Newsletter Sponsors:

Self-help or off-the-shelf – when does developing your own simulator make sense?

Buy simulators commercially or build your own? That is the dilemma facing some countries when it comes to expanding their training capability.

This was examined in some detail at the recent Defence Simulation Education and Training (DSET) 2023 conference by Lt Gen Edouardo Wolski, commander of the Brazilian Army’s Systems Development Centre (CDS), which works on software products for the service.

Brazil has gathered considerable experience in producing its own simulators over the last two decades. In 2004 it developed SABRE, a constructive simulation designed for use at battalion or regimental level.

MVRsimulation’s Deployable Joint Fires Trainer (DJFT) delivers the future of mixed-reality JTAC, FO, CAS training – wherever you need it.

There followed a series of other self-developments, including simulators for anti-tank missiles (2010), small arms training (2013), helicopters (2016) and most recently in 2023 for the Guarani armoured personnel carrier.

But it has also bought equipment, including Leopard tank simulators from KMW, small arms trainers from Meggitt, Virtual Battlespace 4 (VBS4) from BISim and the SWORD constructive simulation from MASA, customised as COMBATER in Brazilian service.

The army has also pursued hybrid solutions, as with the SIMAF fire support training centres which were built in conjunction with Spanish firm Tecnobit and are now being upgraded by the CDS.

Wolski noted that the aim should always be to avoid unnecessary acquisitions and not procure two different products that share the same objectives.

He added that it is all about reconciling operational demands and technological possibilities, observing that Brazil had four centres that develop equipment and 15 organisations responsible for training, all of whom want simulators for their own needs. In addition to these there are the country’s military schools.

He identified several factors which should influence a decision whether to build or buy.

Brazil is slightly unusual in that it has a well-established military software development organisation. The army therefore does not automatically have to proceed down the route of defining a requirement and going out to market to procure a solution. However, these factors form a useful checklist for the procurement process.

Providing mission-critical training and equipment, this elevated level of innovation can only be provided by the best in the industry. Visit FlightSafety.com.

Do products available on the market meet minimum technical and operational requirements? They must also actually exist, and be available to purchase. If they do not there is a strong case for development, and if something is simply not available, such development is the only viable option.

However, it will also depend on the in-house technical capability, which is essential, and if a hybrid model is adopted the team needs to have the correct composition to overcome any challenges.

Money is a significant factor, with acquisition costs generally lower than those of developing an entirely new product. Coupled with this is the time factor – development will usually take longer than an off-the-shelf (OTS) purchase and there may be a deadline involved such as introduction of new equipment into service.

Above: The Brazilian Army’s Lt Gen Eduardo Wolski set out the pros and cons of developing simulators in-house at the recent DSET conference. (Photo: author)

Risk is also an element. There will be greater uncertainty when developing a new product rather than purchasing OTS, but internally developed products can be more easily adapted to changing operational needs, extending their useful life.

Doing it yourself should be considered if there is a specific interest in promoting particular technologies associated with the proposed simulator, and developing new products can also encourage national technological growth.

The country’s infrastructure capability must also be considered when developing a new product to ensure it has the capacity to support mass production once work is complete.

Development should be strongly favoured if there is sensitive technology involved, to avoid over-sharing of valuable information, but equally outside acquisition may be the only option if access to key technologies is denied.

And the commercial availability of critical components is likely to be crucial: if they are not freely available, building will not be feasible.

Wolski observed that there is not necessarily a binary solution – the two approaches have their merits and what is important is fostering the integration of simulators acquired through both methods.

Although most countries tend to adopt a ‘buy’ approach, it is not uncommon to find small-scale systems developed by individuals or specific training establishments, often to support bespoke objectives and using flexible OTS software packages, which are then adopted and rolled out on a larger scale.

An example of this is the USMC’s Tactical Decision Kit (TDK), a regimental-level initiative from 2016 which combined virtual reality (VR) software (VBS3) with augmented reality (AR) and gaming (Interactive Tactical Decision Game 5) software to provide an immersive training capability.

Above: The USMC’s Tactical Decision Kit was developed internally by the Office of Naval Research and the Marine Corps Rapid Capabilities Office. (Photo: USMC) 

The system was developed as a collaboration between the Office of Naval Research and the Marine Corps Rapid Capabilities Office, and in 2017 was rolled out to each active component infantry battalion. In the event, for a variety of reasons, its use only lasted until 2020.

Further examples can be found at the British Army’s Royal School of Artillery, where its simulation centre has developed several products, including computer-based training packages, with simulations based on VBS3, known as Defence Virtual Simulation (DVS) in British service, now replaced by VBS4 as DVS2.

These simulations have included integration of a forward observer’s target acquisition (TA) assembly with an emulated TA radar within VBS; simulations of UAS for TA; and a VR software package to support depth precision fire operators.

These are only two examples where an individual or unit-level initiative results in the development of an effective simulator, which may be adopted on a wider scale.

However, it is more unusual for a military to produce a significant proportion of its own simulators and it requires, as in the case of Brazil, a dedicated organisation with the necessary skills.

Even then, the criteria identified by Wolski are still valid. But while it may often be desirable to build your own simulators, commercial acquisition can still be the best route and is actually the one adopted for the overwhelming majority of major projects by today’s armies.

Smaller nations under threat – finding the right training focus

It is inevitable that a country’s military training policy will be driven by its situation in the world, and also by its society.

Small countries that feel under existential threat from a large neighbour have a particular problem if they wish to maintain a normal existence, but still feel able to offer significant resistance to aggression.

Above: Estonian reservist forces take part in a NATO exercise. On home territory, knowledge of the terrain can be used to great advantage. (Photo: NATO)

Brig Gen Vahur Karus, Commandant of the Estonian Military Academy, outlined this dilemma at the 2023 DSET conference in Bristol. He reminded his audience that Estonia had been occupied by Russia in 1940 and there was ‘no intention of allowing it to happen again’.

The country has an area of 45,000 sq km and a population of only 1.3 million. While its defence budget is 3% of GDP, this still only amounts to around €1 billion. Any expenditure on simulation or training therefore has to be balanced against ‘more bullets’, as Karus put it, although he added that, like other smaller members of NATO, Estonia can benefit from the wider alliance’s investment in simulation and training.

He outlined the dilemma that nations in Estonia’s position face: Western technology and training are probably superior to its likely adversary’s, and events in Ukraine seem to reinforce this view, but if they are in a finite quantity it poses a problem.

As Stalin, among others, is alleged to have put it: ‘quantity has a quality all of its own’.

Small, well-trained and equipped professional forces will eventually reach a point where they and their resources are exhausted, and superior technology and readiness will no longer have an effect. At this point, Karus said, there needs to be some sort of follow-on force to provide mass resistance.

Estonia, like any country in a similar position, is therefore heavily reliant on its reserves which are trained via conscription. Karus noted that the overall aim of conscription was not to produce standing units but ensure that every citizen received sufficient training to be able to contribute to national defence.

So simulation and training must then be designed to contribute both to the readiness of the professional standing army and the effectiveness of the mass reserve.

Karus observed that the most precious commodity in training is time. ‘Twelve months’ conscription is a very short time to train someone, and then they only get two or three weeks periodic refresher training.’

On the other hand, he noted that Estonian forces will be fighting on home ground, can train where they will fight, and routinely get the better of NATO’s Estonia-based Enhanced Forward Presence battlegroup when exercising against it. ‘We know the forest,’ he said.

From the Estonian point of view, the most valuable simulators are those that save training time and produce quicker results. They have to provide better cognitive training and be designed for use by large groups of trainees with rapid throughput.

Karus said that many simulators are essentially designed for professional soldiers, and not really for training the novice who is willing and keen to learn but for whom time is short. He speculated as to whether simulators that met these criteria were actually available.

Looking to the future, Karus said that in five or six years the generation that would be entering conscription was one that had grown up with virtual and mixed reality (VR/MR) and would be far more comfortable with this sort of training experience.

He also suggested that an important aspect of being able to train a citizen army was the general level of education within the country, and that the better it is, the more likely that better use will be made of synthetics.

Greater emphasis on education leads to better results in training, he said, and this all gains time: ‘It takes less time to train a properly educated individual.’

Above: Israel is also reliant on reservists for national defence and has implemented a policy of using simulation as much as possible to train these forces. (Photo: Elbit Systems)

While every country is different, there are clearly parallels here with other small nations in similar positions.

Although it may be stretching a point to compare Estonia with Israel, the latter is another country that is heavily reliant on reserves for national defence. It has recently adopted a policy of switching as much training as possible to simulation on the basis that this provides much better value and return on training time than live activity, particularly for the individual and small unit.

The key advantage of simulation here is that it allows performance tracking to identify mistakes and correct them, and frequent repetition to ensure that tactics, techniques and procedures are instilled in the individual and group in the most effective way. Repetition may be boring but it works.

Core collective training challenges – a British Army view

The fundamental reason for an army’s existence is to be able to fight and win against its country’s enemies, in whatever form these are manifested.

But in reality most armed forces spend most of their time training, so that when they do have to fight, they do it as effectively as possible. This naturally brings with it a variety of challenges.

Speaking at the 2023 DSET conference in Bristol in June, Brig John Wakelin, programme director for the UK’s Collective Training Transformation Programme (CTTP), identified nine challenges which he believed applied to the British Army’s approach to collective training.

But many of these could be equally applied to any number of other medium-sized armies.

Above: CTTP will embrace new technologies, but these should only be used where they bring real benefit and not become an obsession in their own right. (Photo: UK MoD/Crown Copyright)

Training needs to be professionalised, he said. Too often training appointments are filled on an ad-hoc basis or are gapped, and are not allocated the priority they deserve.

Project Castle, the army’s programme to reset its approach to personnel planning, will address some of this, with individuals who are particularly well suited to particular areas of expertise identified and their careers better channelled through appropriate appointments, with training being one such area.

Next, how good is ‘good’, what does it look like and who decides? Wakelin noted this is partly about collecting and analysing data, but performance indicators need to be defined: ‘We need evidence to show where there is both strength and weakness, so we have to generate and interpret data, and then work out how to use the results and when to intervene based on what it tells us.’

Thirdly. an operational standard needs first to be set and then turned into a training requirement. It must be clear who is responsible for this, how it is applied and what the units of measurement should be.

Wakelin questioned whether these could be training days, number of exercises, training objectives, training cycles or indeed all of these. This could also affect choices in resource allocation.

He moved on to how it was important to make the most of existing resources, to establish ‘what can we do today with what we’ve got?’

He cited a number of recent initiatives, including: Task Force Hannibal, which provides training against a realistic threat such as a peer enemy; the combined arms (CA) manoeuvre centre which should encourage more frequent and regular CA training and at a lower level such that it becomes institutionalised; and the Experimental and Trials Group whose work will inform training.

Then there is a need to think differently about the right solution, which Wakelin suggested may be the biggest challenge. The army no longer has mass and time to train, but is small and busy and training time is limited, so new solutions are needed to compensate for this.

Answers here could include: blending technical and tactical training; achieving multiple outputs from single events; or getting away from a linear training progression. The army will also need to integrate existing providers into new ways of doing things.

Training location is the next challenge. In the current circumstances ‘we need to be able to train the British Army at home’ Wakelin said, and therefore need to use every part of the UK defence estate to the maximum possible extent.

But it is also important to use overseas global hubs, bearing in mind that there will be a need to be flexible and where necessary change posture on return to UK.

Above: Exercises with allies and the use of overseas facilities are important, but the British Army should also make the most of its home training estate. (Photo: UK MoD/Crown Copyright)

Frequency of training is a further challenge. Here, Wakelin emphasised how important repetition is to allow people to make mistakes, learn from them and then repeat exercises until they get them right, and not treat them as another box to be ticked.

‘We need to create the time, space and resources to allow hard, repetitive training,’ he said.

Wakelin noted that training with allies is vital, adding that it can always be improved and that achieving good training with international partners is a continuing challenge.

Finally, the brigadier said that while there is a need for a blend of live, virtual and constructive training, live field activity remains very important and one should be wary of becoming too obsessed with what technology can offer, while not dismissing its potential.

He suggested that to face some of these challenges ‘we might have to unlearn some of the things we thought we knew about training and think very differently’. He said he was particularly excited about what the CTTP could offer, as it aims to contribute to the solutions to some of these challenges.

Don't want to miss out on future Decisive Edge content? Make sure you are signed up to our email newsletters.