Simulation and Training Evolves from a Procedural to a Mission-Specific Paradigm

Ron Stearns, Principal Analyst, Frost & Sullivan , “Big Iron”, “Legacy” and “Stovepiped” are all somewhat derisive terms used to describe previous generations of simulation and training technology. True, this applies more to flight training than anything else, but the multiservice trend toward distributed mission training is irrefutable.  
 
Simulation and training, once a tool to hone procedural expertise, has in less than a decade become a means to rehearse intricate, in-situ, networked mission planning. The computing power of networked personal computers (PCs), an ever-growing imagery database, and sophisticated yet user-friendly mission-building tools and evolving display technologies are all converging at more or less a single space in time.  
 
The end result is a growing number of distributed, high-fidelity air, ground, and sea synthetic training environments that allow the warfighter to “perform” missions immersed in the geography and alongside sister and supporting services.  
 
Although never a 1-to-1 substitute for live training, high-fidelity mission training environments offer services a multitude of advantages. As training budgets tighten, and budgets for expendables, fuel, operations and maintenance continue to be at issue, high-fidelity mission training is a way to conserve resources while exposing a greater number of operators to mission environments.  
 
The United States Air Force Research Laboratories defines what it calls Distributed Mission Operations (DMO) as follows:  
 
“DMO is, simply stated, a shared training environment comprised of live, virtual, and constructive simulations allowing warfighters to train individually or collectively at all levels of war. DMO allows multiple players at multiple sites to engage in training scenarios ranging from individual and team participation to full theater-level battles. It allows participation, using almost any type of networkable training device, from each weapon system and mission area. Additionally, computer-generated, or constructive, forces can be used to substantially enhance the scenario. This combination of live, virtual, and constructive environments allows nearly unlimited training opportunities for joint and combined forces from their own location or a deployed training site. This expanded capability provides on-demand, realistic training opportunities for all warfighters unconstrained by the fiscal, geopolitical, legal, and scheduling problems associated with current real-world ranges and training exercises that limit training effectiveness and arbitrarily cap readiness levels today. DMO dramatically improves the quality and quantity of warfighter training.”  
 
If one looks at just a few USAF programs alone, it is plain to see that DMO has significant traction. DMO-related contracts for the F-15E, F-15C, F-16 and AWACS alone total more than $1.1 billion over their respective contract lives. In 2005, the U.S Army invested $26 million in a CAE program for Special Operations MH-60 Black Hawk helicopters, and man-wearable systems from providers such as Quantum 3D are pushing the mission training paradigm to the most forward deployed of forces. This is but a handful of U.S. contracts in place or in negotiation.  
 
Frost & Sullivan sees mission training as a major revenue driver in the overall visual simulation markets, spurring growth from $1.3 billion in 2005 to $2.5 billion in 2012 (Frost & Sullivan Research Service No. A888-22, Published: November 2005) with the military markets accounting for an ever-growing piece of the revenue pie. With mission-specific training comes a growing need for integration and software services, and this is also reflected in F&S forecasts.