Multi-National Training & Network Links Highlighted at Cologne ITEC

The 25th International Training Equipment Conference (ITEC) and exhibition was held between 20-22 May 2014 at the Kölnmesse conference centre on the banks of the river Rhine, organised by London-based Clarion Events and the U.S. National Training Systems Association (NTSA).  Attendance was about 3,200, slightly more than last year in Rome, with people from 53 nations varying from Bangladesh and Bulgaria to Ukraine and Vietnam.  The increase in attendance was quite an achievement because the Berlin Air Show was in the same week.  An air show would not normally clash too much with a training conference, but at the Berlin venue there was also a training conference, and several key people went to Berlin rather than Cologne.

Keynote addresses – Multi-National is our strength – Network links in Training Exercises are the Future

The keynote ITEC speaker was Vice Admiral Heinrich Lange, Director of Forces Policy for the German Ministry of Defence, responsible for combat readiness of all three Services.  The ultimate object of training, he said, was to exercise in a full-mission environment.  He said that we need more multi-service and multi-national exercises and his keyword is "jointness".  We must overcome barriers in getting different nations together and co-ordinating all of the players.  "Multi-national is our strength and not our weakness", he said.  However, the same exercises should not be repeated unnecessarily, because we can be "over-exercised but under-trained".  He pointed out that in Afghanistan, interoperability has been the key, showing that we need to allow for different languages and cultures, both of the forces that are being trained and the people of the regions in which they are deployed.  He mentioned the Framework Nation Concept (FNC) where nations that had a comprehensive training framework were in a position to provide facilities to others.  He pointed out that simulation allows training goals to be achieved faster and without environmental impact.  This includes networking, and both military and civil players should be integrated, also senior management.  We should learn, he said, from recent crises in the Crimea and Ukraine, and consider how best to react and train for such events in the future.  We need to develop a "contingency posture" that allows for future situations including counter-insurgency.  The current climate of defence cuts favours training by simulation, which is much less costly than constantly using front-line equipment in a training mode.  In conclusion, he said that success depends on preparation, and an important part is the use of all types of simulation from simple to complex.
Following this address, a Senior Officer panel was chaired by Rear Admiral Simon Williams, RN (Retd), Clarion Events and Security Director.  MGen Richard Longo, Commander of the US Army in NATO, talked about the recent 8-nation exercise "Combined Resolve" held in Bulgaria.  Instead of transporting forces fto Bulgaria, US Army range and simulation facilities at Grafenwohr and Hohenfels were used, results being transmitted to ExCon in Bulgaria and used in an exercise scenario that combined live and virtual.  A Romanian unit of 700 personnel exercised at home, the interaction with ExCom being through network links.  This was said to have "saved a ton of money" compared to deploying to Bulgaria.  On the "political" side of the exercise, the role of an ambassador was played by the real US ambassador to Bulgaria. We should do more exercises like this, he said.  Another recent exercise was in response to the annexation of the Crimea by Russia and the increased threat to ex-Warsaw Pact nations.  This involved Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and the USA, and was set up in only 5 days.  This short timescale was possible because previous relationships had allowed the necessary links to created quickly.  He noted that some of these were small nations, but, he said, "small nations often have niche knowledge" that is useful to larger organisations such as larger nations of NATO itself.

Brigadier General Dzintars Roga, Chief of Staff for Training of the Latvian Armed Forces, mentioned the NATO Collective Force Initiative (CFI) that had been adopted at a recent NATO summit in Chicago.  This is for "smart defence" and as well as the military, includes civil organisations such as police, fire service, medical, and non-government organisations (NGOs).  We also need, he said, to consider cyber and energy security as well as conventional training of military forces.

Frank Thieser, Director of Business Development at Reiser Systemtechnik, said that interoperability needed standardisation, and both were important for modern training.  The modern training environment used networked devices, and more were needed.  "Which entity is responsible for ensuring standardisation and interoperability", he asked.  One answer is through the NATO Interoperability Group.  Some NATO Standardisation Agreements (STANAGs) are about simulation, for instance STANAG 4605 on simulator High Level Architecture (HLA).  Also, the NATO Interoperability Group works with world bodies such as the international Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization (SISO) (which had a seminar at the conference, see later).  Thieser referred to simulation and training developments in the civil world, and suggested that many could be applied to the military field.  He also said that "agility and readiness" were required to combat future threats, and a proper use of modern simulation technology was essential to achieve this.

RAdm Williams mentioned training at high and low levels of complexity, and posed the question "should we train to the lowest common denominator or strive for the highest levels?" In response, MGen Longo said that "we should train for complexity", because "if we can do complex we can do less complex".  There is also the cost factor, and simple training such as for basic checks and operating modes should not be carried out on an expensive full mission device.  The level of training complexity should reflect the relevant stage in the "training progression".  For complex military equipment this starts with simple laptop devices and proceeds through part-task trainers to Full Mission Simulators, each training aid being optimised for the particular stage of the training.

The limitations of live military ranges were discussed, including their limited geographical area and the inability to launch real long-range weapons due to cost and safety considerations.  These limitations do not apply to simulation, in which unlimited geographical areas can be used and synthetic weapons can not only be fired but their effects shown realistically.  Failure cases can be modelled including weapon hang-ups and misfires.

Military Procurement – how to speed up?

The final discussion was on military procurement and VAd Lange said that "we are way too slow".  However it is difficult to find a solution short of a complete re-structuring of the system, which would be very tricky while maintaining readiness against threats.  One difficulty, as Mr Thieser said, is "which agency is responsible?" In the 1980s in the UK we had the same difficulty, our Operational Requirements (ORs) were taking far too long from initial writing to equipment in service.  To speed this up, during the 1982 conflict between the UK and Argentina over the Falkland Islands (Malvinas to the Argentinians), the UK set up a process of what were called "Corporate Clearances" for rapid procurement or modification of weapons and other equipment needed for the conflict (the name came from the UK name for the Falklands operation, Operation Corporate).  I was a Squadron Commander at the UK aircraft test establishment at Boscombe Down and flew "Corporate" flight trials ranging from weapon firing to new modes of in-flight refuelling.  Examples included equipping and clearing several aircraft new to flight-refuelling, and clearing UK Harriers to fire the L model of the Sidewinder missile after a very limited number of live firings.  On the latter, we only tested for (1) that the missile launched with no damage to the Harrier, and (2) it would guide towards its target.  It was not considered necessary to carry out the usual extra firings to obtain the probabilities of damage and kill on a variety of targets at different firing geometries.  Afterwards, when in the Operational Requirements branch of our Ministry of Defence, I wrote a paper on how better to carry out such rapid Clearances of new equipment.  I was therefore asked to write a protocol for what we now call an "Urgent Operational Requirement" (UOR), to be used for future rapid procurements, and this is still in use today.

Returning to the question posed at ITEC, what is required is for something like the UOR system to be used also for procurement of simulators and other training aids as well as for bombs, missiles, electronic warfare and flight refuelling.  Rapid procurement can also be achieved by buying "off the shelf" rather than specifying bespoke equipment.  For instance, the civil "Level D" design of Full Flight Simulator.  This is a worldwide standard that all airlines use, with over 1000 in service and numbers increasing.  Fundamentally all you need to specify to the manufacturer is that he will deliver a Level D design that is tested and certified as such by the appropriate aviation Regulatory Authority.  In the simulation area there is so much good off-the-shelf hardware and software, that it is difficult to justify creating "special specifications".  One rather gross example was revealed at a previous ITEC conference, where we were told that the whole design for the visual systems for the F-35 Full Mission Simulator was constrained by a requirement for it to fit in old buildings that had originally been designed for F-16 simulators with much cruder visuals!  This led to a very small visual dome of unique design, into which the F-35 pilot and seat are motored on rails because the dome is too small for normal access.  This is a clear example of "the tail wagging the dog", when many dome-based visual systems were already on the market, and in use, at the time.  It would be interesting to know the additional expense compared to using an existing dome system.

The Exhibition.

On the exhibition floor there were 109 exhibitors from 18 countries.  These were led by host nation Germany with 27, followed by the UK and USA with 22 each, then Italy with 7 and France with 6.  Others ranged from Australia and Belgium to Switzerland and Turkey.  The usual array of stunning imagery was on display including I.G.s new to ITEC from bDesign (Israel), Diamond Visionics (USA), EuroSimtec (Germany) and IFAD (Denmark).  There were also a number of dome displays and complete Part-Task Trainers and Flight Training Devices (PTTs/FTDs).  At the compact display end, there was a resurgence of Head-Mounted Displays including from Cybermind (Netherlands), Selex (Italy) and, from the USA, Oculus, Rockwell Collins and Sensix.  There were three new types of motion platform.  Beck Engineering and Consulting (BEC) of Reutlingen demonstrated a cab on a moving arm that gave all six degrees of freedom and large motion throws; Project Syntropy of Magdeburg showed a model of a large 6-jack platform with an underslung cab, in service with DLR at Braunschweig; and Saab demonstrated a small platform with motion under two side-by-side seats.

The Conference.

In the conference, 72 papers were presented from 13 countries including Croatia, Latvia, Philippines and Singapore.  There were also 8 panel sessions and a full-day seminar from the international Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization (SISO).  As well as presentations on mainstream land, sea and air training, subjects included Augmented reality; cyber threats; haptics (touch-based systems); maintenance training; medical simulation; and military/civil co-operation.  Modelling is a large area and presentations covered models of behaviours, the environment, 3-D objects, terrain; and serious gaming.

The SISO seminar covered the Coalition Battle Management Language (C-BML) and the associated Military Scenario Definition Language (MSDL), Federation Object Models (FOMs), simulator High Level Architecture (HLA), and the SISO Common Image Generator Interface standard (CIGI).  The final session was on future SISO standardization efforts and included the use of JavaScript Object Notation (JSON), the Reuse and Interoperation of Environmental Data and Processes (RIEDP), WebLVC for linking virtual and web-based federations, and the US DoD Test and Training Enabled Architecture (TENA).  I apologise for using a string of abbreviations, but they show the flavour, also the trend towards future standards for networked training.

Conclusion

The above shows that the training and simulation area is expanding both in amount and capability.  Major advantages include that it costs less than constantly using live hardware for training, and that it can train for situations that are simply not possible using live vehicles and their weapons, before the conflict situation itself.  It is now recognised at all levels that the best way to achieve realistic mission training is by using network links between the various entities.  Such entities can include not only simulations but also live assets.  For such training, land, sea and air systems should be included, not only from one nation but from several nations.  Not only military systems but others such as police, fire, medical, local and central government, and so forth.  And as we saw in the Bulgarian exercise mentioned above, as well as networked links, other people can be involved such as ambassadors and politicians who may have to take decisions that affect the conduct of the exercise.

Looking to the future, the next ITEC will be at the Prague PVA Expo from 28-30 April 2015.  If you have any contact with the training and simulation area, and wish to save money in your training systems, you should plan to attend.  There is also the larger U.S. I/ITSEC event in Orlando from 2-4 December 2014.  See you either in Orlando or Prague, or both !