I/ITSEC 2014: Training Systems Integration - Trick or Treat?

About this time of year, with the annual jamboree of I/ITSEC in Orlando rapidly approaching from the near horizon, it has become traditional for observers of the military training and simulation (S&T) scene to reflect (and occasionally wax lyrical) on the issue of what has changed, how much remains the same and where the community is headed. Often this results in artificial ‘themes,’ some of which fail to stand the test of any time at all. Others reflect constant rather than incremental change and yet others are statements of the obvious. In an effort to break the mould and perhaps try to bring fresh perspective to the question ‘Quo Vadis Training & Simulation,’ MT looks at one of the pervading characteristics of the industry and the demand that fuels it – the issue of systems integration.

RUAG Simulation & Training offers a new range of deployable Combat Training Centres (CTC). Furthermore, GLADIATOR can be extended in three modular stages, starting from the Basic variant. A high-tech and cost-effective harness for day-to-day training deployments. (Photo: RUAG)

Defining ‘systems integration’ for this industry, though, is not as simple as it may at first seem. What, precisely, is an ‘integrated training system?’ Is it characterised by a cohesive, holistic approach to the training requirements for a particular training regime? Is it a system that consists of multi-disciplinary approaches to a single training need? Does it inevitably comprise a series of components ranging from hardware through middleware to software? Is it necessarily the ‘Silver Bullet’ – a panacea approach to providing answers to all possible permutations of training in a single domain?

The answer, inevitably, is all the above. Or, arguably, none of the above but an altogether different philosophical attempt to providing effective and meaningful training for a particular requirement. The problem is, fundamentally, that although there are broad similarities between national requirements for training systems and services, the minutiae of budget, technology, sovereign capability and doctrinal considerations means that almost every nation tackles the conundrum in a subtly different manner.

Through Endeavour to the Skies

Consider, for example, the issue of pilot training for the British Armed Forces. Recognising the existing system as fragmented and inadequate, the UK MoD took a bold step a decade ago and began to consider a radical overhaul of pilot training across the entire spectrum of requirements, seeking a fresh, innovative and infinitely more effective method of producing the end product – trained pilots.
Radical change entails strenuous effort over time and this issue proved to be no exception. It was not until June 2008 that a contract was inked with Ascent Flight Training, a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and VT Group (the latter’s share in the venture now belonging to Babcock as a result of subsequent merger and acquisition activity) to provide the UK Military Flying Training System (UKMFTS) with a new construct: The contractor was to provide infrastructure, simulators, aircraft in certain cases, instructors in others and an ‘integrated training system’ with the ultimate objective of turning out qualified pilots at the end of the training pipeline. Risk was removed from the MoD and transferred to the contractor; capital expenditure requirements by the MoD were radically reduced – disappearing altogether for some components. The system would engender close, not to say intimate, cooperation between contractor and user, resulting in ‘best of breed’ solutions in which multiple disciplines would be leveraged to provide a more integrated and cohesive solution to the question of providing qualified aircrew capable of being rapidly inserted into operational flying.
Overall, this approach has worked. There is certainly a degree of devilry in the details and there have been criticisms of the way in which certain aspects of the programme have worked. But, the programme is less than a quarter of the way through its 25 year implementation period and has successfully and flexibly answered the multiple unforeseen challenges it has had to face. Not the least of these has been significant change in the basis on which the entire contract was originally founded: At the planning stage, the assumption was there would be a community of somewhere around 300 pilots per year requiring training. Defence cuts, budget austerity and new doctrine have combined to reduce that number considerably – but then again, changes in perceived threat and the capabilities brought to operations by emerging technologies may well alter that equation again in the opposite direction in the near future, a strong argument for the establishment of a flexible ‘on-call’ system. As an integrated training system – inserting pertinent capability, technology, hardware and support into a cohesive and structured training pipeline – UKMFTS works reasonably well. As a model, it certainly demands serious consideration by other forces facing similar training systems issues.

Thales’ SAGITTARIUS Evolution is a small arms trainer that covers all areas of marksmanship training from law enforcement applications, close quarter combat up to full military battlefield engagement training. Using the latest CryEngine simulation technology, SAGITTARIUS Evolution provides both virtual and live firing training capability for individual and unit training. It can be linked to other systems and/or additional modules out of the SAGITTARIUS Evolution product line such as the Door Gunner, the Vehicle or the Boat Module. All modules can be provided with motion platforms. (Photo: Thales)

But the model does not necessarily work in all regimes. For example, an MFTS type approach would face major challenges in the US, where multiple year contracting is made very challenging by budget structures and procurement regulations. Equally important, the very broad range of requirements in aircrew training (not to mention the other domains in which such an approach might, on the surface, make sense) coupled with the scale of demand within US forces means multiple systems probably offer more graceful solutions than a single overarching construct. That said, there are broad similarities that demand careful consideration. For the forthcoming T-X trainer aircraft programme, the USAF is on record as emphasising it is not looking merely for an aircraft to replace the T-38 fleet, but an ‘integrated system,’ incorporating a comprehensive ground based training system (simulators, part task trainers, flight training devices etc.), an appropriate learning management system, and a host of bells and whistles aimed at providing a more effective and results-oriented facility.

“Training, Incorporated”

The net result of all this is that a change rumbling away beneath the surface of the industry will have immense impact over the next decade and more. There will be much, much more partnering between companies, large and small, endeavouring to bring a more holistic approach to bear on providing effective solutions. It will no longer be a simple case of providing a list of companies such as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, CAE, Saab, Cubic, and others to answer the question “who makes integrated training systems?” The future lies in consortia, joint ventures, formal and informal partnerships and ad hoc groupings of industrial, intellectual and academic capabilities embodied in a host of industrial partners.

Canada provides a good example of where this approach might, in theory, be implemented in the near future. Canadian pilot training is currently provided under a number of contracts, each with a defined output focus, each with a different contractor and each with a different contract expiration date over the next decade or so. There are signs that the DoND is even now beginning to engage with industry in order to determine the potential benefits accruing from seeking to harmonise and possibly replace these contracts. And the list of companies that could make a major contribution to realising the Holy Grail of integrated pilot (and aircrew – not to mention maintenance crew) training right across the Canadian Forces’ requirements is quite considerable.

Canada is home to perhaps the preeminent company in pilot training, CAE. No solution to the potential requirement, given the new National Procurement Strategy, with its emphasis on Canadian content and Value Proposition as guiding principles in the acquisition decision process, is likely without some measure of involvement by CAE. The company has the technology, the industrial and financial muscle and the experience to address almost every aspect of the likely requirement as it emerges. But, even CAE is unlikely to try to go it alone, according to some observers. As the requirements increase for integrated systems, so the scale and value of potential solutions rises and the concomitant levels of performance and financial risk also increase. Spreading the risk among multiple partners and, at the same time, taking advantage of niche capabilities and institutional experience is a sensible and effects-oriented method of bringing potential synergies to the solution.

Already firmly embedded in the existing pilot training setup in Canada are companies such as Bluedrop Training & Simulation, which is part of the Allied Wings consortium, contractor for the Contracted Flying Training and Support Program (CFTS), which provides coordination and oversight for flying training and support services for primary and basic flying training, multi-engine and helicopter pilot training. L-3 MAS draws on a 25 year heritage of CF-18 HORNET fleet management and its expertise in conceptual training systems design to provide a broad spectrum of contractor support, including infrastructure, instruction, simulators, aircraft management and learning management system design for the NATO Flying Training in Canada (NFTC) programme. Companies such as NGRAIN have the capacity and expertise to bring all the benefits of virtual reality to the sometimes peripheral but always vitally important components of an integrated training system, such as maintenance crew training.

In parallel to the issue of risk management and the exploitation of niche capability lies another rationale for the consortium approach to major programmes. The benefits accruing to a multi-disciplinary approach can save time, effort and increasingly scarce financial resources when considering the design, development, manufacture, implementation and operation of a large scale integrated training system. Expertise in the development of submarine control room trainers, for instance, may well have intellectual if not operational application to the requirements for crew training for armoured vehicles, or the training of crews for maritime patrol aircraft. Synergies exist, potentially, across the grey areas that are now emerging to replace what were once defined inter-domain boundaries.

Earlier this year, Havok has expanded the extensive content library in its Havok Simulation Framework. The recent additions include a completely new Environment Library, which has representations for buildings, plants and environmental clutter. These models have been built by the Rocketbox Studios team to the same exacting standards as their industry-renowned Rocketbox Character Library. (Screenshot: Havok)

Joint Warfare, Joint Training

“The future is joint,” is a mantra often heard at conferences and symposia dealing with future military operations, threat perception and interoperability. Which is indubitably true. Logical extension of this thought process, though, indicates further possible consolidation and acceleration of the need to integrate training systems, rather than trying to ‘bolt on’ additional capability to existing systems.

As ISAF combat troops wind down their involvement and return home from Afghanistan, there will continue to be NATO and Coalition soldiers involved in the ongoing training programmes for the Afghan National Army and its sister services. Afghan troops train with some regularity at the NATO Joint Force Training Centre in Bydgoszcz, Poland. They train not only with Polish troops but with those from a dozen or more allied nations and one of the inevitable needs is for better language training and cultural awareness on the part of all parties concerned. Companies such as Alelo have made significant contributions to both aspects of what might be called ‘peripheral’ training needs throughout the Afghan conflict. Does this mean the company is a provider of ‘integrated training systems?’ Self-evidently not – but it does mean that Alelo is, potentially, part of the broader brush approach to the provision of such systems in the future.

Russia’s drive to modernise its Armed Forces – particularly its strong and rapidly re-equipping army – found part of its expression in an ambitious programme to establish four comprehensive combat training centres across the country, for which the chosen contractor was Rheinmetall, leveraging the company’s considerable expertise in live-virtual-constructive training for the Bundeswehr. Although political crises and the thorny issues of economic sanctions on Russia have currently stalled the programme, the fact remains that Russia seeks interoperability and commonality for its ground forces capabilities and the benefits of external expertise for the design and operation of its training systems.

Federated or Devolved Training?

At both international and national levels of iteration, the development of modern, integrated training facilities has assumed paramount importance. In Kenya, the British Army Training Team – which has operated in the country for decades – now uses the Saab Deployable Tactical Engagement System (DTES) to provide what the UK calls “hybrid foundation training” for small infantry units. But no small infantry unit operates in splendid isolation on today’s battlefield. Artillery and mortar fire support, combat engineering, close air support, tactical air transport, combat casualty treatment and medical evacuation – all these components and more have to be taken into account in order to ensure effective, realistic training. So is DTES a devolved, ‘stand-alone’ system – or should it be considered part of a broader, more comprehensive training facility that takes these issues and others into account. There are arguments on both sides, but viewing DTES through the prism of future requirements rather than recent and current experience, it is worth considering DTES as the core of a suite of capabilities that might, in some senses, be considered an integrated system.

British Army Training Team in Saab Deployable Tactical Engagement System (DTES) equipment in Kenya. (Photo: Saab)

Another approach to the issue is to have an overarching authority that generates and tries to implement a cohesive vision across the entire spectrum of training system requirements. Arguably that is the function of the PEO STRI on behalf of the US Army. The number of individual training programmes run by the Army that might justifiably be termed ‘integrated’ is, undoubtedly, legion. But, there is a strong argument to make that PEO STRI’s greatest legacy for future soldiers will be the attempt to integrate and consolidate training systems across the entire waterfront of current and future operational capability.

And the Winner is….

Whether one considers the Thales approach in providing the TACTIS tactical armoured vehicle crew training for the Dutch Army or the QinetiQ operation of the Distributed Synthetic Air Land Training System (DSALT) for the British MoD, there is a theme emerging from the continuing contracting activity in military training and simulation that speaks to integration becoming the new norm. At ITEC in Köln earlier this year a tiny but thought provoking demonstration of the benefits of integration leaped off the Ryan Aerospace booth, in which that company’s helicopter crew training systems were integrated with a battlefield navigation/C4I application from Italian SME Rebel Alliance. Is that an integrated system? By virtue of the fact that it integrates two separate capabilities from two separate providers – yes. What else could it be?
All this presupposes, of course, the reader’s acceptance of the supposition that the definition of ‘integrated training system’ is changing – or at least that it needs to change. It does not necessarily have to describe a large, ponderous, multi-faceted system that may try (and often fail) to address a very high-level requirement. An integrated training system can, undoubtedly, be a single-platform solution, as is the case with the Lockheed Martin F-35 maintenance training programme, which brings multiple disciplines and technologies to bear on a single issue. Alternatively, it might be a broad spectrum approach to engineering and technical training and education, such as that proposed by Raytheon and QinetiQ in its bid for the Defence Training Rationalisation programme in the UK, cancelled as a result of the 2010 Defence & Security Strategic Review process.
Integrated training systems are here to stay. Within a decade it may very well be impossible to find any training system other than the simplest that does not rise to the description ‘integrated.’ Technology will drive us in this direction, commercial logic will accelerate its development and the customer will inevitably demand a measure of integration in every system procured. It may well be, of course, that not every iteration of every training system will necessarily need to show evidence of being integrated. But, the choice needs to be there – analogous to dipping into a ‘trick or treat’ bucket of available goodies at Halloween.
The training and simulation community, globally, consists of about eight hundred industrial organisations that contribute in one way, shape or form to military training, simulation and education solutions, A decade ago, the description of an ‘integrated training systems provider’ might have been applied to less than fifty of them. A decade hence it is difficult to envision that description being applied to a number much less than one hundred per cent.