the success of the FSXXI strategy, is its reliance on advanced simulation for both flight training and use in our professional military-education programs.

            Until recently, the formidable task of matching the capabilities of virtual training to that of our live training was a daunting challenge. The Combat Aviation Simulators, and soon the Aviation Combined Arms Tactical Trainers, known as CAVSIM and AVCATT, respectively, will fill the voids for collective training.  However, our current suite of individual and crew flight trainers lag behind in technology advancements and uniformity with the fielded fleet. 

Also, our OH-58D Kiowa Warrior and the TH-67 Creek have no virtual training devices, and the Creek relies on an older, modified UH-1 simulator for use in initial instrument training.  Realizing these shortfalls and understanding that the key to a successful FSXXI program is a modern, robust and current suite of simulators and simulation support, our Directorate of Training, Doctrine and Simulation has set out to remedy this situation.

            Several factors prevented flight simulators from keeping pace with our live training capabilities. Among those factors are long lead times in securing funding for simulator concurrency and developing new simulators to capitalize on gains in technology.  In addition, procuring systems that met the needs of the training base have plagued our ability to use simulation for much more than aircraft systems familiarization, run-up and shut-down procedures, switchology and functions, and emergency-procedure training. The result has been a lack of adequate devices and fidelity to train the multitude of tasks associated with today's advanced aircraft and complex mission operating environments.

 Forming Partnerships

            To address these shortfalls in our simulation training strategy, we developed a partnership with the Program Executive Office for Simulations, Training and Instrumentation (PEO-STRI) to explore opportunities and make recommendations on a course of action to meet our simulation requirements. The guidance PEO-STRI operated under was a strict timeline, no interruption to current student flow, low government-personnel overhead, modernization of the suite of simulators supporting flight training and integration of simulators for professional military education at the U.S. Army Aviation Center (USAAVNC).

            A requirements determination analysis was completed, and other materiel and nonmateriel alternatives were judged to be inadequate to satisfy our urgent need. Following traditional procurement practices proved to be too time consuming and required significant up-front financial investment from the Army and USAAVNC. Additionally, the expense of continuous upgrades to maintain concurrency has proven to be exceedingly difficult and expensive for our platform product managers.  An alternative to the current system for maintaining concurrency between the aircraft and simulators had to be found. 

            A long-term services contract was the resultant recommendation. In short, industry provides the up-front investment, owns the simulation devices and has the responsibility to maintain concurrency with each aircraft. Although the service will include materiel, the requirement from USAAVNC perspective represents a nonmateriel training solution. The recommendation was to acquire a service, not a specific materiel-oriented solution as has been used in the past. This gives us a turn-key style approach to the simulators and services, with USAAVNC maintaining the instructor-pilot duties and oversight to ensure the quality of the training and services.

Partnership Results

            The product of this USAAVNC-PEO-STRI partnership is a task-based Operational Requirements Document (later changed to a Simulation Services Requirements Document, or SSRD). 

            The SSRD requires industry to provide the number, type and fidelity of simulation devices to meet the training requirements as outlined in existing programs of instruction, aircrew-training programs, mission-training plans and other documents that outline the tasks, conditions and standards in each course of instruction.  Any proposed solution had to accommodate student throughput matching the Department of the Army-directed quantities for each course of instruction without interrupting the training for students in the current system.

            The recommended FSXXI simulation-services concept is also in compliance with deputy secretary of defense guidance to "create an acquisition policy environment that fosters efficiency, flexibility, creativity and innovation" and "rapidly delivers affordable, sustainable capability to the warfighter that meets the warfighter's needs."

            On May 20, 2003, the deputy assistant secretary for acquisitions, plans and programs approved an acquisition strategy for a simulations-services contract that will significantly alter the virtual training capabilities at USAAVNC. This event marked a sweeping change in how training devices and services are contracted within the Department of Defense. The Fort Rucker-PEO-STRI team has developed a multiple-year service contract for simulation training that spans nearly 20 years. The simulation-services contract provides flight simulators for all airframes and a training support capability to schedule, manage, operate, maintain and upgrade the FSXXI virtual simulators.  This contract addresses all of our existing shortfalls in virtual training to complete the FSXXI model.

 Requirements Defined

            The FSXXI simulation service requirement consists of three parts: the TH-67 virtual simulators (VS), the advanced aircraft virtual simulators (AAVS) and the training-support capability. 

            The TH-67 VS are required to support the Phase I primary core and advanced instrument training, and the Instrument Examiner's Course. The exact number of the TH-67 VSs will vary based on the student throughput training requirements, as determined by the contractor's analysis of student numbers versus their simulation type. The number of simulators required could vary significantly, based on the fidelity mix of the contractors' material solution.

            The AAVS is required to support instruction in the Phase II advanced tracks and graduate-level flight training, in professional military education courses and aviation training exercises, and in active and reserve-component sustainment training. The first AAVS will include aircraft configurations for the AH-64D, UH-60A/L, CH-47D and OH-58D.  Concurrency upgrades for these aircraft configurations will include upgrades from the CH-47D to the CH-47F/G, and from the UH-60A/L to the UH-60M. Later AAVS may include configurations for other aircraft, including the RAH-66. The number of AAVS will be as required to meet the training throughput for all the courses mentioned above.

            A training-support capability is required to schedule, manage, operate, maintain and upgrade the FSXXI virtual flight simulators, and to integrate and optimize the training, concept exploration and experimentation activities for the USAAVNC simulation facilities. As augmentation to USAAVNC proponent agencies, the FSXXI contractor can be tasked to assist in developing tactics, techniques and procedures; training products such as training support packages; combined arms training strategies; mission training plans; aircrew training manuals and training scenario generation tools.

Flexible and Adaptable Contracting

            The FSXXI simulation services contract is a multiple year contract consisting of a six-month base period and 19 one-year option periods. A contract award term provision will be used to extend or reduce the contract period.  The contractor's performance will be evaluated annually, and the contractor can earn years for satisfactory or better performance, or lose years for marginal or unsatisfactory performance.

            The FSXXI simulation capability provides better individual, crew and collective-task training, and enhances the gunnery and combat skills training. This will result in a higher level of knowledge and proficiency in the areas of aircraft and weapon system employment; doctrine; TTP; mission planning; execution; communications; command and control; situation awareness; "fratricide" prevention; risk management; and survivability.  This enhances combat readiness for aviators, leaders and units. 

            The FSXXI simulation capability supports implementation of FSXXI, which produces aviator readiness level two and night-vision-device-qualified pilots. It increases each student's flight time in their go-to-war aircraft by an average of 78 percent over the current legacy flight school program. Moreover, it increases each student's flight time in simulators by an average of 95 percent over the current flight school program. 

            The final result is sending better qualified and more proficient aviators to the field, allowing units to focus on unit collective and crew training in support of their mission essential task list and combined arms training strategy.

  "Above the Best!"

 MG John M. Curran is the commander of the U.S. Army Aviation Center and chief of the aviation branch.