The strategists of the 1990s can fight the first battles of the next war on computer screens without leaving base thanks to advances in simulation technology.
Training aids and simulators always have been used but they were rudimentary devices used to teach new recruits how to drive tanks or gun loading drills before they progressed to the real thing. Rapid advances in computer technology mean that almost all phases of war can be simulated and military skills honed to a high level of proficiency. This technological revolution has coincided with the worldwide defence drawn down over the past five years, to force the issue higher up the agenda of most western armed forces.
|
Troops using TES equipment must use realistic tactics to avoid being hit RIPLEY |
The trends driving the greater use of simulation are common throughout the western alliance and elsewhere. Spending cutbacks have reduced flying hours, track-mile budgets for armoured units, shell allocations for the artillery and time at sea for navies. Environmental constraints mean NATO's armies can no longer conduct massive exercises over large areas of private farmland and they have lost the ability to train staffs in large-scale operations. This places increased pressure on the remaining military-owned training areas and leads to greater erosion and environmental protest. And although western military establishments are significantly smaller the tempo of peace-keeping and peace enforcement operations has increased. Early success in these high-profile operations is essential so all NATO troops have to be highly trained and ready to win the first engagement of any conflict, there is no prospect of learning from a defeat.
|
A British army MILAN anti-tank missile fitted with the SAAB BT 46 TES system RIPLEY |
Air forces were first to see the potential of simulators for training when early flight simulators were used to test aircrews' knowledge of their controls and emergency drills in circumstances such as engine failures. In the 1970s computer technology began to be applied and flight simulators became more advanced. Crews were able to practise landings, take-offs and other manoeuvres. Simulated cockpits were mounted on hydraulic platforms that mimicked flight manoeuvres to a limited degree and cockpit images were projected via cameras filming large-scale models. In anti-submarine and airborne early-warning and control air-craft, the mission systems cabins were simulated to allow the full crew to be practised.
These early simulators were very expensive and lacked flexibility because models were used to simulate terrain. Also they could not involve images of other aircraft taking part in air combat. This situation changed in the 1980s when digital-imaging technology became available in flight simulators. Now air combat, weapon effects and formation flying could be practised in an infinite number of tactical scenarios. Gradually the name flight simulator was replaced by mission simulator and no longer were aircrews checked on just their flight safety skills. The whole profile of a mission could be flown from briefing, take-off, approach to target, attack, return flight and landing. And compatible mission-planning software meant that crucial data could be saved from simulator missions so reducing time when inputting data into aircraft computer systems.
|
A British army Warrior fitted with SAAB BT 46 TES equipment that includes an eye safe laser just above the main armament, speakers to simulate weapons noise and sensors on either side of the turret RIPLEY |
Much of the digital-imaging technology used in aircraft-mission simulators has proved to be directly transferable to armoured-vehicle simulators. Gunnery simulators were the first systems for tanks crews but now the whole crew can experience virtual combat from inside a mock-up vehicle.
The realism and overall effectiveness of ground forces' combat training has been enhanced significantly by laser-based weapons effects simulators. The US Army led the way in the 1980s with the establishment of the National Training Centre (NTC) at Fort Irwin, California, for up to brigade-sized training exercises using the MILES Tactical Engagement Simulation (TES) system. This concept has since been copied by the British Army and the German, Swedish and French armies are looking closely at adopting similar systems.
TES systems use laser-weapon simulators and detectors attached to weapons, vehicles and personnel to simulate combat conditions. Hits activate smoke on vehicles to signify hits and alarms go off on personnel who simulate a casualty. Lasers and detectors are programmed to mimic specific weapon systems so realistic weapons effects only are simulated. For example only anti-tank missiles of a certain calibre are able to penetrate specific types of tank. Direct-fire weapons are simulated easily and area-effect weapons simulators are soon to be fielded that use towers or satellites to broadcast data on the effect of mortar or artillery fire.
Computer records of every engagement are kept on a central database so after action reviews can be held to debrief every participant on how they performed.
|
Weapons used during TES exercises require that soldiers using them have enough ammunition RIPLEY |
Similar simulation systems are now available for combat aircraft and are used on specially constructed air-combat, manoeuvre-simulation (ACMI) ranges. Instantaneous data links to participating aircraft allow ground controllers to track precisely in three dimensions the movements of all participating aircraft and determine weapons effects. Special airborne instrumentation sub-system pods on aircraft are used to download flight and weapons data. Receiving towers transmit the data to a debriefing suite where ground controllers, pilots and instructors can follow every engagement. The debriefing suites can be mobile or information may be passed digitally to suites at other bases to accommodate the participation of multiple units.
This equipment featured in the movie Top Gun and is now installed on approximately 20 ranges around the world. Most are government owned but British Aerospace runs a £60-million private venture range in the North Sea. The next progression for ACMI ranges is the development of GPS-linked systems to replace fixed towers and allow simulated combat to range over large areas. Electronic warfare and ground-attack aircraft also can be integrated into advanced ranges to allow all aspects of air combat to be simulated.
Although naval surface warfare does not lend itself to weapon-effect simulation, sub-surface engagements by submarines and anti-submarine forces are much in need of these systems to test complex and hidden aspects of submarine warfare. The US Navy has undersea ranges but other nations have found the cost of such systems prohibitive.
Senior commanders and battle staffs of air, ground and naval forces have long used simulation devices to practise command and communications procedures. These are based on purpose-built facilities or linked into forces' real communications links and locations. The former is best exemplified by the British Army brigade/battlegroup trainers that simulate command post communications. Electronic warfare interference can be simulated on radio nets and computers work out casualty rates for any engagements.
|
Helmet, arm and chest mounted sensors are worn by all participants in TES exercises RIPLEY |
The USAF has a similar system to simulate a joint-force air component (JFACC) headquarters under the code name BLUE FLAG. It has a full JFACC headquarters at the Battle staff Training School at Hulbert Field, Florida, with computer work stations and combat information displays. The JFACC staff have to plan and conduct a theatre-wide air campaign using computers to generate the results of air-to-air, surface-to-air and ground-to-air engagements. Intelligence links, ground and sea forces also are played via links to outside agencies.
Most NATO navies have simulators to train ship and submarine command staffs on the operation of their ships' combat information centres (CICs). Usually they are realistic mock-ups of CICs with information displays that can be powered up fully and simulated scenarios played out on them.
As computer power continues to drop in price and miniaturisation advances rapidly, the next generation of military simulators is starting to take shape. The key is networking, or the linking up of a variety of simulators to allow a single battle or campaign to be played out.
For example British Army plans call for its brigade/battlegroup trainers to be linked up to armoured-vehicle simulators and its TES exercises. This will allow brigades and divisions to exercise with only a fraction of the soldiers involved deployed in the field. Whole battalions and regiments will be simulated from individual vehicle workstations, perhaps located away from the main exercise centre. They will play out a battle directed by a command staff working from a brigade/battlegroup trainer. At the same time a battlegroup can fight over the ground for real using TES equipment.
The US Army is investing heavily in these systems under the title distributed interactive simulation (DES), linking air and ground simulation workstations into a single system. Plans exist under the Force XXI concept for the networking of simulators to be used when playing out strategic-level operations.
|
Aircraft mission simulators test pilots flight and combat skills to the limit RIPLEY |
Simulation-based training systems have grown quickly over the past five years and their place in the 21st century is secure. As socalled information warfare assumes more importance in war as nations seek to use computers to neutralise other nation's computer communications systems, the line between computer simulation and real war will become even more blurred.
|
A self-contained trainer from McDonnell Douglas that operates on standard electrical power without the need for special cooling or other accommodations MCDONNEL DOUGLAS |
