Decisive Edge Newsletter | Training | April 2023
Newsletter Sponsors:
Laser or non-laser – is US Army combined arms battle training on the right path?
General Jim Mattis said when US Defense Secretary that he wanted troops to have fought ‘25 bloodless battles’ before they encountered the real thing. But ensuring those battles are as close as possible to that real thing is a challenge, particularly when you consider the various elements of the combined arms battle in the ground combat arena.
The effects of direct and indirect fire of all kinds need to be incorporated, and in such a way that they have a realistic impact in terms of casualties and damage.
Providing mission-critical training and equipment, this elevated level of innovation can only be provided by the best in the industry. Visit FlightSafety.com.
Although all this can now be achieved relatively easily in the virtual world, it is not and never can be a substitute for the demands that the real environment places on the individual and the commander.
This can only be achieved through live training: real individuals using real equipment in the real world.
Above: Even the most detailed terrain database is unlikely to be able to register a recently dug foxhole as cover for a direct-fire geopairing TES system. (Photo: US Army)
Realistically replicating the effects of weapons systems in force-on-force (FoF) training without using live ammunition was a challenge until the advent of the Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System (MILES) in the 1980s.
And after several generations of development we now have the sophisticated laser-based tactical engagement simulation systems (TESS) of today.
Fundamentally a laser-based system provides the ability to ‘fire’ a weapon at an opponent during live FoF training and achieve an effect. Two-way laser engagement allows the introduction of true ballistics, true effect and the tracking of individual shots.
While it is the laser technology that provides the weapon effect there are concerns over the degree of realism this provides, particularly in the US Army.
The main areas of concern are that that lasers can be defeated by any material – such as vegetation – irrespective of its penetrability and that a significant proportion of the weapons in a US Army brigade combat team (BCT), particularly those which are non-line of sight (NLOS), are not supported by the majority of laser simulation systems currently used, predominantly the elderly Instrumentable-MILES (I-MILES).
The penetrability issue means that vegetation which realistically would only give troops cover from view may also provide cover from fire. This does not accurately reflect the effects of direct fire and could result in troops learning false lessons on vulnerability.
To overcome these perceived weaknesses the US Army has been working on an alternative to a laser-based system as part of its much wider and more comprehensive Synthetic Training Environment (STE) programme.
The solutions developed through a series of Other Transaction Authority (OTA) contracts, mainly awarded to Cubic, General Dynamics and the then Raytheon Technologies, now V2X, have been largely based on geopairing.
Briefly, this system knows the location of the weapon and target and, through knowledge of the terrain and the nature of the weapon and target, assesses the outcome of the engagement.
The idea is to produce a terrain database of such high fidelity that it can replicate the influence of terrain on direct fire, even to the extent of the cover provided for individual dismounted troops.
This is being supplied by One World Terrain (OWT) which has been developed since 2019 (originally by Vricon, acquired by Maxar in 2020, which in turn may be about to be acquired by Advent International) as a core component of the STE programme.
Maxar has been awarded further development contracts for OWT, the most recent of which was in February 2023.
The system also relies on a network of sufficient capacity and robustness to support large-scale engagements. If engagement results are not instantly apparent to the participants, the system loses all pretence of realism and hence the confidence of the users.
Above: The USMC has gone for a laser-based TES system from Saab for its Force on Force Training Systems – Next programme. (Photo: Saab)
The problem is that, although very detailed terrain databases can be produced, and individual positional data can be provided with an accuracy of less than a metre, geopairing cannot account for the soldier who takes cover behind a recently fallen tree or in a shell scrape that was dug 30 minutes previously, as no terrain database is going to be accurate enough to provide that level or timeliness of detail.
So while geopairing will provide the solution to the problem of simulating indirect fire, as far as direct small arms fire is concerned it is as likely to produce unrealistic results as a laser system, with the potential for major problems if the network is interrupted.
The army now seems to have acknowledged that an evolutionary process incorporating existing laser systems is the way to go, revealing in 2022 a Bridge to Evolutionary STE TESS (BEST) effort to extend the life of existing systems and procure new TESS similar to the existing equipment.
Both must interface with STE Live Training System products. A draft RFP for such hybrid solutions will be issued in July and the programme will extend until at least FY2034.
This would seem to be a victory for common sense and pragmatism. No other major military is pursuing a non-laser TESS solution, and many are upgrading or expanding their capabilities.
Above: To train effectively together all participants need to be equipped with interoperable kit. Here US troops equipped with a laser TESS conduct training in Greece during an exercise with the Hellenic Army. (Photo: US Army)
There are no signs of any of the major players in the laser-based TESS market – notably Cubic, Ravenswood, Rheinmetall, Saab or Thales – slackening their pace in continuing to refine and improve their technology, particularly in incorporating augmented reality, indirect fire effects through geopairing, and more comprehensive data capture and AAR.
And for successful live multi-national training you need some sort of common technology; if the US Army wishes to conduct live training with coalition partners then it will need to be able to integrate with the laser systems they all use and will continue to use.
Hence the desirability of the hybrid solution. Whether ultimately a workable universal non-laser system can be developed remains to be seen.
How to break the language barrier in military training
Cooperation with allies and partners is a recurring theme for the militaries of most countries, which manifests itself in high-profile exercises, multi-national headquarters and frequent training opportunities.
But what happens when not all the allies and partners can speak the same language?
UK readers may have watched the recent BBC television documentary covering the training programme that the British Army is delivering for Ukraine. It shows Ukrainian recruits undertaking an intensive five-week course in basic soldiering to prepare them for combat operations.
Above: Language and communication issues may have contributed to a USAF T-38 trainer crash in 2021. (Photo: USAF)
The recruits are drawn from all walks of life and in the main have little knowledge of soldiering; some speak English but not the specialist vocabulary that they are encountering. Their British instructors do not speak Ukrainian and many have strong regional accents.
This could represent a significant barrier to delivering such a concentrated training package effectively, where time is short and there is less scope to repeat instructions because of language difficulties.
However, by using a team of interpreters the language challenge has been addressed and overcome. It is noticeable in the documentary how the interpreter team is completely immersed in the training, confident in their terminology and an integral part of the instructional effort.
The UK, US and other Western militaries view the provision of training as an important part of relationship-building with allies and partners, and this generally takes the form of small teams providing low-level training in specific skills.
The Royal Navy (RN), for example, can provide International Maritime Training Teams (IMTT) covering a number of specialist areas for in-country training and support.
Cdr Darren Mason, the RN’s spokesperson, told Shephard that if there was a language issue the usual solution is to use interpreters, as they will have the specialist vocabulary and fluency necessary.
He observed that if there were occasions when there was no time for interpretation, perhaps because of a safety issue, tone of voice and more universally understood terms such as ‘stop!’ were usually sufficient.
At the other end of the scale is the attendance of individual foreign trainees on courses in a host country, where the instructional language is of that country.
The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency, for example, runs International Military Education and Training (IMET), which provides funds for foreign personnel to attend US military programmes, and is aimed specifically at those in or headed for leadership positions. There is a mandatory requirement for English language skills to attend these courses.
However, there is one area where specialist English language skills are vital and where failure to comprehend instantly and instinctively can be fatal, and that is flying training. The fatal crash of a T-38 jet trainer in 2021 that killed a USAF instructor and his Japanese student was partly attributed to the possibility that the student’s language skills were insufficient.
The aircraft accident investigation report noted that the student ‘had difficulty understanding and responding to [air traffic control] radio calls’ and was prone to ‘task saturation’ attributed ‘in part, to communication and language challenges’.
Although this incident illustrates the ultimate problems that language differences can cause, it is really only in such a high-pressure environment that the consequences of incomprehension or miscommunication will have such a serious outcome.
In other circumstances, such as teaching practical skills to a large number of trainees, interpretation is likely to be sufficient, while for most individual training personal knowledge of the language, possible offered as part of a package, should be sufficient.
The British Army’s strategic training partner – who’s likely to be in the mix?
The British Army is in the process of transforming the whole process by which it undertakes collective training.
Its aim is to deliver what is known imaginatively as the Future Collective Training System (FCTS) through the equally evocatively titled Collective Training Transformation Programme (CTTP).
To achieve this, the CTTP will ‘will transform the collective training enterprise by selecting a Strategic Training Partner (STP) from industry, with whom the army will deliver the comprehensive enterprise transformation required to provide increased training system flexibility to allow the army to train when, where and how it needs to meet defence outputs’ according to official documents.
Above: The CTTP programme is intended to transform British Army training and is a highly sought prize for prime contractors and their bid teams. (Photo: UK MoD/Crown Copyright)
This means the STP will play a very significant role in the programme. It will be jointly responsible with the army for governance, and take on most aspects of direction, analysis, design, delivery, development and validation of the system.
After a two-stage negotiation phase with industry, a winning bidder will be selected. The delivery contract will be for a 15-year term with an initial transformation period that will then lead to full-service delivery.
Following an industry day in early December the competition was expected to be launched in late January with the issue of an initial questionnaire. However, this has been delayed, with the new date uncertain.
This obviously will be a very valuable contract, so it is not surprising that major players in the training and defence contracting world are looking to get involved. So far only two major consortia have broken cover.
In November Raytheon UK announced that it had formed Omnia Training in partnership with Capita, Cervus, Improbable Defence, and Rheinmetall Electronics UK. Shortly afterwards QinetiQ, KBR and PA Consulting announced that they had formed Team Paladin.
These two are adopting decidedly different approaches. Omnia has essentially assembled a team that can deliver all the significant elements of the STP’s responsibilities, with Raytheon acting as the prime.
Paladin however is based on an enterprise construct, with all three partners having equal responsibility. It also does not include specialist providers with the philosophy that these can be selected for specific elements and for limited timescales, which allows for the maximum use of new technological solutions from alternative suppliers.
Undoubtedly other consortia are being formed but are keeping their powder dry for the moment. Shephard believes Lockheed Martin UK has assembled a team; Babcock is almost certainly going to make a move, judging by its recent recruiting efforts; and Elbit Systems UK is also likely to throw its hat in the ring, despite its recent travails over Royal Navy training. There may yet be others, such as BAE Systems and Boeing.
Some specialist providers are steering clear of committing to any one particular partnership. Of the tactical engagement simulation (TES) specialists, Shephard understands that Saab will avoid such a commitment, while Cubic is only ‘talking to different people at this stage’.
Above: Partners on the Royal Navy’s Project Selborne training programme also have their eyes on CTTP. (Photo: UK MoD/Crown Copyright)
The army is the last of the three UK services to look to industry to help deliver training. The RN and RAF both have contracts up and running, albeit for different aspects of the training process.
The former’s Project Selborne, which has been running for 12 months, mainly supports delivery of individual and team training. It is being delivered by a consortium including Capita (prime), Raytheon and (thus far) ESUK, all of whom will no doubt wish to leverage their experience on this project to press their different cases for the STP role.
The RAF’s new Project Gladiator, launched in February 2022, provides a networked synthetic training system. It is being provided by a team led by Boeing Defence UK including Inzpire, Nova Systems and Antycip. These also could emerge as STP players in some form or other.
Don't want to miss out on future Decisive Edge content? Make sure you are signed up to our email newsletters.
