Newsletter Sponsors:

Multi-domain operations training is all the rage, but who actually needs it?

The concept of multi-domain operations (MDO) dominates current military thought, but what exactly is it and how do you train for it?

The UK MoD, which prefers to call it multi-domain integration (MDI), describes it at the highest level as ‘about ensuring that every part of defence can work seamlessly together, and with other government departments and the UK’s allies, to deliver a desired outcome’. 

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

The guidance goes on to say that ‘the nature of the threats we face means that no single service, no single government department, or no single nation can tackle them on their own… We must train our personnel to work together through integrated exercises with government partners and allies.’

Above: This US Army graphic illustrates how MDO covers a complex and ever changing series of interactions. (Image: US Army)

For its part, NATO characterises MDO as the ’orchestration of military activity across all domains and environments, synchronised with non-military activity, to deliver the convergence of effects at the speed of relevance’.

Training for MDO therefore needs to be in an environment that realistically replicates the complexities of the air, sea, land, space and cyber domains and their interrelationships in a safe and controlled way.

It further needs to provide an immersive experience to users that not only accurately reflects the capabilities of the natural environment, but also the interplay of all elements in the battlespace, including the impact of opposition activities.

Creating such a realistic single synthetic environment (SSE) is a demanding task, but one for which a solution is increasingly important if effective MDO training is to be conducted.

One current effort is from BAE Systems, which has embarked on the challenge with its privately funded Project OdySSEy. This multi-company partnership is developing a core architecture that allows different simulations to connect into the SSE to allow multiple users to take part in the same training scenario.

MASA develops SWORD the market leading aggregated constructive simulation used in over 25 countries for exercises, operational research and courses of action analysis.

The first phase of this project was recently completed with a proof-of-concept demonstration involving air, land and C2, specifically a joint terminal attack controller (JTAC) and close air support aircraft engaging a target using different simulators within the single environment. Further developments introducing other domains will follow in due course.

However, a key question is who should MDO training really be aimed at? What is the greatest challenge of this new concept?

The answer is probably not at the tactical level, where the individual soldier, sailor or airman will still be carrying out much the same sort of activity as in existing, less complex virtual environments. The impact is not so obvious and probably does not really affect the effect of that individual, team or crew’s training.

The key target for MDO training is therefore at the command and staff level. It is here that cross-domain information will converge in potentially overwhelming quantities and where the key decisions over synchronisation, effects and actions will be taken.

Commanders and staff must be able to cope with an avalanche of data from a range of sources, analyse it and formulate courses of action (COA) based on this analysis, recognising that the data may be constantly changing.

These COA must then be tested to identify the one most likely to achieve the desired outcome, including possible second- and third-order effects and implications. This can only realistically be achieved by using artificial intelligence (AI). Once a COA has been selected it needs to be developed into a plan encompassing synchronised actions across all domains.

All this requires training, both in the sense of understanding and using the right processes to conduct this analysis, but also maintaining and updating these skills.

By using a complex SSE that can replicate the MDO environment and generate realistic quantities of data, the conflicting pictures and shifting priorities of the real world can be created and realistic pressure piled on analysts and decision-makers.

Above: Command and staff level is where sophisticated MDO training is most needed. (Photo: UK MoD/Crown Copyright)

The command level is firmly where the greatest MDO challenge sits, and where the SSE offers the most value for MDO training.

But once a COA has been selected and a plan made, the SSE can then enable virtual mission execution at tactical level by individuals and units, providing training not only for them as part of a synchronised operation but also for the C2 elements in mission control.

These are immensely complex processes with many different moving parts. Modern open architectures, standard interfaces and cloud computing technology will be key to the development of SSEs.

There will also be the need to develop trust in the use of AI to conduct data analysis and COA assessment, but training in a synthetic environment should bring familiarity to the process and confidence in the results.

The rise (and rise?) of Elbit Systems as a UK training provider

Earlier this month it was announced that Elbit Systems UK (ESUK) had been awarded a contract for the British Army’s Ground Manoeuvre Synthetic Trainer (GMST), otherwise known as Project Vulcan.

This programme will provide simulators for training on the Boxer Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV) and the Challenger 3 MBT. The contract also includes a full digital training management system and allows scope for future vehicle types.

Since 2016 ESUK has been a partner in the Affinity Flying Training joint venture which supports the UK Military Flying Training System (MFTS) and has now won four army simulation contracts (and may have encountered something of a hitch over a fifth).

Above: A montage showing different elements of the ESUK Project Vulcan solution. (Image: Elbit Systems UK)

It is also involved in the RN’s Project Selborne training partnership, albeit with a slight cloud following its exclusion from the submarine element for reasons that are still unclear.

Outside observers might well be forgiven for wondering whether too many eggs are going into a single basket.

The first army contract was in 2018 to supply the Joint Fires Mobile Trainer (JFMT) as a full-service capability for the then 1st Artillery Brigade.

Contained in a 20ft trailer, JFMT can provide accredited training for joint terminal attack controllers and artillery forward observers. It has a small dome, a trainee station, an instructor operator station and a pilot station.

Then in mid-2019 ESUK was awarded the contract for the Joint Fires Synthetic Trainer (JFST), worth just over £41 million for an initial five years with options for a further six.

The system is being installed at the Royal School of Artillery at Larkhill and the Joint Forward Air Controller Training and Standards Unit, plus up to 15 unit locations and a collective training site. There will also be a portable capability, including the potential to train on Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers.

In November 2022 ESUK announced that eight dismounted and one mounted systems had been delivered to ‘two Phase 3 training establishments’ and ‘approximately 2,000 hours of training’ had been delivered.

However, given that this is three years after contract award it suggests that delivery is running behind schedule.

One definite success story is the Interim Combined Arms Virtual Simulation – Deployable (ICAVS-D), which entered service in April 2022 after the award of a £57.4 million contract.

Replacing the Unit-Based Virtual Trainer, ICAVS-D is a virtual synthetic capability that can provide section to battlegroup-level training and experimentation and is a pathfinder project in the army’s Collective Training Transformation Programme (CTTP).

Above: ICAVS-D is a pathfinder project for the British Army’s Collective Training Transformation Programme. (Photo: UK MoD/Crown Copyright)

The system, which consists of networked computers with head-mounted displays and other hardware such as control handles and steering wheels, can be deployed to unit locations and provide a wide range of collective training, including both tactical and command post exercises. ICAVS-D was fully, if not over-, subscribed in its first year, a trend that looks to be continuing.

The hitch concerns the Interim Indirect Fires Simulator (IIDFS), another CTTP pathfinder programme, which will provide a solution that enables artillery weapon crews to conduct weapon and fire support drills realistically in a virtual environment and also participate meaningfully in live instrumented training.

Cubic Defence UK had been providing an IIDFS concept demonstrator for a 105mm Light Gun to the army for four years, consisting of an instrumentation package on a real weapon, and the army has embraced this concept enthusiastically.

However, it recently became apparent that, following the formal IIDFS competition, ESUK had been selected as preferred bidder with a solution that incorporated a surrogate weapon, not a real one.

Shephard understands that a challenge has been made by Cubic over the exact terms of the requirement and the definition of how the instrumentation and simulation should be provided.

It is not ESUK’s fault if the definition is open to interpretation, but what is possibly more significant is that by all accounts the requirement did not actually include the concept of employment, which is understood to be based on the use of an instrumented real weapon, and the MoD’s selection process did not involve the end users, who may have expected something different to what was chosen.

So, returning to Project Vulcan. ESUK’s parent company has considerable experience in providing armoured fighting vehicle (AFV) simulators. Having previously provided such devices for the Singapore armed forces, most recently in January 2023 Elbit was awarded a $107 million contract to provide, operate and maintain new MBT simulation and training centres for the IDF.

These new centres will include networked high-fidelity turrets and driver cabins in a common synthetic environment and will support individual and collective training up to company level.

The GMST will offer a similar capability. According to ESUK its ‘open architecture and common digital systems support the delivery of an agile, interchangeable platform capability. The simulators will be networked to allow soldiers to train simultaneously in different formations, vehicles and locations.’

With this track record all should be well, but there must still be concern on a creeping reliance on a single supplier.

How constructive simulation is adding sophistication to live exercises

Constructive simulation is usually defined as simulated people operating simulated systems. Although real humans make inputs or stimulate the simulation they are not involved in determining the outcomes.

Normally, the simulation will control computer-generated forces (CGF), which can represent friendly and opposing elements as well as neutral, civilian, factional and other groups.

Using machine learning and artificial intelligence (ML/AI) these CGF react to a situation as it develops, according to the appropriate tactical doctrine or likely behaviours, providing a realistic simulation of the outcomes.

The classic and most common use of constructive simulation is in command and staff training (CAST). Complex scenarios with a wide range of participants and scarce or expensive assets can be simulated to enable commanders and staff to learn and practice C2 and decision-making processes without having to deploy troops into the field, thus saving resources.

Above: Traditionally a live exercise, France’s Orion in 2023 added constructive elements, with some participating brigades’ HQs commanding simulated forces only. (Photo: French MoD)

The value of placing the training audience under pressure through realistic but targeted battlespace friction, such as communications difficulties or logistic problems, as well as enemy activity, is well known and is the whole point of the exercise.

It allows commanders and staffs to learn and practice without involving physical objects or people in the real world, and for an exercise to be amended ‘on the fly’ to concentrate on weaknesses or emphasise lessons.

And because it is in a controlled environment it is very conducive to detailed analysis and after-action review (AAR).

This is all well known. But constructive simulation is increasingly being used in other ways, particularly as integration with live and virtual strands has developed to form the LVC continuum.

The integration of a constructive simulation with live elements means that a smaller live exercise can be enlarged with reduced resources, providing enhanced training for commanders and staff and additional challenges for the real participants in the form of interaction with neighbouring, albeit constructive units.

This arrangement can provide an ideal platform for coalition training, with different partners represented only by their HQs and communications links working with a single host partner. The major part of successful coalition operations is getting interoperability right at the HQ level, so this arrangement provides a solution.

A recent example of this was during the major French triennial Exercise Orion, a four-phase evolution which culminated with its final live phase in April and May. This was a large-scale joint exercise commanded by the Corps de Réaction Rapide-France which involved eight different countries.

The main ground forces consisted of a multinational division commanded by the HQ of 3rd (Fr) Division. 2nd (Fr) Armoured Brigade (Armd Bde) had its units in the field, but 6th (Fr) Armd Bde and 12 (UK) Armd Bde were represented only by their HQ staffs.

Their subordinate units and their activities were simulated using MASA’s SWORD constructive simulation, which is widely used in France for CAST, where it is known as SOULT.

By using the constructive simulation in this fashion it was possible to conduct a far more complex and elaborate exercise involving international partners, thus generating all the complications that this entails – and overcoming them – but at minimum cost.

Above: MASA Group’s SWORD can be integrated with Systematic’s SitaWare HQ to offer course of action analysis. (Image: Masa Group)

This sort of integration will almost certainly become more common, as real estate for training becomes more constrained while simultaneously manoeuvre warfare becomes more dispersed and supporting resources become more varied and difficult to provide for training.

Constructive simulation can also provide operational support. Because an AI-driven system can play out different scenarios it can be used to test different operational courses of action (CoA) and confirm the selection of the most appropriate one according to whatever criteria is selected such as time, casualties or logistics.

They can be used to conduct ‘what-if’ planning, where elements of a chosen strategy can be altered to see the effect.

Systematic’s SitaWare Headquarters software for example is a widely used C2 application. Both SWORD and Lockheed Martin’s Warfighter Simulation (WARSIM) have been integrated with it, both with the aim of adding a CoA analysis capability, making it easy for decision-makers and their staffs to evaluate, adjust and develop their plans based on something more concrete than experience, gut feeling and optimism.

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