mt2 19 2 final

Blake Farewell O Unmanned Aerial Vehicles O Maritime Simulations

April 2014Volume 19, Issue 2

www.MT2-kmi.com

America's Longest Established Simulation & Training Magazine

Capability Provider

Vice Adm.David Dunaway

CommanderNaval Air Systems Command

Command Profile:Mine Warfare Training CenTer

Special Section:live, virtual and conStructive

Real-time screen captures are from MetaVR’s visualization system and Kismayo, Somalia, 3D virtual terrain and are unedited except as required for printing. The real-time renderings of the 3D virtual world are generated by MetaVR Virtual Reality Scene GeneratorTM (VRSGTM). 3D models and animations are from MetaVR’s 3D content libraries. © 2014 MetaVR, Inc. All rights reserved. MetaVR, Virtual Reality Scene Generator, VRSG, the phrase “Geospecifi c simulation with game quality graphics,” and the MetaVR logo are trademarks of MetaVR, Inc.

MetaVR visuals are used for simulated UAV camera payload video in Grey Eagle, Shadow, Aerosonde, and Hunter ground control stations, and in F-16 FMTs. Fully correlated video and terrain is achieved among these simulators in conjunction with JTAC simulators during distributed training exercises.

www.metavr.com

When your mission is to train effi ciently,

use MetaVR’s visual systems and geospecifi c terrain to create tactical ISR training scenarios that tie together JTAC, UAV, and ground attack simulations.

Cover / Q&AFeatures

vice admiral david dunawayCommander

Naval Air Systems Command

16

Departments Industry Interview2 editor’S perSpective3 program HigHligHtS/people14 data packetS26 team orlando27 reSource center

oliver meyerSenior Vice President Simulation and Training Ruag Defence

4

dr. Jim Blake FarewellAfter 38-plus years of combined military and civilian service, Dr. Jim Blake recently announced his decision to retire from federal service, effective May 31, 2014.

6unmanned aerial veHicleSThe recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have accelerated the adoption of unmanned aerial vehicles by the U.S. military. A few dozen assets in 2001 have increased to thousands of unmanned aircraft today.By Peter BuxBaum

21maritime SimulationS Simulations at sea can be tricky, especially as the number of ships involved in the exercise increases, so the military is utilizing simulations in controlled environments to avoid costly mistakes in the field.By Brian O’Shea

24

command proFile:mine warFare training centerCommander Wesley Wyatt Cooper, commanding officer, Mine Warfare Training Center, discusses how the U.S. Navy is preparing the minemen of today and tomorrow.

April 2014Volume 19 Issue 2military training technology

28

“I believe that when you run

an organization this big, the

focus has to

be on strategy

and vision—creating a target for where the

organization needs to go

and removing

barriers to help people reach that

vision state.”

— Vice Admiral David Dunaway

12 improving lvc trainingThanks to budget realities, having to do more with less is another standard. Fortunately, live, virtual and constructive (LVC) training promises to be less expensive than live training alone and, in some ways, better.By hank hOgan

Special Section: Live, Virtual and Constructive

10 lvc-iaRave reviews have been pouring in from soldiers since the Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training and Instrumentation (PEO STRI) fielded the first live, virtual, constructive-integrating architecture (LVC-IA).By rick gregOry

Recently U.S., British and French airmen completed a training exercise in Ramstein Air Base, Germany, called Tonnerre Lightning 14-1, to replicate a coalition response to a contingency operation. The exercise was held to improve interoperability.

“We are always looking for ways to exercise and improve our methods as allies,” said Brigadier General Christopher J. Bence, Joint Forces Allied Air Component commander for the exercise. “We are extremely fortunate that our forward-based presence allows us to constantly train with our French and British allies.”

The focus of the exercise was communications integration and interop-erability to support air operations. Participating nations set up command and control operations at Ramstein while training exercises were conducted off the coast of England.

“This exercise allowed us to test and refine secure communications with our close partner nations,” said Major Jan-Peter Linch, U.S. Air Force action officer for the exercise. “In a short amount of time, our three nations’ teams effectively validated significant capabilities that are crucial to the success of our tri-lateral operations.”

Tonnerre Lightning will run twice per year. The French Air Force will take responsibility for the air command and control of the exercise from Lyon in six months’ time, and this time next year, it will be the turn of the RAF to operate command and control of the exercise from the bunker at RAF High Wycombe.

“Based on past experiences with our allies, I have seen our effectiveness at quickly putting teams together and achieving the objectives,” said Squadron Leader Gordon Ferguson, U.K. action officer for the exercise. “But this success does not come without complications. That’s the advantage of practicing—we can refine our processes together through robust training exercises.”

Exercises like Tonnerre Lightning are crucial to working with allied nations. Without proper commu-nication between various air force commands, mission success is near impossible. In an era of cutbacks and cancellations, it’s encouraging to see this exercise was not slashed from the budget. If you have any questions regarding Military Training Technology feel free to contact me at any time.

Recognized Leader Covering All Aspects of Military

Training ReadinessEditorial

EditorBrian O’Shea [email protected]

Managing EditorHarrison Donnelly [email protected]

Online Editorial ManagerLaura McNulty [email protected]

Copy EditorSean Carmichael [email protected]

CorrespondentsJ.B. Bissell • Christian Bourge • Peter Buxbaum Henry Canaday • Danielle Cralle • Hank Hogan Erin Flynn Jay • Karen Kroll • Cynthia Webb

art & dEsign

Art DirectorJennifer Owers [email protected]

Ads & Materials ManagerJittima Saiwongnuan [email protected]

Senior Graphic DesignerScott Morris [email protected]

Graphic Designers Amanda Paquette [email protected] Herrera [email protected]

advErtising

Associate PublisherLindsay Silverberg [email protected]

KMi MEdia group

Chief Executive OfficerJack Kerrigan [email protected]

Publisher and Chief Financial OfficerConstance Kerrigan [email protected]

Editor-In-ChiefJeff McKaughan [email protected]

ControllerGigi Castro [email protected]

Trade Show CoordinatorHolly Foster [email protected]

opErations, CirCulation & produCtion

Operations AdministratorBob Lesser [email protected]

Circulation & Marketing AdministratorDuane Ebanks [email protected]

CirculationBarbara Gill [email protected] Woods [email protected]

Data SpecialistRaymer Villanueva [email protected]

a proud MEMbEr of:

subsCription inforMation

Military Training TechnologyISSN 1097-0975

is published eight times a year by KMI Media Group. All Rights Reserved.

Reproduction without permission is strictly forbidden. © Copyright 2014.

Military Training Technology is free to qualified members of the U.S. military, employees of the U.S. government and

non-U.S. foreign service based in the U.S. All others: $75 per year.Foreign: $159 per year.

CorporatE offiCEs

KMI Media Group15800 Crabbs Branch Way, Suite 300

Rockville, MD 20855-2604 USATelephone: (301) 670-5700

Fax: (301) 670-5701Web: www.MT2-kmi.com

Military training tEChnology

Volume 19, Issue 2 • April 2014

Brian O’SheaeditOr

eDitor’S PerSPectiVe

www.GIF-kmi.com

Geospatial Intelligence

Forum

www.BSEP-kmi.com

March 2014Volume 3, Issue 1

www.BSEP-kmi.com

Border Guardian

Michael J. Fisher

ChiefU.S. Border Patrol

Aerostats O CBRN Decon O Responder Comms O DHS NextGen ITNight Vision O Cargo Screening

Border Threat Prevention and CBRNE Response

Border Security & Emergency Preparedness

www.MAE-kmi.com

Military AdvancedEducation

www.MIT-kmi.com

Military Information Technology

www.GCT-kmi.com

Ground Combat

Technology

www.MLF-kmi.com

Reverse Auctions O Defense Transportation O Afghanistan RetrogradeILS O Supply Chain Efficiencies O DMSMS O Senior Logisticians

The Publication of Record for the Military Logistics Community

Resource Aligner

Vice Adm. William A. “Andy” Brown Deputy CommanderU.S. Transportation Command

SPECIAL PULL-OUT SUPPLEMENTUSTRANSCOM

www.MLF-kmi.com

November/December 2013Volume 7, Issue 10

Exclusive Interview with:

GAIL JORGENSONAcquisition Director USTRANSCOM

Military Logistics Forum

www.M2VA-kmi.com

Military Medical & Veterans

Affairs Forum

www.MT2-kmi.com www.NPEO-kmi.com

Military Training Technology

Navy Air/Sea PEO Forum

www.SOTECH-kmi.com

Special Operations Technology

www.TISR-kmi.com

Tactical ISR Technology

www.CGF-kmi.com

U.S. Coast Guard Forum

KMI MedIa Group LeadershIp MaGazInes and WebsItes

www.MT2-kmi.com2 | MT2 19.2

Program highlightS compiled by kmi media group staff

The Disti Corporation, a provider of 3-D interac-tive user interface software and customized training solutions, was recently awarded a contract by an international customer to build a virtual mainte-nance trainer for the F-16C Block 52 aircraft. The virtual maintenance trainer will enhance training initiatives of the sophisticated aircraft while effec-tively reducing overall training costs.

The F-16 aircraft first entered service in 1978 for the United States Air Force and quickly evolved into a worldwide multi-role fighter aircraft. Today, with

over 4,500 produced and in service in 26 countries, the F-16 is a strategic asset for air superiority and defensive operations. As a backbone to several defense organizations, the fast and efficient handling of the F-16 to minimize downtime is crucial for mission success. Using the latest technologies to create a virtual maintenance trainer, which will augment traditional training for aircraft crewmembers, will ensure that the F-16 will always be mission ready.

Disti’s Professional Services specializes in the development of interactive 3-D environments for

use in virtual maintenance trainers. Disti’s special-ized workflow efficiently manages all phases of the virtual environment development including project requirements identification and analysis, source data collection, automatic code generation, software build automation and testing. Disti’s intuitive Virtual Maintenance Training Environment immerses the student into the training scenario with easy-to-use controls that minimize the amount of time it takes to effectively operate the trainer.

Scott Ariotti; [email protected]

Army Major General Kevin W. Mangum was nominated for appoint-ment to the rank of lieutenant general and assignment as deputy commanding general/chief of staff, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Va. Mangum is currently serving as the commanding general, U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence and Fort Rucker, Fort Rucker, Ala.

Army Major General Herbert R. McMaster Jr. was nominated for appointment to the rank of lieutenant general and assignment as deputy commanding general,

futures/director, Army Capabilities Integration Center, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, Joint Base Langley-Eustis. McMaster is currently serving as the commanding general, U.S. Army Maneuver Center of Excellence and Fort Benning, Fort Benning, Ga.

The Secretary of the Army has selected Barbara A.

Sisson to become the next Assistant Chief of the Army Reserve in Washington, D.C., effective May 5, 2014. Sisson was the A4/7 for the Air Force Air Education Training Command.

Aptima Inc. recently announced promotions in its executive team. Effective February 4, 2014, Dr. Michael J. Paley has been appointed to chief executive officer; Dr. Frederick J. Diedrich has been promoted to president; and Thomas J. McKenna assumes the dual role of chief financial officer and chief operating officer.

compiled by kmi media group staffPeoPle

Barbara A. Sisson

Virtual Maintenance Trainer for the F-16 Aircraft

Leidos, a national security, health and engineering solutions company, was awarded the second of four options on its prime contract with the U.S. Army Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training and Instrumentation (PEO STRI) to provide development of a live virtual and constructive integrated training environment. The option award has a one-year period of performance and repre-sents the second of four one-year options. The second option has a total value of approximately $11 million. Work will be performed in Orlando, Fla.

PEO STRI is the U.S. Army’s acquisition and contracting center of excellence for simulation, training and testing capabilities. The U.S. Army’s Synthetic Environment (SE) Core Common Virtual Environment Management (CVEM) program provides

the high fidelity terrain databases and the static and moving models within them to enable warfighters to integrate, interoperate and “train as they fight” in today’s battlespaces before deployment and action in theatres of combat. During the contract period, the Leidos team has expanded the number of U.S. Army customers and confederates using the SE Core program and terrain databases.

Under the current option, Leidos will continue to develop and provide the operational training terrain databases, common cultural and moving models, and virtual simulation architecture connectivity to meet warfighters’ operational training requirements.

Tia Howard; [email protected]

Kratos Defense & Security Solutions Inc., a national secu-rity solutions provider, announced that it has received a single contract award valued at over $35 million to deliver four MH-60R Naval Aircrew Training Systems (NATS) and four MH-60S Aircrew Virtual Environment Trainer (AVET) devices for NAVAIR. The period of performance under this new contract award is five years. This contract will be executed in partnership with the prime contractor, BSC Partners LLC.

The NATS and AVET training devices provide a blend of virtual and physical environments for training aircrew members of the MH-60 platform. Aircrew members will be trained in crew coordination, gunnery training, sonar, hoist, search and rescue, and vertical replenishment to include external operations.

This award builds on the Medevac Crew Training system contract recently received to develop UH-60 Black Hawk Medevac air crew training systems for the U.S. Army. Kratos will provide multiple simulated full-fidelity simulators to train flight medic students in the operations of all on-board systems.

“We are pleased to continue the advancement of highly critical aircrew training requirements with the latest deploy-ment of these high fidelity, immersive training devices,” said Jose Diaz, senior vice president of Training Solutions.

Art Marubbio; [email protected]

Technical Solutions Company to Provide Simulation & Training Program

$35 Million Contract for MH-60 Helicopter Aircrew Training Systems Awarded

www.MT2-kmi.com MT2 19.2 | 3

After 38-plus years of combined military and civilian service, I recently an-nounced my decision to retire from federal service, effective May 31, 2014, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to share some parting words with the Military Training Technology readers, a group of colleagues who’ve been instrumental in the prepared-ness of our armed forces.

Joining the Army as a private in 1968 and ultimately rising to the rank of colonel, the Army’s afforded me tremendous opportunities to serve our great nation. Some of the most notable include performing aviation operations in Vietnam, becoming a dual-rated master Army aviator, and culminating my military career as the Army’s senior uniformed scientist. From my days in uniform, I learned many vital life les-sons, two of which I’d like to share with you. The first is that great tasks can only be accomplished by the work of a great team. The Army is not a “me” organization, it’s a “we” institution; that’s what makes us a premier military force. The second lesson that sticks with me is that the only constant is change. Our leadership evolves, fund-ing fluctuates and priorities wax and wane, but the one thing our nation can count on is a military that ranks second to none.

As my military career evolved into civil service, I was given the unparalleled op-portunity to help ensure our Army remained the world’s leading ground force by pro-viding U.S. soldiers with the most relevant training and testing enablers. I performed this role as the leader of a great team of individuals who represent the U.S. Army’s Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training and Instrumentation (PEO STRI). Together, we are a team of 1,200 military, civilian and in-house support contrac-tor personnel, responsible for annually executing a multibillion-dollar portfolio of programs, sustaining 335,000 training devices at 600 sites worldwide, and saving the Army an estimated $507 million for fiscal years 2008 through 2013. Our reach and impact transcended figures, however; we guaranteed that no soldier went into combat untrained, and each day, the team remained laser focused on that mission.

Our PEO STRI family was successful in large part because of a bigger unit, called Team Orlando, which represents a formal partnership among the U.S. military branches and their academic and industry stakeholders within the Central Florida region. Sharing resources creates an efficient work environment, reduces redun-dancy, cuts costs and promotes a more robust training experience for the U.S. mili-tary and that of our partner nations. Today, I’m proud to report that Team Orlando, anchored by the Army and the Navy’s training and simulation agencies, represents a $4.8 billion industry. I’m even prouder to report that because of this alliance, our troops maintain their prominence as the world’s best trained fighting force.

There are many instances highlighting the goodness derived from the co-loca-tion of PEO STRI with its military teammates, and the majority of its academic and industry partners. The Army’s collaboration with the Marine Corps in the area of live training systems is just one of many examples. From the partnership, the Marine

Dr. Jim Blake Farewell

Dr. Jim Blake was first featured in Military Training Technology Volume 10 Issue 3

Corps realized significant cost efficiencies in the development, testing, sustainability and maintenance of training devices. More importantly, they have been able to get their training systems into the hands of Marines more quickly.

The synergy of Team Orlando has also allowed PEO STRI to seamlessly partner with other federal entities, even those outside of the Department of Defense. PEO STRI works together with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to provide cutting-edge, simulation-based training for medical staff to enhance the quality of patient care at VA medical facilities across the nation. The partnership allowed PEO STRI’s medical simulation efforts—initially focused on training active duty soldiers in combat casu-alty care—to support the full continuum of care in a servicemember’s lifespan.

Our nation’s increased reliance on training and testing enablers has increased our need for workspace. The Florida state legislature, recognizing the importance of the high-tech defense sector in the region, funded the building of three shared facili-ties, called Partnership I, II and III, for the University of Central Florida (including UCF’s Institute for Simulation and Training) and components of the U.S. military. Realizing the continued role that modeling and simulation will play in the future success of the military, I look forward to admiring additional partnership buildings from the comfort of retirement.

I assure you the Army has selected an outstanding individual to lead PEO STRI into the future, while taking our Team Orlando community and military simu-lation industry to new heights. Major General Jonathan Maddux most recently served as the assistant military deputy to the assistant secretary of the Army (ac-quisition, logistics and technology), in Washington, D.C. Previously, Maddux was the deputy commanding general, support, Combined Security Transition Com-mand–Afghanistan. Additionally, he’s also served as PEO Ammunition, where he oversaw the development and procurement of conventional and leap-ahead muni-tions to increase combat power for U.S. troops.

Upon my retirement, you can trust that I will keep our military’s training and simulation efforts at the forefront of my thoughts, and without question, the U.S. Army soldier will always have a special place in my heart. They say it takes a min-ute to find someone special, an hour to appreciate them, a day to love them, but an entire life to forget them. To me, that someone is the Army and the folks at PEO STRI. Mission first, people always. Army strong!

Dr. Jim Blake joins guest speaker retired General Richard A. Cody, the 31st vice chief of staff of the Army, in addressing the PEO STRI workforce. [Photo courtesy of PEO STRI]

Dr. Jim BlakePEO STRI

The recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have accelerated the adoption of unmanned aerial vehicles by the United States mil-itary. A few dozen assets in 2001 have increased to thousands of unmanned aircraft today. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), because they are able to collect intelligence and deliver ordnance without putting personnel in harm’s way, have emerged as a key component in the U.S. military’s battlefield strategy. They are organic to forma-tions across the armed services and are used directly in support of their missions.

The proliferation of UAVs has meant that training operators on those systems has become all the more important. The U.S. mili-tary’s training philosophy advises warfighters to train as they will fight. For UAV operators, much like the crews of manned aircraft, that means participating in some live training that uses real aircraft.

But for a variety of reasons—including costs, advancements in simulation technology and the limited availability of air space in which to train—virtual experience has taken its place alongside live experience as a key component of the training that prepares

By Peter BuxBaum

mt2 CorresPondent

Unmanned Aerial VehiclesaCCurately emulate oPerational Conditions to train Pilots using simulation.


crews for their operations and missions. Advances in virtual training systems increasingly allow UAS crews to train on simulators that accurately emulate opera-tional conditions.

“One of the biggest things commanders need is to see the battlefield,” said Chief Warrant Officer David Stone, UAS [unmanned aerial systems] officer of the 53rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team of the Florida National Guard. “Probably the biggest key to success in locating the enemy and making decisions about him is access to real-time information. Unmanned aerial systems allow that to happen.” Stone’s unit flies the RQ-7B Shadow and RQ-11 Raven UASs.

“With the proliferation of unmanned aerial assets in support of ground units, other pilots and ground units are getting more comfortable operating around them,” said Major Daniel Lindblom, operations offi-cer of the Marine Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Squadron 3 (VMU-3), based in 29 Palms, Calif.

Lindblom’s unit flies the RQ-7B Shadow, which is the only unmanned aerial asset that the Maine Corps owns. VMU-3 also tests and evaluates the Aerosonde and the ScanEagle UAVs, which are owned by and operated in theater on a fee-for-service basis by Department of the Navy contractors on behalf of the Marine Corps.

“As the transition proceeds from manned to unmanned capabilities, the Air Force is now training more unmanned than manned pilots for the first time,” said Jeff Schram, vice pres-ident of business development at L-3 Communications’ Link Simulation & Training (L-3 Link). The company operates the U.S. Air Force’s Preda-tor Mission Aircrew Training System (PMATS) program.

“The utility of simulators as train-ers to keep skills going is well docu-mented, and that is reflected in the large number of simulators that are fielded right now,” said Del Beilstein, vice president for business develop-ment at AEgis Technologies. AEgis has developed a family of systems for training the crews of the Raven, Wasp and Puma UAVs.

AAI Corp.’s Shadow RQ-7B, which has a gross takeoff weight of 400 pounds, cruises at 15,000 feet and can see targets up to 125 kilometers away from a tactical operations center, is used primarily for information collection and secondarily for target ac-quisition. AeroVironment Inc.’s Raven, a 4-pound system with a 5-foot wingspan, is used primarily for force protection. The Aerosonde small unmanned aircraft system, manufactured by AAI, is a 75-pound sys-tem that incorporates electro-optical and infrared cameras for day and night persistent ISR. Insitu Inc.’s ScanEagle is a 44-pound UAV with a 10-foot wingspan that carries electro-optical, infrared and video cam-eras. The Predator, manufactured by General Atomics and flown by

the Air Force, carries payloads of up to 3,000 pounds as well as Hellfire missiles. AeroVironment’s Wasp AE is a 2.85-pound system designed to carry a 275-gram sensor package. The Puma is a 13-pound unmanned aerial system, also built by AeroVironment, that can remain aloft for two hours.

“Information collection is assuming greater importance in mili-tary operations,” said Stone. “It requires extensive training to operate the aerial vehicles. The analysts who are viewing the information as well as the pilots need to know what to look for and what it means. They need to be able to relay that to the commander, who in most cases is an older gentleman from the pre-digital age who needs to have confidence that the information is reliable.”

Marine Corps UAV pilot hopefuls attend a six-month course offered by the Army at Fort Huachuca straight after boot camp. There, they get entry-level training on the Shadow system, after which they re-port to their squadron, where they receive more advanced training. The training consists of a mix of classroom work together with live and virtual training.

“At Fort Huachuca, the trainees get a 50/50 mix of simulated ver-sus live flight,” said Lindblom. “When they get out to 29 Palms, the mix is more like 25 percent simulation and 75 percent live flight.”

The Shadow simulator is basically a computer with a similar setup to the system’s ground control station. “Flying a Shadow is computer-based,” said Lindblom. “There is no joystick. Flying a real aircraft in-volves using a keyboard, mouse and screen.”

“With advanced simulation in Shadow control stations, Army, National Guard and Marine Corps personnel who fly the aircraft can train without taking off,” said John Hayward, senior vice president and general manager for AAI Logistics and Technical Services. “The envi-ronment and the man-machine interface is identical to the operational system. The services can save on fuel costs, there is no chance of losing an aircraft, and the realistic environment allows personnel to prepare for missions and develop advanced skill sets.”

Stone’s Shadow operators attend the same course in Fort Huachu-ca, as do the Marines. “The Raven training is a little less intensive,” he said. “We can have a person well trained in a matter of about 11 hours of flight training. It is much easier to get a Raven up in the air and it is

Del Beilstein

[email protected]

Jeff Schram

[email protected]

The Air Force’s Predator Mission Aircrew Training System (PMATS) is run by L-3 Link. [Photo courtesy of L-3 Link]


designed to break apart on impact when it lands. It flies at an altitude of 500 to 800 feet, where the air is much less volatile and it is not up there with civilian traffic. For the Shadow we have a dedicated simula-tor provided by the aircraft manufacturer. For the Raven it is a simpler software package that is downloaded onto a computer.”

For Lindblom’s Marines, Shadow training is much more regimented than for the Aerosonde and ScanEagle. “Since it is Marine Corps asset, Shad-ow training is much more in depth,” he said. “It is a much more capable air-craft with multiple sensors and weap-ons capabilities. We don’t actually fly the Aerosonde and ScanEagle, which are smaller platforms for which we provide oversight to the contractors.”

Besides the initial training, UAV pilots continue to train in both the live and virtual modes to maintain and refresh their skills. “Just like manned aviation pilots, UAV opera-tors need to log a certain number of hours of flight time to maintain their certifications,” said Stone. “Practicing on simulators is autho-rized for a portion of their logable flight time.”

AAI supports the U.S. military’s UAS training on several levels. The company provides instructors to the Army’s shadow training center in Fort Huachuca. The instruction is provided both to the vehicle opera-tors and the mission payload operator.

“These instructors are seasoned operators, almost all former mili-tary, who bring real-life experience to the instructional realm,” said Hayward. “They provide both classroom and hands-on training and we have been doing this for more than a decade.”

AAI also provides instructors for the Gray Eagle, a General Atomics platform whose ground control station is made by AAI. “The instruc-tors are provided to each deployed unit,” said Hayward. “The instruc-tion is meant to bridge the gap between the initial training and the par-ticular configuration of the platform that each unit will be using. The Gray Eagle is a much bigger aircraft than the Predator and is much more challenging to fly.” This instruction also involves classroom and practical training and has been ongoing for around two years. AAI also provides training for its own operators who fly the Aerosonde in theater.

AAI makes two different simulators for the Shadow. One is em-bedded directly into the Shadow ground station and the other is soft-ware that is loaded onto an available computer. “The operator can’t tell whether he is flying a real plane or a simulated mission,” said Hayward. “The simulators reduce the costs of training, require fewer personnel, and allow operators to train on the aircraft configuration they will by flying that day.”

Last July, L-3 Link won a recompete for the Air Force’s Predator Mission Aircrew Training System (PMATS) program. “Each PMATS training system uses an actual ground control station that is integrat-ed with L-3 Link’s simulation software and visual system databases,” said Schram. “This creates a high-fidelity environment that simulates aircraft performance, weapons, sensors, communications, data link operations, emergencies, degraded video feeds and environmental conditions. Predator crews can gain initial qualification, mission quali-fication, continuation and mission rehearsal training in PMATS units.”

L-3 Link has delivered 26 PMATS units so far and could deliver up to 50 more to units of the Air Force and the Air National Guard. “This is a very high fidelity, immersive system that looks and feels like the

real Predator,” said Schram. “We use the same ground control station and we supply all the environment and training scenarios for training the air crews.”

In this case, the simulation software is integrated with, but not embedded in, the ground control station. “We could embed the simu-lation, but we prefer not to and the contract does not call for that,” said Schram. “We prefer to simply hook up the simulation and unhook it as needed.”

AEgis Technologies’ VAMPIRE [Visualization and Mission-Plan-ning Integrated Rehearsal Environment] family of products facili-tates training for the small Raven, Wasp and Puma UAVs. “VAMPIRE requires no additional hardware,” said Beilstein. “It runs on fielded Panasonic Toughbooks and the UAV ground control stations. Users just have to plug in the system and they can train anywhere, any-time.” VAMPIRE, which was introduced in 2010, has been fielded to customers in the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps as well as to a few overseas customers.

John Hayward

AEgis Technologies’ VAMPIRE system trains Raven, Wasp and Puma UAS operators. [Photo courtesy of AEgis Technologies]

Real-time MetaVR VRSG screen capture of a simulated Gray Eagle UAS in flight over MetaVR’s new 3-D terrain of Kismayo, Somalia. Inset image is of VRSG’s simulated UAV camera view. [Photo courtesy of MetaVR]


In 2012, AEgis inaugurated a VAMPIRE Instructor Operator Sta-tion that has the ability to connect multiple VAMPIREs over a network, allowing instructors to handle train-ings of 10 teams at once. The Army has acquired some 30 of those systems. In 2013, AEgis brought out the VAMPIRE BAT, or bidirectional advanced trainer, which can download sensor feeds for training UAV payload operators.

The development of high-fidelity graphics engines and physics-based image generations systems has been the key technology advancement that has enhanced the value of vir-tual training in recent years, allowing simulators to emulate real life like never before. MetaVR provides the 3-D visualization software for render-ing engines that makes simulators so realistic. The company’s image gen-erators are incorporated in training simulation packages.

“The resolution we are able to ac-quire has reached 1 inch per pixel for overhead photography,” said Garth Smith, the company’s president. “Our rendering engine is able to take that ultra-high resolution imag-ery and feed that into the simulation.” Earlier resolutions were on the order or 1 meter or 60 centimeters per pixel.

Another recent development has been the ability to generate high resolution and realistic images generated from thermal sensors that are used to scan the terrain at night and depict objects based on their heat signatures. “We have a material classification system that emu-lates the proper heat signature of terrain as well objects and people found on it,” said Smith. MetaVR is now working on technologies that will realistically portray shadows across a large swath of terrain.

Bihrle Applied Research Inc. also provides some of the raw materi-als that go into UAS training. The aerodynamics research and develop-ment company is expert in assessing the flight dynamics and develop-ing flight simulation models of UAS configurations. As UAVs become more capable and more maneuvable, having simulation models that accurately represent the flight behaviors of the aircraft will become increasingly important.

There has been a push, especially by the Department of Home-land Security, to allow UAVs to operate within the national airspace. Current Federal Aviation Administration regulations severely restrict that activity, but the agency is working on new rules that would change that situation. That would benefit military trainees who are currently limited to live training in the restricted airspace over their military reservations.

“Similar to the challenges associated with the integration of UAVs in the national airspace, UAS training for military applications will also need to evolve to address the interaction of autonomous UAVs, remotely piloted UAVs and piloted aircraft in the mission scenario,” explained Brian Wachter, Bihrle’s vice president for corporate develop-ment. “This is going to require some additional simulation capabilities to set up scenarios that would model autonomous behaviors and to sense and avoid other aircraft.” Bihrle is currently working on these simulation capabilities as well as the sense-and-avoid algorithms that would make that a reality, under an Air Force contract.

The ability to fly outside of restricted airspace would answer the prayers of UAS trainees. “If we can train outside of 29 Palms we can fly to Camp Pendleton or [Marine Corps Air Station] Miramar and can integrate with other units,” Lindblom explained. “We can fly a UAV to Camp Pendleton to support artillery battery training. We won’t have to pack up and go there, but we can be available on an as-needed basis to train for a mission.” O

For more information, contact MT2 Editor Brian O’Shea at [email protected] or search our online archives

for related stories at www.mt2-kmi.com.

Brian Wachter

[email protected]

garth Smith

[email protected]

Customer Focused.Solution Driven. aegistg.com

The Vampire Advantage

UAS Embedded Training

Fully embedded simulation that trains all operator functions and emergency procedures for family-of-systems small UAS (Raven®, Wasp™, Puma™).

AVAILABLE IN CLASSROOM & MOBILE TRAINING TEAM

CONFIGURATIONS


Rave reviews have been pouring in from soldiers since the Pro-gram Executive Office for Simulation, Training and Instrumenta-tion (PEO STRI) fielded the first live, virtual, constructive-integrat-ing architecture (LVC-IA).

“It’s like going to the field without having to go to the field,” said Major Jon Meredith, training officer, 1st Battalion, 30th Infan-try Regiment at Fort Stewart, Ga. The remark was made after his unit completed an exercise called “Operation Boar.” He also excit-edly spoke about the realism of the virtual aspect.

“That Hellfire shot from the Apache helicopter simulator the first day was awesome,” he said. “As the helicopter was firing, the guys in the tank in the close combat tactical trainer were reporting that the helicopter had just fired above them. You could hear a little

bit of strain in the pilot’s voice on the radio as they were maneuver-ing around. It was very realistic.”

That is music to the ears of many past and present PEO STRI employees who have worked hard for more than 10 years to get LVC-IA into the hands of their number one customer— the soldiers.

“It’s really exciting to see everything come together and work like we envisioned it working back in the infancy days of building the system,” said John Womack, deputy product manager for War-rior Training Integration, PM Constructive Simulation (ConSim).

He added that the most rewarding aspect to him was observing the operations officer feel the stress and confusion while running the tactical operations center (TOC) using LVC-IA assets.

By riCk gregory, Peo stri strategiC CommuniCations suPPort staff

LVC-IAintegrating live, virtual and ConstruCtive systems has taken training to new levels.



“When you put a real person in a real simulator, that person is charged with making decisions,” he explained. “Those decisions, right or wrong, create an impact to the guy in the TOC who now has to make a decision that may impact the other guy in the other simu-lator or the real soldiers on the ground or in the air. If the decision is incorrect, such as taking a wrong turn, it can cause confusion in the TOC that must be immediately dealt with.”

Womack is quick to add that while there is a lot of talk about the successes of LVC-IA in the field, he also sees it as a PEO STRI team achievement.

“This is a great success due to the folks in PM ConSim, PM Train-ing Devices and PM Combined Arms Tactical Trainers all working to-gether over a long period of time for a common goal,” he said. “When all elements of LVC-IA are being integrated together, they all have to work. If one of them doesn’t, you are missing a critical element in the exercise. Thanks to the great teamwork, it is working as advertised. The soldiers in the TOC have no idea which assets are live and which are simulated.”

First fielded to Fort Hood, Texas, in late 2012, the LVC-IA systems are now in use at Forts Bliss, Texas, Campbell, Ky., Stewart, Ga., and Drum, N.Y., with plans to field one to Fort Riley, Kan., in March.

Rich Link, the assistant product manager for LVC-IA, said the fielding of LVC-IA at each post takes about six weeks.

“The first three weeks are busy putting the system on-site,” he said. “After that, it takes about another three weeks to train the op-erators and maintainers and run a first-use event. The first-use event target audience is those white-collar folks who will be running the training exercises.”

The goal of LVC-IA, Link explained, is to take the live, virtual and constructive information data and feed it through the mission command system to stimulate the organic equipment that the unit would use.

“From the unit leadership perspective, they are seeing the battle unfold as it normally would and then reacting to things that are occurring,” he explained. “They then conduct their own after-action review as to how they responded to all of these activi-ties. There is also generally a technical review to determine how the systems performed.”

Womack stressed that the one advantage of the LVC-IA system is leaders can determine the size of the exercise to fit their needs. The exercise he observed at Fort Campbell was used to help an operations officer train his new TOC crew. He wanted them to get used to work-ing together and just used the virtual simulators that went through the LVC-IA and then out to the TOC.

“He saved more than $90,000 between the air costs, the fuel and repair parts by using LVC-IA,” Womack said. “He still got the ben-efit of real soldiers in real simulators making real decisions on their own. He was so pleased that he brought his battalion commander and commanding general in to show them because they were preparing for a rotation at one of the combat training centers.”

Plans for fielding version two of LVC-IA will include the gaming capability as well as the means of conducting joint exercises with units located at other bases.

“If you want to run an exercise at Fort Hood, but also want to involve Fort Bliss gaming and virtual assets while also tying in some other sites, you can do that—not just between sites that have

LVC-IA, but also those without the system,” Link said. “We have a re-mote kit that will allow those sites that don’t have LVC-IA to connect their virtual and gaming assets into the exercise so all of those units can now conduct a joint exercise.”

One major benefit of LVC-IA, besides the training aspect, is the ease of using the system.

“Before, when the units conducted an exercise and wanted to use virtual and constructive assets with their soldiers in a blended envi-ronment, it was a cumbersome experience,” Link said. “We had to stand up an infrastructure, running wires and cables and setting up routers. When the exercise was over, we had to tear it down. When they wanted to do it again, we had to go through the whole process again. With LVC-IA, the capability is available at the location. Soldiers simply have to show up and train.”

The long-term goal for LVC-IA is to conduct joint exercises with the other military services.

“The Marines and Air Force have been formulating their require-ments documents and asking us to review them and provide feedback in terms of what they are trying to achieve,” Link said. O




‘Train as you fight’ is standard military doctrine. Thanks to bud-get realities, having to do more with less is another standard. Fortu-nately, live, virtual and constructive (LVC) training promises to be less expensive than live training alone and, in some ways, better.

First, though, the emerging LVC field needs to be improved when it comes to the basics of justification, operation, fidelity and effectiveness. Examples of how that is being accomplished can be seen in innovations that pay attention to details, as well as technol-ogy advances and better trainee feedback.

With regard to LVC training being cheaper, the gut feel is that simulation saves money, noted Damon Curry, vice president of operations and business development at Calytrix Technologies of Orlando, Fla. However, getting real numbers on savings has been hard.

“In the past, it has been difficult to quantify savings like that. Tell me solid, realistic figures so I can make budget decisions when to use a simulation fa-cility versus a live range or where I can best use my resources,” Curry said in discussing problems this lack of cost data creates.

Justifying, Clarifying and automating

He added that Calytrix has a solution for this puzzle. The compa-ny’s LVC Cost Counter ties events, real or simulated, to a database of costs. For example, the database might have in it how much it costs to fire a tank shell. Then whenever a shell is fired, the computer ac-countant would automatically register this and add that to the total exercise expense.

The key is that this cost accounting is for entities on the net-work. Some of this action might be taking place in the real world while other events would be simulated. The mix would depend on the particular environment of an actual or planned exercise. Con-sequently, the technology could be used to quantify costs as they happen or as a planning tool to determine the expense of scenarios with different mixes of live and simulated action.

Calytrix is a prime contractor for the U.S. Army’s Games for Training program, which will deliver VBS3, or Virtual Battlespace 3, around the summer of 2014. In the latest training games, the Army wanted more realism than was previously available.

Calytrix is meeting that requirement in a number of ways, one of which is paying attention to details in, and improving the tech-nology for, virtual communications. In simulation, radio and other traffic are often assumed to be perfect. In the real world, weather, distance, terrain and other factors have an impact and can play havoc with voice and data.

To take into account such effects, the gaming system can make use of Calytrix Comm Net Radio hardware, with one reason to do so being the elimination of ear-detectable delays that can destroy the

suspension of disbelief vital to a lifelike simulation. Along the same lines, the technology includes a technique that increases the realism of communication.

“We mix the user’s voice in with the user’s game sounds and that mix is sent over the simulated radio to the receivers,” Curry said of this enhanced audio technology. “You can imagine the receiver say-ing, in some situations, ‘Walk away from that helicopter so I can hear what you’re saying.’”

Attention paid to details like this can be particularly important in the case of a simulated firefight, where the noise level can make clear communication especially challenging. This is just one example of how improved audio realism will help make training better.

Examples of other improvements to LVC training can be seen in work being funded by the Office of Naval Research. Dr. Jim Pharmer, head of the human performance science and technology branch at the Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division (NAWCTSD) in Orlando, is working on real-time adaptive feedback for Navy ship crews called Adaptive Training for Combat Information Centers.

The idea is to tailor individual and team tactical training through a computer-based assessment of trainee performance. Diagnosis of knowledge and skill deficiencies, as well as delivery of system inter-ventions to correct these, will be done in real time.

Currently, during simulation-based training, students receive correction from instructors, who observe, evaluate and remediate. That requires a high instructor-to-student ratio.

With advances in computers, the task of correcting lower-level mistakes could potentially be handled automatically. An expert system running in the background would monitor everything, com-paring how actions and dispositions compare to those called for in the Navy’s rules of engagement, tactics and procedures. The expert system could then automatically take the appropriate action.

By hank hogan, mt2 CorresPondent

As a sustainment tool, QinetiQ North America has developed training deployed on iPads that provide students with virtual equipment, allowing them to practice necessary operation and troubleshooting procedures. [Photo courtesy of QinetiQ North America]

Improving LVC Training

Damon Curry

[email protected]

doing more with less.



“If a contact comes too close to a Navy ship and should have been warned that they’re in danger, that would trigger a system reaction asking, ‘Why haven’t you queried or warned this track?’” Pharmer said of how such a system would work.

The challenge in the project is to come up with appropriates rules and models, according to Pharmer. He added that work in this area is just getting underway and that systems to implement it should be functional by 2016.

Another example of new technology that should improve training can be found in crew performance assessment. Senior Research Psychologist Beth Atkinson of NAWCTSD’s Applied Re-search Training branch is helping develop techniques to automate data collection in simulation-based training. There could be op-portunities to expand this to live planes, with this automated data collection supplementing memory-derived records. The result could be better training.

Cutting Costs

LVC training may be less ex-pensive than its all-live predeces-sor, but it’s not free. Consequently, there’s still room for cost cutting, and a desire on the part of end us-ers to do just that. One way to ac-complish this, and to save time as a result, is to move away from pre-built databases. That’s possible with image generators from Dia-mond Visionics of Vestal, N.Y., ac-cording to Brian Overy, vice presi-dent of marketing and sales.

Simulation databases have tra-ditionally been pre-built, a process that could take weeks or months. But, as computers have evolved, they have grown more powerful, to the point where off-the-shelf hardware can handle on-the-fly image generation.

Cutting out all of the image da-tabase prep time cuts costs. It also gives users more freedom.

“This allows you to add elevation, imagery or shape file data to a visual scene literally in seconds, and see the results immediately. No need to wait for days or weeks to rebuild a database. Simply add your new data, push a button and see the results,” Overy said.

The company’s GenesisRTX product uses standard GIS data and runs as 64-bit code on either Windows or Linux platforms. Diamond Visonics offers a publicly available dataset that covers the globe as a starting point. Users then supply information for specific areas of interest as needed.

Looking forward, Overy predicted growth in the simula-tion market due to a projected doubling over the next 15 years in the number of civil aircraft. Other trends will be a lower cost of ownership and the ability to update and upgrade content locally, he said.

If these trends continue, they should drop costs and improve performance of LVC training. That bodes well for the field and the military services that want to put LVC techniques to work.

Finally, not all LVC training involves flying planes. Some of it revolves around fixing them. Sustainment of airplanes and other equipment depends on training personnel to maintain machinery. One challenge here is how to reinforce in the field what has been learned in a classroom or a simulator.

Increasingly, advances in technology have made mobile imple-mentations a focus, according to Steve Bowling, training sciences manager for Reston, Va.-based QinetiQ North America. The compa-ny supports training in every service in the Department of Defense, with one core customer being the U.S. Marines.

Delivering instructions over a mobile device brings changes. For one thing, students are much more likely to want informa-tion in smaller and more accessible chunks. For another, screen size limitation and bandwidth constraints change how information is conveyed.

One advantage of any sort of electronic training, whether mo-bile or LVC with full-blown simulations, is that student response data can be collected. This can be from training exercises or on the job. That then enables tailoring of corrective action to each student, thereby improving the effectiveness of any training.

As for the future, Bowling predicted an increasing use of simula-tion in sustainment training. The advent of 3-D image-generating engines could be particularly beneficial in that it allows trainees to gain knowledge of complicated equipment without having to actu-ally risk themselves or the machinery.

As Bowling noted, “Our soldiers are working with very expensive and often dangerous equipment. Being able to work on this in a virtual environment lets them practice in a safer environment. It allows them to make the mistakes that you probably wouldn’t want them to do with the real stuff.” O



Software can tally up costs, breaking it down into components and quantifying savings from virtual versus live units. [Photo courtesy of Calytrix]

Brian Overy

[email protected]

Steve Bowling

[email protected]


Data PacKetS

Engineering & Computer Simulations (ECS) recently announced that they have been selected by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Orlando VA Medical Center (OVAMC), to build their Patient-Centered Care Hospital Simulation and Training Program.

The Virtual OVAMC is conceived as a 3-D virtual hospital environment that can augment existing methods of interacting by allowing veterans, their families, and VA health care providers to meet online for a variety of activities.

These include: guided tours, orientation to procedures, or even informative content such as lectures, discussions and case studies. Other benefits include new ways to collaboratively view, discuss and experiment with the opera-tional processes that will be used in the new facility.

“The synergy between both 3-D immer-sive simulation coupled with discrete event simulation will enable the VA to optimize its process flows at the hospital, and in turn, provide

enhanced service to the region’s veterans,” said Brent Smith, chief technology officer, ECS.

“ECS is pleased to assist the VA with deter-mining, through simulation, how best to serve the veteran population,” said Waymon Armstrong, president, ECS. “Our team is excited to continue our relationship with the VA not just across the country, but at the newest state-of-the-art hospital complex in our home town.”

Brent Smith;[email protected]

BISim plans to release VBS3 v3.4 on May 19, 2014. The release comes less than a year after the U.S. Army named VBS3 as the flagship of their Games for Training program. BISim first showcased the flexibility and versatility of VBS3 at I/ITSEC in December of last year with a large-scale, virtual battle involving users from around the world.

“VBS3 represents a new level of quality and functionality for open platform training solutions,” said BISim Co-CEO Peter Morrison. “The training capability provided by VBS3 is unmatched. Avatars feature scientifically-based fatigue systems and high-detail character models.” In addition, VBS3 users can antici-pate larger view distances, out to 150 kilometers with minimal frame rate drop, support for higher fidelity graphics, and improved maritime functionality including very large, enterable and physics-based 3-D ship models.

Customers with enterprise licenses can contact BISim about access to VBS3 before the public release date.

Orlando VA Medical Center Awards Contract to Build Simulation Training Program

New Small Wheel Loader System SimulatorTraining Solution

Software to be Released

in May

Simformotion LLC, Peoria, Ill., recently announced the release of the new Cat Simulators Small Wheel Loader System. The versatile machine simulator is set in a construction environment where operators can learn the same production applications found on actual worksites.

The system features authentic controls combined with simulated applications, including the Forks work tool attachment. The Small Wheel Loader teaches controls familiarization, how to perform a machine walkaround, driving, hauling, loading and carrying, stockpiling, truck loading, truck spotting, backfilling with the standard and multipurpose buckets, carrying objects with the multipurpose bucket, quick coupler operation, unloading pallets with the Forks work tool and a special open training mode.

Cat Simulators systems also include the exclu-sive records management software, SimU Campus. The software records and reports the results of all simulation sessions so instructors and users can track progress and identify any skills that need improve-ment. Hundreds of benchmarks based on Caterpillar expert operators are included in the system, with the

operator’s performance measured against these bench-marks and outcomes recorded to a database. Special bonus features on the Small Wheel Loader simulator system include companion iPad training, multiple languages and available motion platform.

“We listened closely to our customers and devel-oped a simulator system that teaches the applications that they use on actual worksites,” said Melissa Vanne, Simformotion sales manager. “The Small Wheel Loader is a versatile machine that is a workhorse for any size company. From loading and carrying to using the fork tool attachment, the goal is to get our customers’ operators trained more effectively and efficiently—and help them save costs. The Cat Simulators Small Wheel Loader is the training tool to do all three.”

In addition to the new Small Wheel Loader system, Cat Simulators are available in articulated truck, M-series motor grader, large mining dozer, mining truck, heavy construction dozer, hydraulic excavator, off-highway truck, large wheel loader, wheel tractor-scraper and forest machine log loader.

Melissa Vanne;[email protected]


GameSim Inc., provider of software and services to the gaming, simulation and geographic informa-tion systems indus-tries, debuted a tactical training and rehearsal environment (TTRE) for use on personal computers. The flight simulator was created as the first phase of a contracted assignment from the U.S. Air Force that called for an affordable, portable solution to providing the rigorous mental training neces-sary for operational crews of fifth-generation multirole fighters.

To complete the project, the Orlando-based company collaborated with Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor on the F-22 and F-35. GameSim made use of Lockheed’s Prepar3D visual simulation platform to build the TTRE. In addition, existing gaming industry technology was used to enhance the look and capabilities of the final product.

In addition to previously completing work for NASA and the U.S. Army, GameSim has a well established reputation within the gaming industry, contributing to development of best-selling video game titles. Translating this expe-rience into the creation of a viable TTRE for military use required the development team to

compare the needs of the two separate industries, including the need for a hyper-realistic envi-

ronment with an effec-tive training platform. There was also a need to present the training scenario as an instruc-tional event rather than just a recreational technology.

A key feature of the TTRE is the ability for data from each training mission to be captured and assessed through an automated process that provides information for instructors to review in a stored flight log.

With the completion of phase one, GameSim intends to submit a detailed plan for phase two that includes further development of the TTRE that will expand features. One of the key expected features is the “intelligent tutor” concept, which will allow the software to identify areas where the trainee is deficient and suggest appropriate additional training. Other high-lights include fully supported multiplayer capa-bilities, enhanced content from terrain to ground targets, instructor “ghost” view during training, metrics to determine training effectiveness, and other additional features as determined after a thorough evaluation of phase one is completed.

Stephen Eckman;[email protected]

compiled by kmi media group staff

Argon Electronics has launched a new detector simulator that offers CBRN/HazMat response training instructors yet another way to enhance the reality of exercises. The Argon RADSIM 44-9-SIM is a versatile simulated detector probe for training in the use of Ludlum’s 44-9 GM pancake-type detector, and can be used with an extensive range of Ludlum survey meters, rate meters and scalers.

Rather than real radiation sources or radioactive materials, the Argon RADSIM 44-9-SIM will respond to safe alpha/beta simula-tion sources that can be hidden on a person, enabling students to detect either partial or full decontamination. Instructors can there-fore establish a realistic exercise that enables students to experience the operational features of Ludlum’s 44-9 GM pancake-type detector without endangering safety.

The Argon RADSIM 44-9-SIM not only enhances realism and safety but also is compat-ible with the Argon PlumeSIM system for wide area tactical field and nuclear emergency response exercises. PlumeSIM software is used with chemical and radiological detector simula-tion instruments from Argon, allowing virtual dispersal plumes and hot spots to be set up quickly and simply for trainees to detect. The Argon RADSIM 44-9-SIM is also compatible with other dosimeter, survey/radiac meter, and spectrometer simulators manufactured by Argon Electronics, permitting multi-detector, multi-isotope training to take place within the same scenario.

As with all detector simulators in the Argon Electronics range, the RADSIM 44-9-SIM offers cost-effective training without the need for reca-libration and with no preventive maintenance required beyond the occasional replacement of AA alkaline batteries.

Steven Pike;[email protected]

Matrox Graphics Inc. recently announced that important new features have been added to Matrox Avio F125 KVM extension solutions. Maximum extension distance over a single duplex LC-LC fiber-optic cable has been increased from 4 kilome-ters (2.5 miles) to 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) and High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection (HDCP) compliance has been added.

Designed for high-performance environments, Avio F125 delivers fluid graphics and video playback over long distances making it ideal for Pro A/V, industrial process control, oil and gas, 3-D design and visualization, education, military, broadcast and post-production environments. The ability to extend uncompressed dual-HD, 4K or 4K UHD video; keyboard; mouse; stereo analog audio; and USB 2.0

devices up to 10 kilometers from a workstation over a single duplex LC-LC cable lowers the cost of deploy-ment across campuses and multi-story facilities. HDCP compliance lets users extend and playback copy-protected content on HDCP-enabled displays.

“The new 10-kilometer extension and HDCP compliance features let users get the most from their investment,” said Caroline Injoyan, business development manager, Matrox Graphics Inc. “In particular, customers who require longer distance deployments will appreciate the significant cost saving inherent in Avio’s single-cable design.”

Support for the 10-kilometer extension is avail-able as part of the Avio SFP single-mode upgrade kit. The HDCP compliance feature for Avio will be avail-able as a firmware update this quarter.

Enhanced Realism of CBRN Response

Training

New Flight Simulator for Next-Generation Fighter Aircraft

Improvements to Long Haul Transmission of Video


Vice Admiral Dunaway was born in El Paso, Texas. After re-ceiving his wings in April 1984, he served as a graduate flight instructor, then went on to complete flight training in the F/A-18 Hornet. From 1986 to 1989 he flew with the “Vigilantes” of Strike Fighter Squadron 151 aboard the carrier USS Midway (CV 41) home ported in Yokosuka, Japan, and was then selected for Class 96 at the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School in Patuxent River, Md.

Dunaway’s test assignments include: A-12 operational test director with Air and Test Evaluation Squadron (VX) 5; F/A-18 branch head; deputy for Test and Evaluation at the F/A-18 Weapon System Support Activity; and F/A-18E/F operational test director with VX-9, where he flew more than 200 developmental test missions and was the test pilot of the year.

His program management assignments include: F/A-18 Radar Integrated Product Team lead for Program Manager Air (PMA) 265, responsible for the development of the APG-79 Active Electronical-ly Scanned Array radar; program manager for the Precision Strike Weapons program office (PMA-201); and deputy program execu-tive officer for Air Anti-Submarine Warfare, Assault, and Special Mission Programs.

From September 2007 to January 2009, Dunaway served as the commander of the Naval Air Warfare Center (Weapons Divi-sion) at China Lake and Point Mugu, Calif., and as U.S. Navy’s Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) assistant commander for Test and Evaluation. His next flag assignment was as commander, Operational Test and Evaluation Force in Norfolk, Va., where he served from January 2009 to August 2012. In September 2012, he assumed command of the Naval Air Systems Command in Patux-ent River, Md.

Dunaway is a class of 1982 graduate of the U.S. Naval Acad-emy and holds a Bachelor of Science in mechanical engineering, a Master of Science in aviation systems management from the University of Tennessee, and a Master of Science in aerospace engineering from the Naval Postgraduate School. His personal decorations include the Distinguished Service Medal, Legion of Merit, Meritorious Service Medal, Navy and Marine Corps Com-mendation Medal, and the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal. He has accrued more than 2,900 flight hours and 290 arrested carrier landings.

Q: What are your roles and responsibilities as commander, Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR)?

A: NAVAIR is responsible for the design, development, verifica-tion, validation and sustainment of all things Naval aviation. That’s a pretty broad answer, but it gives you a good context

for the responsibilities that come with this job. I believe that when you run an organization this big, the focus has to be on strategy and vision—creating a target for where the organiza-tion needs to go and removing barriers to help people reach that vision state. I spend a lot of time trying to inspire, moti-vate and empower people. The challenge of leadership is bring-ing out the very best in people and helping them succeed. Ultimately, it’s my responsibility to ensure the workforce un-derstands the strategic vision and has a clear path to achieve it. I’m fortunate to lead some of the most talented, creative and dedicated acquisition professionals in the Navy. In fact, they inspire me.

Q: How is the current austere budget environment affecting operations at NAVAIR?

A: I love the [Winston] Churchill quote, “Gentlemen, we’ve run out of money, now we have to think.” Today’s budget environ-ment is exerting enormous pressure on our Navy and NAVAIR. But I believe organizations need to be challenged periodically. Pressure inspires creativity and creates opportunity for dramatic improvement. Today, we face reduced budgets while the demand signal for Naval aviation continues to rise. This paradox is forc-ing us to think hard about how to produce the readiness the fleet

Vice Admiral David DunawayCommander

Naval Air Systems Command


Capability ProviderDesigns, Develops, Verifies, Validates and Sustains All Things Naval Aviation

Q&AQ&A

needs at a lower cost. After 12-14 years of war, we’ve been heads down executing and haven’t spent the time to think about how we achieve the readiness we need at a lower cost. We’re challenging existing methods and considering completely different approaches. Every idea is on the table, because incremental improve-ments alone will not win the day.

Q: What are some of the new approaches you are taking?

A: We have a great systems engineering pro-cess at NAVAIR, but it’s very serial and docu-ment centric. It doesn’t leverage today’s mod-ern engineering tools. So we’re putting energy into modernizing our engineering process. Title 10 of the U.S. Code and our funding pro-cess pushes us down the path of developing individual platforms, weapons, networks and sensors. This is all good and necessary. But it places the burden of integration on the war-fighter, who must combine these indi-vidual systems into an integrated capability that produces a war fighting outcome.

One of NAVAIR’s current focus areas is making the design, development, acquisition, test and sustainment of “integrated war fighting capability” our next great technical competence. In addition, over the last few years we have abdicated a lot of techni-cal standards to our industry partners. In other words, we have asked them to manage the systems interfaces, which has given us a wide range of proprietary interfaces. It’s time for a centralized authority to take the standards back and manage the interfaces so we can get more modularity, open architecture, plug and play—at reduced cost.

Q: What are the top three challenges NAVAIR will face in 2014?

A: Of course the budget is a challenge and I believe that from a corporate perspective, the Navy ought to put pressure on us to do more with slightly less. If all work stays equal, we should be able to produce more next year than we produced this year because we’re getting better at our job. We can and should absorb some level of efficiency. However, I think the budget challenges we face in the next few years will be more than any organization could possibly absorb through efficiency. We will have to change the way we work—things like modernizing our systems engineer-ing processes, developing integrated capabilities, and managing technical standards. All of this takes time.

In the near term, I am a bit worried about how to digest the scope of the cuts, because they’re significant. NAVAIR is a great organization and if anybody should be optimistic about it, it’s me. If anybody can digest it, we will. The second challenge is people. We have a “chronologically enhanced” workforce, with 9,000 to 11,000 (out of 24,000) ready to retire over the next five years. That’s a problem. We’re trying to hire, which seems coun-terintuitive with budgets coming down. But aggressive hiring is absolutely essential in order to handle the work that’s coming our way. We need to hire about 1,800 people minimum this year, with the talent and expertise to dominate in a world of cyber,

electronic warfare, integration and interoperability, open archi-tecture, and other rapidly evolving technologies and threats.

Lastly, the concept of integrated war fighting capability is ab-solutely essential to mission success and affordability. The com-plexity of today’s systems is far too great to place the integration burden on our warfighters. That’s our responsibility—and we must do it before systems are fielded. I’ve been an advocate of integrated war fighting capability for 10 years and have worked very hard to make it part of the engineering dialogue in DoD. The culture resisted strongly because money does not flow horizon-tally through capability, it flows vertically through programs. I don’t advocate changing that. I think the way Congress allocates money is fundamental to the way we manage our government. But once it gets to the engineering level, we must be able to cross those pillars of funding to ensure our systems integrate and oper-ate well together.

Q: What would you like to see from industry in 2014 and why?

A: Two things. The size of the DoD budget pie is determined independent of bottoms-up requirements. We all know the de-mand for our services exceeds the amount of money allocated to the budget. We don’t have a lot of influence over the slice of budget pie we’re given, but the way we execute that budget (with our industry partners) can make all the difference. We need to tap into industry’s considerable capacity for innovation. When I talk about collapsing the systems engineering process, it includes both NAVAIR and industry. We must work together to capitalize on open architectures and modularity. If we do it well, we will get far more war fighting capability for the dol-lars entrusted to us. I would ask industry to work with us to take unnecessary cost out of the system so we can be much more productive.

Q: Why is the Navy putting so much emphasis on integration and interoperability?

A: The threats and mission threads are far more complicated to-day. Technology is leaps and bounds more capable today than it

F/A-18 Super Hornet suspended for testing in the Anechoic Test Facility at Patuxent River, Md. [Photo courtesy of NAVAIR]


TRAINING &SIMULATION

One IOS fits all (same IOS for the control of virtual (simulators) as well as for live training (ranges))

Intelligent target control Targets can be controlled by same mechanism as used

for CGF control Real targets can shoot back virtually

Same After Action Review (ARR) capabilities for virtual (simulators) as well as for live training (ranges)

Live Firing Monitoring Equipment (LFME®) for use with live firing as well as laser firing

| www.kmwsim.com |

Wegmann USA, Inc., Training & Simulationmailto: [email protected]

Krauss-Maffei Wegmann GmbH & Co. KG, Training & Simulationmailto: [email protected]

Our LVC solution:

was 10 years ago. Our Navy is a very technical force and we’re tremendous consumers of technology. But we must modernize our acquisition processes in order to extract the maximum possible capability from ad-vanced technologies. I’m talking about open architec-tures, modularity, app-based software, plug and play, rapid software modernization and agile engineering. We must be able to rapidly integrate new payloads into existing platforms or apply existing systems in a new way to achieve a war fighting effect.

Very early in this conversation I talked to you about vision and strategy, and I think Admiral [Bill] Gortney at Fleet Forces said it best when he said, “The war fighting system isn’t an F/A-18, or an AM-RAAM [AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile] or a Link 16, the war fighting system is the carrier strike group.” From his perspective, it’s not E2 [Hawkeye], F/A-18 or AMRAAM, it’s the E2, plus F/A-18, plus AMRAAM, plus MIDS [Multifunctional Information Distribution System], plus Aegis, plus CEC [Cooperative Engagement Capability]; it’s the entire combat system. So I’ve got to supply to him that way. That’s why we’re emphasizing it.

Q: What are three inadequacies in integration and interoperabil-ity and how will NAVAIR address those inadequacies in 2014?

A: We must be able to cross the boundaries of vertical funding. From a systems engineering perspective, we must make sure that the AMRAAM program, which has very specific AMRAAM require-ments, doesn’t make a trade-off or decision that renders them ineffective when coupled with an E-2. We have a methodology for managing this systems-of-systems trade space.

The second inadequacy in integration and interoperabil-ity is culture. Engineers are largely ISTJ [introverted, sensing, thinking, judging]—they like order and discipline. When you start adding multiple elements to someone who likes order and

discipline, it confounds them. It’s a change issue. The culture we’re aiming for is one where people move beyond protecting their individual program equities to considering how their pro-gram will impact other programs and work together to make trades that maximize—not compromise—the entire system. It’s difficult to get people to work horizontally as well as vertically (you need both). But we must acquire the way we fight—horizon-tally integrated and interoperable.

The last is tech standards. The engineering discipline of flut-ter or structures for an airplane is invaluable in the execution of aviation products. No one argues when I say, “Here’s the flutter requirement, here’s the testing, here’s the maximum tolerance I have on limit cycle oscillation …” Everyone nods their heads affirmatively and proceeds. When I talk about capability as a tech standard, it’s not nearly as clearly defined. In fact, it’s compli-cated. So the challenge we have from a technical perspective is taking the very detailed technical standard from each platform,

F/A-18E Super Hornet performing a weapons separation test at Patuxent River, Md. [Photo courtesy of NAVAIR]

TRAINING &SIMULATION

One IOS fits all (same IOS for the control of virtual (simulators) as well as for live training (ranges))

Intelligent target control Targets can be controlled by same mechanism as used

for CGF control Real targets can shoot back virtually

Same After Action Review (ARR) capabilities for virtual (simulators) as well as for live training (ranges)

Live Firing Monitoring Equipment (LFME®) for use with live firing as well as laser firing

| www.kmwsim.com |

Wegmann USA, Inc., Training & Simulationmailto: [email protected]

Krauss-Maffei Wegmann GmbH & Co. KG, Training & Simulationmailto: [email protected]

Our LVC solution:

weapon, network and sensor and merging them in a complicated relational database that shows the interactions. So those are the three most difficult things I have: vertical funding, culture and tech standards.

Q: Can you elaborate on the development of technical standards or “mission technical baselines” for all warfare mission areas?

A: We’ve brought in considerable talent and are working very closely with NAVSEA [Naval Sea System Command] and SPAWAR [Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command] to define a new pro-cess and consistent vernacular. We are also working very closely with the Commander Operational Test Force (our operational test community), Commander Fleet Forces Command and Com-mander Pacific Fleet (the “organize, train and equip” side of our Navy). It starts at the very top level with an integrated capabil-ity framework (ICF). The next level down is a mission techni-cal baseline (MTB), which is a CONOPS [concept of operations] driven explanation of how the capability will be executed. The MTB is consistent with the warfighter’s functional perspective. Right below the MTB is the integrated capability technical base-line (ICTB). The ICTB puts the platforms, weapons, networks and sensors into the MTB and provides a technical view that supports the functional view.

Think about how a warfighter behaves functionally. Warfight-ers execute functions by pushing buttons and turning knobs. En-gineers think technically. They speak different languages. What the ICTB does for us is take the functional view of the warfighter and map it very carefully to the technical view of the engineer to ensure the linkages are correct. When you put the “techni-cal” and “tactical” pictures together, you’re able to identify very specific kill chains. You can see what’s broken and you can bud-get across a full thread in what we call an integrated capability package. We won’t say, “Please fix the F/A-18 APG79 radar … or fix CEC [cooperative engagement capability] for the Aegis.” What we’ll say is, “If you want AAW [anti-aircraft warfare] then you need to fix CEC, Link 16, E-2D, F/A-18 APG79 and SM6 [standard

missile] at the same time.” Essentially, we bundle multiple pro-grams into a package to produce the final capability. That’s where it’s all headed.

Q: How do you think improvements in live, virtual and constructive (LVC) simulation will impact training in the future in terms of integrated warfighting capability (IWC)?

A: LVC is fundamental to this process. There are three things that are required for us to get where we want to be. First, we need to define the technical standards required for a given capability. Second, we need people (systems-of-systems engineers) who can enforce those technical standards. Third, I need the infrastruc-ture to support these very complicated mission threads. That’s where the LVC comes in. We have considerable infrastructural investments in the Navy, and we’ve done a good job creating a backbone that allows them to connect. We have the organiza-tional infrastructure behind us. Now the question becomes how to use this investment to conduct large force, interconnected test and evaluation events to ensure these complicated threads are fully vetted and operationally effective.

Just the other day, we conducted an exercise with a Tomahawk Tactical Control System, targeting asset, command and control asset, and a launch asset all in a representative LVC environment that gave us a full systems view of how we would exercise a Toma-hawk missile against moving targets. We did it all without firing a single Tomahawk. We did it with actual software running all the way across the country. We were able to exercise a system without the expense of shooting 100 Tomahawks.

Q: What are some of the strategies to increase the speed that NAVAIR delivers war fighting capabilities to the fleet from planning to execution?

A: Speed to fleet is very important. Earlier I talked about the modernization of our systems engineering process. If you in-tegrate intermediate steps, which are now conducted in serial

fashion, you can collapse the time it takes to execute a program of record. We just exercised this method on the UCLASS [un-manned carrier-launched airborne surveillance and strike] PDR [preliminary design review]. Instead of doing one PDR in about eight to nine months for one contractor, we did four PDRs for four contractors in about five months. We didn’t close out all the PDR actions as you would in a typical PDR because we haven’t issued the request for proposal yet and closing actions was un-necessary. We gained an incredible amount of insight into how the vendors would approach the notional UCLASS requirements, in far less time. Time is money. We’re collapsing our systems en-gineering process to take time out, and make the process more integrated from the start.

Secondly, we do a fair amount of rapid warfighter respon-siveness and we’re going to expand upon that. It’s not just about cutting corners and doing things quicker. It’s very methodical and systematic. Trades are made in a very logical fashion. When you have a small scope program and are willing to accept the 80 percent solution, you can collapse a program down and make a sprint run at it. We’ve called this “rapid warfighter response” for some time. Now, we’re creating a NAVAIR Works, similar to a Skunk Works or Phantom Works, where teams can execute small projects quickly to prototype, demonstrate, validate and experiment, and then spin off what we learn to our bigger pro-grams of record. It also provides invaluable hands-on training for our people—who have the license to try new approaches,

take risks, and see a project through from start to finish. It’s motivating work.

Q: What is NAVAIR doing to improve affordability of fielded systems?

A: In addition to the IWC-related initiatives I mentioned earlier, we’re focusing hard on sustainment costs. We know about 70 per-cent of the cost of a system is in sustainment of that system over its full life cycle. We need to run models early on to calculate “how much” is needed to sustain a system over time or to support a given deployment (no more, no less) and achieve a war fighting outcome. We’re moving logistics and sustainment considerations further to the left in program planning so the right questions are asked early in a program’s development. We’re also looking into advanced manufacturing processes and data rights—identi-fying the data we must own and manage to be smart sustainers over time.

In the broader context, NAVAIR is a key player in the Naval aviation enterprise. The NAE is an operating concept that brings all of the Naval aviation stakeholders (war fighting requirements, resource/funding sponsor, and capability provider) together to make coordinated choices for the good of the whole. On a weekly basis, we attack sustainment issues using a very rigorous process of capturing data, measuring, understanding root cause, deter-mining corrective action, implementing the corrective action, measuring the success of that action and then feeding it back into the front of the system. Naval aviation understands what our readiness costs, what degrades our readiness, and where we will invest our next dollar to improve readiness. It’s a uniquely effec-tive system, because we apply cross-functional thinking, main-tain process discipline, ensure full access to the same data and information, and live by a single, fleet-driven metric: Naval avia-tion forces efficiently delivered for tasking. This model of “orga-nizational” horizontal integration is becoming increasingly im-portant in all aspects of DoD—and it’s becoming our new mantra here at NAVAIR. O

20 - 22 May 2014Cologne, Germany20 - 22 May 2014

ogne, Germany

National Training & Simulation Association, USA

National Training& SimulationAssociation, USA

National Training& SimulationAssociation, USA

Organised by:

The International Forum for the Military Training, Educationand Simulation Sectors

From disaster management, cyber security, e-learning, mobile technologies, serious games and visual display products,

ITEC presents the full spectrum of the training and simulation sectors.

> Thought-Leading Conference: includes themes that capture the technological propositions and reveal key strategic and operational military imperatives

> Over 140 Exhibitors: review, benchmark and engage with industry andacademia showcasing solutions and ideas at the forefront of military

education, training, modelling and simulation

> Networking Opportunities: unique and cost effective way to meet with senior military and policy customers, industry partners, and those

at the forefront of academic research

For more information and to register for ITEC 2014, please visit:WWW.ITEC.CO.UK/MT2

CONFERENCE DELEGATES:

BOOK BEFORE 25TH APRIL

TO SAVE UP TO €835

MILITARY ATTEND FREE

75032-8_ITEC03A_Advert_MT2_3.6inc x 5.25inc_2014_v1.indd 1 18/03/2014 15:00

An F-35 joint strike fighter is positioned in front of a high velocity airflow system at Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division in China Lake, Calif., for one-of-a-kind live fire testing at the Weapons Survivability Lab. [Photo courtesy of U.S. Navy]


Operating any ship that can weigh up to several thousand tons is a challenge; add in rough seas and a complex mission in cooperation with several other ships and aircraft, and things can get tricky. The Navy uses a wide variety of simulators and solutions to train sailors to best prepare them for these situations before they ever take the helm in a live exercise.

Kongsberg Maritime Simulations provides the U.S. Navy and several other commands with a num-ber of solutions to make this type of training possible. They provide the U.S. Navy with nine full mission bridges, two bridge wing simulators, 103 (81 ship-board) part task trainers, two full mission rigid hull inflatable boat (RHIB) simulators, 11 RHIB desktop trainers, and 11 eCoach exercises.

Kongsberg also provides the U.S. Naval Academy with two full mission bridges, two part task trainers, four desktop navigation trainers and seven eCoach exercises. Other key deliveries to the U.S. military include providing the U.S. Coast Guard with two full mission bridges, the U.S. Coast Guard Academy with 12 part task trainers, the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy with one full mission engine room and 15 desktop engine licenses, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-neers with three full mission bridges.

“2014 marks an important milestone for Kongs-berg,” said Clayton Burry, vice president sales, Amer-icas at Kongsberg. “Two centuries of achievement, innovation and transformation have fueled a journey that has seen us start as a small munitions business in Norway and emerge as a pioneering global tech-nology provider. Innovation is core to our success in this industry. The offshore training markets will be key beneficiaries in 2014.”

Kongsberg’s bridge simulators can be configured to almost any bridge training need. Customers are able to select instrumentation facilities, bridge con-sole arrangement, hydrodynamic ship models and

exercise areas. The same software that powers the large ship handling simulators also powers the desktop workstations.

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) is an-other industry leader in maritime simulation, breaking new ground in the areas of simulated training for the mine warfare community, said Jeffrey A. Raver, vice president/training and education direc-tor, Training and Simulation Service Line, SAIC. Leveraging their expertise in tactics, tactical decision aids and high fidelity simula-tion, SAIC has created a Virtual Mine Countermeasures (MCM) Sys-tem that allows the student to fully immerse themselves in the mine

By Brian o’shea, mt2 editor

Maritime Simulationstraining sailors to oPerate shiPs of all sizes.

Clayton Burry

[email protected]


countermeasures problem. The tool has been designed to allow the user to execute synthetic operations with current or future MCM platforms and systems against current and anticipated mine threats.

“Today, mine countermeasures training is con-strained to live events, pre-recorded collected data, or low fidelity simulations that do not provide the reso-lutions needed for tactical training,” said Raver. “In all but the live events, students can learn the basics of their systems, but are not adequately challenged on the mid to advanced capabilities they need to success-fully do the job.”

He added that using pre-recorded data limits training to existing threats and only the tactics that were implemented as part of the recorded event. The implication of tactical decisions and alternate deci-sion paths frequently cannot be explored using the pre-recorded data set. Using the Virtual MCM System, the instructor and the students have the flexibility to create dynamic training events that allow all of the participants to explore the outcome of different deci-sions throughout the exercise. Instructors can create scenarios that explore environments that cannot be experienced live due to logistic or political limitations and future threats that have yet to be encountered.

Maritime training using simulations and virtual environments is an effective way to provide the maximum flexibility to explore options and experience training situations that may other-wise not be possible, said Raver. In a simulated training environment, alternative courses of action can be explored and evaluated in real or near real time by rerunning a scenario in a way that would not be possible in live training. Complicated learning situations can be created in a synthetic training environment, involving high numbers of threats or other participants that would be impossible to coordi-nate due to the availability of resources or would be constrained by cost. Lastly, students can run through an almost unlimited variety of training situations without expending any fuel or needing to pull a resource off a tactical mission to support training.

The Navy’s mine warfare forces have been incorporating a range of mine warfare synthetic events within their training to address routine cycle training and target specific areas where operator profi-ciency needs further improvement.

“Our systems were designed to support the entire range of train-ing, from the single operator focused on learning individual tasks to the high-level problem solving and decision-making situations faced by a tactical staff working through complex multi-faceted tactical scenarios,” said Raver. “Further, we are capable of supporting multi-unit stimulation, with a target capability of being able to exercise an entire MCM task group in integrated MCM operations.”

Not all industry leaders in the maritime simulation market devel-op full mission bridge simulators. The software that goes into these systems is just as valuable in training sailors.

VT MÄK offers simulation tools that enable system integrators to develop maritime simulators, said Jim Kogler, director of commer-cial off-the-shelf products.

Their scenario generator, VR-Forces, is used to simulate op-erational combat systems for shipborne training. Along with VR-Vantage, their 2-D/3-D visualization toolkit, VR-Forces has been a key component of action speed tactical trainers and distributed

simulation networks for leader training. In addition to training simulators, MÄK products are used by many maritime research laboratories to create realistic syn-thetic environments for concept development, experi-mentation, and human systems integration studies for sub-surface, surface and unmanned systems.

“Our simulation tools are used in Naval laborato-ries in the U.S. such as the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, the Navy Research Laboratories, and the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division at Pax River, as well as in international labs in Australia, the Nether-lands, Korea, Germany, France and elsewhere,” said Kogler. “Systems integrators such as Thales, Terma, CSC and unnamed others have integrated MÄK prod-ucts into their maritime simulators delivered around the world.”

VR-Forces is a flexible toolkit with intuitive 3-D user interface for scenario creation. It can be deployed as a desktop trainer, as part of a full-fidelity simula-tor (such as a ship’s bridge simulator), or embedded in operational systems, added Kogler. It is fully interop-erable with other simulators and distributed simula-tions—and with MÄK’s WebLVC technology, VR-Forc-es can even be deployed over the web and in virtualized environments.

“MÄK tools provide the larger naval/civilian en-vironment to simulate ship board training systems—they simulate everything out there, all the entities that the ship captains and ship-board systems need to interact with,” said Kogler. “The speed and range of modern weapon systems means that ship crews need to be worried about threats from a long way away. VR-Forces simulates that complete environment—air, surface and subsurface threats for areas as large as required.”

In response to requests from MÄK’s naval customers, their most recent version of VR-Forces includes an enhanced maritime capabil-ity including improved ship and submarine movement models, ad-ditional weapons and sensors, and support for naval electronic war-fare environments. The most recent version of VR-Vantage includes a full maritime environment, including ocean sea state visualization both above and below the surface, and will be used in a submarine periscope simulator.

In the realm of simulation training systems support, Camber Corporation is heavily involved, said Mike Weber, program manager, Camber Corporation.

Camber does not have specific products in maritime simulation per se, but through the delivery of services, they are deeply involved in the delivery and many of the enabling solutions for the Navy’s Fleet Synthetic Training (FST) exercise series. FST is the Navy’s primary live, virtual and constructive training continuum, used for the training and certification of ships and strike groups prior to de-ployment, said Weber. Camber has technical teams embedded in all of the key fleet concentration areas in the Pacific region, from San Diego to Japan, that support the Navy in the test and execution of these events.

Camber also has a team in Virginia that assists Naval Sea Sys-tems Command with the design and development of the battle force tactical trainer (BFTT), an embedded training system onboard live ships that is a key enabler for FST. Lastly, Camber conducts research and rapid prototyping under task from the Office of Naval Research

Jeffrey a. raver

[email protected]

Jim Kogler

[email protected]


(ONR) that directly contributes to enhancements to the en-terprise architecture for FST.

“The technologies and solutions provided by Camber help with the entire continuum and all naval warfare areas, from core maritime challenge of anti-submarine warfare, to the joint and multi-lateral challenge of ballistic missile defense,” said Weber.

Challenges

Designing and developing these types of training sys-tems are not without challenges. The best simulated train-ing experience provides the student with an opportunity to train the way they fight, said Raver.

“Understanding the important decision that needs to be made and how the end user will utilize the system is critical in the development of simulated training,” he said. “SAIC was able to lever-age the lessons we learned in the creation of tactical decision tools for the sailor to create an effective virtual training environment within the Virtual MCM System. Transitioning these capabilities to a virtual training environment for mine countermeasures was the next logical step in the evolution of the program.”

Weber said that the integration with a ship’s systems creates chal-lenges when developing this type of software.

“The unique aspect of this training and the underlying technolo-gies is that it directly interfaces with a live ship’s tactical systems, in-cluding weapons systems, communications systems and tactical data links,” he said. “This creates unique challenges with both design and deployment. Weapon systems safety and configuration management are critical considerations as the training systems cannot impact the ships ability to perform operations. ”

look ahead

Technology in this arena is consistently evolving, and Kongsberg is always striving for innovation.

“Over the next five years, we expect to see a continuation and robust demand for onboard simulation training solutions, along with greater frequency of embedded simulation requirements into new build and ship refit projects,” said Burry. “In the armed services market, our customers are looking for greater connectivity of our simulators with third-party simulation systems as they expand the possibilities of training value against installed systems. Over the next five years, we expect the use of open system interconnectivity to ex-pand rapidly.”

Raver agreed with Burry in that continuous advancements in technology make maritime simulated training and ever changing landscape.

“The fidelity of simulated training continues to improve,” said Raver. “This is impacted both by the availability of collected data for use in simulated training and the exponential improvements in data processing capabilities that allow these simulations to be conducted in an ever smaller hardware foot print. More efficient data compres-sion algorithms, higher bandwidth communications networks and new tools for modeling and simulation in a virtual environment will contribute to cloud-based simulated training delivery in the very near future.”

Kogler said the integration of simulations will continue to ex-pand over the next decade.

“Simulations will become an embedded part of any combat sys-tem,” he said. “In fact, VR-Forces was used to prototype the next generation Total Ship Training System for the U.S. Navy, enabling realistic on-board tactical team training. There will also be a move to making persistent training simulation available over the Web and secure networks.”

The evolution of technology seems to be the common theme amongst maritime simulation experts. The technology continues to evolve as the ship board combat systems and weapon systems evolve. But Weber said that some general trends that are driving the next five years include:

• InternationalInteroperability: Currently Australia and several European nations participate in training exercises routinely. However, Pacific Fleet is pushing other partner nations to adopt this training approach and invest in the underlying technolo-gies, as a means to enable greater bi-lateral or multi-lateral training opportunities. Camber supports this effort through services to the Pacific Fleet and their experience with BFTT al-lows them to assist the U.S. with the delivery of foreign military sales as a result.

• Complexelectromagneticenvironment: A priority for the Navy is to introduce the effects and systems of a complex electronic warfare environment that may be faced in a future conflict. This includes jamming or disruption of communications or radar systems. It also includes the inclusion of unmanned intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) platforms and the process-ing of imagery, streaming video and signal intelligence.

Weber added in 2014 several prototyping efforts under ONR that are not being “released” per se, but are being introduced ei-ther through transition to a program office or fleet demonstration. Specifically in 2014, Camber is working with other industry and government partners to provide a complete embedded training ca-pability to the sea combat commanders system installed on Navy carriers, called Carrier Tactical Support Center. This is the transi-tion after a four-year effort of prototype, design and now delivery. Also, in collaboration with Naval Warfare Development Command, Camber is integral in introducing the effects of GPS denial to the FST training environment. O



Responding to a distressed fishing vessel. [Photo courtesy of VT MÄK]


Commander Cooper hails from Arizona, en-tered the U.S. Naval Academy from the state of Virginia and graduated with merit in 1995 with a Bachelor of Science degree in economics. Fol-lowing initial flight training and designation as a naval aviator, Cooper transferred to the Airborne Mine Countermeasures Weapon Systems Training School (AWSTS) in Norfolk, Va. for training in the MH-53E helicopter.

His first fleet tour was with the “Vanguard” of Helicopter Mine Countermeasures Squadron Fourteen (HM-14) in 1998. During this tour he qualified as aircraft commander, AMCM mission commander and functional check pilot and served as the assistant tactics officer and maintenance division officer. As a “plankowner” of Detachment One, the first-ever forward-deployed airborne mine countermeasures detachment in Bahrain, he completed two de-ployments to Bahrain and served as the detachment operations officer, quality assurance officer and tactics officer.

Following HM-14, Cooper reported to the H-60 R/S Fleet In-troduction Team (FIT) at Naval Air Station North Island as the operations officer. While attached to the FIT, he qualified as a fleet replacement squadron instructor in the MH-60S. He also earned a Master of Science degree in global leadership from the University of San Diego.

In 2004 Cooper joined the “Gunbearers” of Helicopter Com-bat Support Squadron Eleven (HC-11) as the assistant tactics of-ficer. He deployed aboard USS Tarawa (LHA-1) as the detachment

operations officer and quality assurance officer for RIMPAC [Rim of the Pacific] 04. Upon returning from RIMPAC, he took over as the squadron safety officer and NATOPS [Naval Air Training and Oper-ating Procedures Standardization] officer. During this tour the squadron was re-designated as Heli-copter Sea Combat Squadron Two One (HSC-21) and he became a “plankowner” of the “Blackjacks.”

In 2006, Cooper joined the “Blackhawks” of Helicopter Mine Countermeasures Squadron Fif-teen as the administrative officer before deploy-ing as the officer in charge of detachment Two in

Bahrain. During this deployment the detachment embarked USS Saipan (LHA 2) twice in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Upon returning to the U.S., he took over as the training officer and, eventually, the operations officer. He deployed aboard USS Wasp (LHD-1) as the assistant officer in charge of the detachment for Panamax [U.S. Southern Command joint and multinational exercise 07].

Cooper then attended the U. S. Naval War College in New-port, R.I., where he graduated with distinction with a Master of Arts degree in national security and strategic studies.

In 2009, Cooper reported to the Naval Mine and Anti-Subma-rine Warfare Command [NMAWC] and served as NMAWC’s lead mine warfare planner (N5) and the future operations officer of the Navy’s sole deployable mine warfare battle staff. He assumed command of Mine Warfare Training Center, Point Loma, Calif. in April 2013.

commanD Profile

Mine Warfare Training CenterBy Commander wesley wyatt CooPer, Commanding offiCer

mine warfare training Center

PreParing the minemen of today and tomorrow.

Cmdr. Wesley Wyatt Cooper


His personal decorations include the Meritorious Service Medal, Navy Commendation Medal (five awards), Navy and Ma-rine Corps Achievement Medal (two awards), and various cam-paign and unit awards.

The Mine Warfare Training Center (MWTC) on board Naval Base Point Loma has a rich history and an essential role in to-day’s Navy. As one of the 14 learning centers of the Center for Surface Combat Systems, MWTC’s mission is to develop and deliver relevant and effective mine warfare training and educa-tion to enable successful conduct of maritime mine warfare operations.

As the Navy’s sole source of mine warfare training for the fleet, MWTC is responsible for training new accession and return-ing fleet minemen and officers on the basics of the mine warfare mission area, to include mine warfare systems maintenance and operations and mine warfare planning.

Naval mine warfare training has roots reaching back to De-cember 1940, when Naval Schools, Mine Warfare (NSMW) was established. In January 1959, NSMW moved from Yorktown, Va., to Fleet Training Center (FTC) Charleston, S.C., to develop close cooperation between the two schools and the fleet. In July 1972, NSMW merged with FTC to establish the Fleet and Mine Warfare Training Center (FMWTC).

In October 1995, FMWTC was disestablished and the Mine Warfare Training Center was established aboard Naval Station Ingleside, Texas.

In the 2005 base realignment and closure recommendation, the Department of Defense recommended that the Mine War-fare Training Center be consolidated with Fleet Anti-submarine Warfare Training Center in San Diego. A ribbon-cutting and dedication ceremony for the new Mine Warfare Training Center aboard the Naval Mine and Anti-Submarine Warfare Command (NMAWC) Base Complex of Naval Base Point Loma took place in March 2010.

As MWTC reflects on the past year, we take pride in the prog-ress that we have made in raising the standard of the mineman “A” school students who we have sent to the fleet. Our philosophy is that true success begins with how each sailor approaches the mission. We feel confident that this singular effort will pay tangi-ble dividends by re-invigorating a true warrior spirit in the mine warfare mission area and holding future generations of minemen accountable for carrying on the proud traditions of those that have gone before them.

While providing the fleet with unsurpassed training support, MWTC also had the opportunity to provide the fleet with opera-tional support in 2013. Over the course of the last year, three MWTC staff members served overseas while supporting two newly established operational MCM [mine countermeasures] crews for-ward deployed in Bahrain. These staff members augmented crews that were assembled on short notice in order to support addi-tional MCM assets allocated to 5th Fleet.

While supporting 5th Fleet operations, our sailors completed deployment certifications, participated in MCM exercises, con-ducted numerous route surveys, and supported the Fleet intro-duction of the SeaFox mine neutralization system and the AN/SQQ-32 (V4) mine hunting sonar. An additional fourth staff member deployed with the Eisenhower Strike Group to pro-vide valuable Mine Warfare and Environmental Decision Aids

Library support in 5th and 7th Fleet throughout the strike group’s deployment.

MWTC begins the new year with new goals and some chal-lenges. We are focused on providing the fleet with the best train-ing possible to utilize the latest and greatest mine warfare tech-nology available. To that end, we will be piloting a course for the newest mine hunting sonar developed for the Avenger-class mine countermeasures ships, the AN/SQQ-32 V(4). In addition, we are heavily involved with the development and introduction of multi-ple courses of instruction in support of the littoral combat ship’s mine warfare mission package.

One of the challenges of working with emerging/evolving systems via the urgent operational need process is continued product evolution overlaid by schedule adjustments to meet the fleet customer requirement. MWTC works closely with the fleet and SYSCOM [Navy system commands] to address these ongo-ing challenges, with the focus being on sailors trained to employ these new capabilities.

As the premier instructional War Fighting Center of Ex-cellence for Mine Warfare, MWTC will continue to provide the knowledge and skills minemen need to be successful in the fleet. MWTC not only trains minemen of today, but also future generations of minemen for the critical role of defending our great nation.

The Center for Surface Combat Systems [CSCS] mission is to develop and deliver surface ship combat systems training to achieve surface warfare superiority. CSCS headquarters’ staff oversees 14 learning sites, including Mine Warfare Training Cen-ter, and provides almost 70,000 hours of curriculum for close to 700 courses a year to more than 40,000 sailors. The train-ing center uses a mix of blended learning comprised of instruc-tor-led classes, hands-on labs, simulation and computer-based training. O



Instructors pose for a photo with recent graduates of the AN/SLQ-48 Mine Neutralization System course. [Photo courtesy of Mine Warfare Training Center]


UCF Computer Programming Team Codes Its Way Into History

This upcoming summer, on June 22-26, the University of Cen-tral Florida computer programming team will travel across the world to compete in the ACM Interna-tional Collegiate Programming Contest (ICPC) World Finals, orga-nized by the Association for Com-puter Machinery (ACM), the largest computing organization.

No stranger to this competition, UCF is in its 32nd year of participa-tion in the contest, which only be-gan in 1977. The team will compete for the world title in Ekaterinburg, Russia, at host site Ural Federal University, where 120 world finalist teams will battle for awards, prizes and the right to call themselves the world champions.

To advance to the world finals, teams compete in a two-tiered process and must advance through their regional competition. UCF is in the southeast region, which also includes Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama and Mississippi.

“We have always finished in the top three in the Southeast Regional contest,” said Dr. Ali Orooji, team faculty advisor and UCF associate professor of electrical engineer-ing and computer science. “Our record is matched by no other school in our region.”

UCF has placed first on 16 occasions, second nine times, and third seven times. Those are the kind of statistics that bring a smile to the face of any coach.

This past year, the ICPC reported that 29,479 contestants from 2,322 universi-ties in 91 countries competed in region-al competitions at more than 300 sites worldwide.

When Orooji first began working with the programming team as their advisor 25 years ago, the team was much smaller than it is today. As a winning program can do, it soon built itself to be recognized nationally by its peers and the student population at

UCF, which produced more than 100 stu-dents at last fall’s team tryout.

“The teams of three are built to comple-ment each other and that’s an important role of the coaches, as we get to know the stu-dents and each of their strengths,” said Glenn Martin, a research assistant at the UCF Insti-tute for Simulation and Training and one of the team’s coaches. “In the competition the teams solve realistic problems, dealing in ar-eas like simulation and geometry, and each team member works on individual problems until time is running out. Then they work together to solve a problem.”

Orooji noted the enormous amount of work accomplished at one of these competi-tions. “These team members accomplish in a five-hour competition what many students complete as a term project,” he said.

One of this year’s goals was to recruit more women students to participate, and this past fall they welcomed seven women to the team. They also recruited for a ‘junior varsity’ team, which specifically targeted freshmen to develop and mature into a ‘var-sity’ team for next year.

To many outside of the programming bubble, this might be the first time hearing about UCF’s impressive accomplishments in this field, but for many years, UCF has welcomed some pretty well known visitors to campus.

“Every semester, Google, Face-book and Microsoft come to meet with the student body at large, but they also meet with the program-ming students separately,” said Orooji. “Companies know about our team and their talents, and many of our students end up working at these companies after graduation.”

One of the ways that Orooji and the UCF programming team are also making their mark is by hosting the high school programming competi-tion for students across Florida. The

top three earn scholarships, and the contest is an opportunity for the high school stu-dents to show their talents in front of one of the most winning and consistent teams in the region.

“That’s how we get most of our team members,” said Orooji. “More than 90 per-cent of our members participated in our competition, teams as far away as Miami or Tallahassee. They come and see UCF and what the university can offer, and then they choose UCF.”

Last year’s World Finals hosted 120 teams from a pool of more than 8,000. “UCF has finished as high as second, fourth and fifth in World Contest Finals, and to help put that in perspective, finishing fifth in the contest finals means we are fifth out of more than 8,000 world-class teams,” Orooji said.

“That means UCF finished in the top 1 percent!” he emphasized. “Quite simply, it is the oldest, largest and most prestigious pro-gramming contest in the world. And our stu-dents have always finished in the top three in the region, and no other university has done that,” Orooji said. O

By dolly rairigh glass

For more information, contact MT2 Editor Brian O’Shea at [email protected] or search our online archives for related stories at www.mt2-kmi.com.

University of Central Florida’s computer programming Team is one of the most successful in the nation. [Photo courtesy of Team Orlando]


The

adve

rtis

ers

inde

x is

pro

vide

d as

a s

ervi

ce to

our

read

ers.

KM

I can

not b

e he

ld re

spon

sibl

e fo

r dis

crep

anci

es d

ue to

last

-min

ute

chan

ges

or a

ltera

tions

.

mt2 reSoUrce center

advErtisErs indEx

AEgis Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9www.aegistg.comAptima . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27www.aptima.comCole Engineering Services Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11www.coleengineering.comDigimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27www.digimation.comITEC 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20www.itec.co.uk/mt2Krauss-Maffei Wegmann . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18-19www.kmwsim.comMetaVR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C2www.metavr.comSAIC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C4www.saic.comUnmanned Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27www.unmannedexperts.com

CalEndarMay 12-15, 2014AUVSIOrlando, Fla.www.auvsi.org

May 20-22, 2014ITECCologne Messe, Germanywww.itec.co.uk

September 23-25, 2014Modern Day MarineQuantico, Va.www.marinemilitaryexpos.com/modern-day-marine.shtml

NEVER STOP LEARNINGConsidering a new degree? Advising your troops on their education options? You need Military Advanced Education’s 2014 Guide to Military-Friendly Colleges & Universities!

Check out the searchable database at www.mae-kmi.com for the details prospective students and commanders are looking for!

• AccessallthesurveyanswersfromthehundredsofschoolsthatparticipatedinMAE’s2014 Guide to Military-Friendly Colleges & Universities

• Newandimproveddesignmakesiteasierthanevertofindwhatyou’relookingfor

• Searchthedatabasebyschoolname,state,onlineorbrick-and-mortarschools

• CompareandcontrastinstitutionswithalltheinfoMAEusedtoscoreanddesignateourtopschools

Human-Centered Engineering

www.aptima.com

Learn more on page 3:

People

TRUE E-LEARNING:• Self Paced• Fully Narrated• Mobile• Assignments

& Quizzes

• Best Value• Course Materials• On Call Instructors• Asynchronous

When Expe rience Matters

ONLINE UAS TRAINING COURSE SALE 45% OFF UNTIL MAY

www.unmannedexperts.com


Oliver MeyerSenior Vice President

Simulation and Training BoardRuag Defence

Q: Can you describe Ruag’s history and evolution?

A: The simulation and training business of Ruag started in the early ’90s with a virtual artillery simulator for the Swiss army. Due to its high degree of reality and to constant upgrades, this simulator is still a reference in virtual simulation.

Over the last 20 years we have realized many virtual and live simulation projects in Europe and the Middle East. We’re proud to say that we developed, imple-mented and now operate one of the most sophisticated live training centers in the world with approximately 50 buildings, 1,200 participants and 200 vehicles.

Today we have production sites in France, Germany and Switzerland, with over 400 specialists in virtual, constructive and live simulations and even live firing.

Q: What are some of your key products in the DoD training and simulation industry?

A: We are known as a reliable system integrator and operator for FTX [field training exercise] training. Besides our live training solutions that are mobile or fixed, we have a wide range of virtual training systems for personal, crew or unit training.

Our FTX solutions are based on stan-dardized platforms like the “Gladiator,” a scalable tactical engagement system for the training of 1:1 situations up to whole battalions, allowing our customers the flexibility to perform the training scenar-ios they want. Our focus on the needs of the customer is also reflected in our vir-tual offerings, where machines can be used

in isolation or together to replicate a large scale tactical training.

Q: What are some of the new training/simulation technologies Ruag is developing for 2014?

A: One of the key elements we are devel-oping is a mobile MOUT [military opera-tions on urban terrain] system. We have delivered mobile CTCs [combat training center], but the next step is the mobile MOUT. That’s what we are currently work-ing on to deliver our customers the chance to perform MOUT training wherever they choose. During the development phase we are focusing on making the mobile MOUT usable with only a few support per-sonnel, quick to set up and easy for sol-diers to operate.

A second area of focus is the trend to-ward training systems that are more af-fordable and smaller.

Q: How are you positioned for the future within the U.S. military?

A: We are in constant discussions with U.S. Army decision makers. At the moment it looks like the U.S. could invest quite a lot in constructive training. The role that the latest C2 and C4 systems could play in con-structive training would generate a large and almost overwhelming amount of data for decision makers. To combat this, the decision makers will need special train-ing, and we are working on solutions in this area.

Q: What is Ruag’s connection with the defense community?

A: As Ruag developed inside the Swiss De-partment of Defense, we have a very close relationship to the defense community on both the military and industry side, and we are constantly widening our geographic scope. Ultimately, we want to help all our customers complete successful missions, and this requires the latest and most real-istic training available.

Q: What is an example of your success in the military, and what are some of your goals over the next year?

A: Last year we handed over one of the world’s most sophisticated MOUT train-ing centers to a customer. They can now train in a fully instrumented urban envi-ronment and have access to detailed after action reviews as soon as the training is over. This project forms the basis for other centers and more sophisticated solutions in the future. Our intention is to enhance the capabilities of our solutions and to let even more customers benefit and improve their readiness.

Q: How do customers benefit from Ruag’s varied resources and expertise?

A: At Ruag we have a perfect mix of mili-tary expertise and high technology know-how. To this blend we can also add the advantages that come from being part of the wider Ruag Group and its multiple di-visions. Drawing on this variety of experts and expertise allows us to develop solutions that give our customers the chance to train their troops on very realistic platforms and to prepare them for successful missions. O

[email protected]

inDUStry interVieW military training technology


Cover and In-Depth Interview with:

Gen. David G. PerkinsCommanding GeneralTRADOC

America's Longest Established Simulation & Training Magazine

NEXTISSUE

ITEC IssueMay 2014

Vol. 19, Issue 3

Insertion Order Deadline: April 24, 2014 Ad Materials Deadline: May 1, 2014

Features

ProjectorsIncreased resolution and high definition create realism in military training simulation. Advancements in this technology have improved simulated training’s effectiveness.

Language and Cultural TrainingConflicts occur globally, and cultural and language knowledge of areas of operations impact U.S. forces’ ability to achieve their mission. Understanding customs, language and culture greatly increases the chance for success.

Small Unmanned Ground VehiclesThe military uses a wide variety of small unmanned ground vehicles throughout operations, and the warfighter needs to be trained to operate these vehicles in hostile areas.

sPecial section

commanD ProFile

European RoundtableMuch of what is provided to the U.S. military comes from experts overseas. These leaders of industry discuss the future of simulation and training in a fiscally conservative environment.

Asymmetric Warfare Training Center

The Army’s Asymmetric Warfare Training Center complex features training and range facilities that support the Asymmetric Warfare Group’s mission of rapid material and non-material solution development as well as adaptability and resiliency training.

15-0078

NYSE: SAIC© SAIC. All rights reserved.

CONNECTIONS THAT WORK.

PASSION+PERFORMANCE

SAIC’s services and solutions, make us ready to tackle the most complex technology and integration challenges for the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.

We’re the next generation SAIC.saic.com

mt2 19 2 final

Documents

live training

distributed training

constructive lvc training

d virtual terrain

training ruag defence4dr

d virtual world

metavr logo

metavr visuals