POLICY,
MANAGEMENT AND READINESS
DEFENSE COMBAT SIM OLYMPICS METHODOLOGIES INCORPORATING THE “CYBER GAMING CULTURE”
MISSION TRAINING CENTER UTILIZATION TO AUGMENT OPERATIONAL TESTING
GOING THE DISTANCE WITH E-LEARNING: MOTIVATIONAL FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE COURSE COMPLETION
Interagency Education and Training: How to Fix What's Broken
A JOINT PERSPECTIVE ON TRAINING TRANSFORMATION
ANALYSIS BASED MODELING AND SIMULATION IN THE ACQUISITION PROCESS
A CASE FOR MICRO-TRAINERS
David R. Pratt, Ph.D. Science Applications International Corporation Orlando, Florida and Amy E. Henninger, Ph.D. Soar Technology, Inc Orlando, Florida Over the last several years, there has been a major push to develop large-scale interoperable simulators and simulations that cover the depth and breadth of military operations. While these systems provide an ability to do end-to-end mission emulation, they tend to require elaborate software development efforts. The requirements base for these systems is quite large and can contain a variety of requirements at a number of different levels. Oftentimes, the harmonization of these competing, and sometimes conflicting, requirements results in compromises in the system that can have a negative impact on system performance, program cost and program schedule. The ultimate effect is a negative impact on readiness, by delaying or depriving the training audience of its tools. Consequently, even though these systems are able to provide training in the coordination aspects of warfare, it is, to some extent, at the expense of functionality in individual training tasks. That is, as “Swiss Army knife” systems, these trainers are able to provide useful and convenient training tools, however, for any given individual task, the single, monolithic, meta-system does not perform as well as a system developed solely for that task. This forms the basis of our argument: that we should augment the large scale M&S system, with families of task specific Micro-Training devices. As task-specific devices, they are smaller, less expensive and better suited to a given, specific task than a larger system built on a series of compromises.
This
paper is available on the 2002 I/ITSEC CD ROM. Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website |
|
|
DEFENSE COMBAT SIM OLYMPICS METHODOLOGIES INCORPORATING THE“CYBER GAMING CULTURE” Flack Maguire Military Aviation Training Association San Diego, California Dr. Michael van Lent Institute of Creative Technologies Marina Del Rey, California Marc Prensky CEO, Games2train New York, New York Ron W. Tarr Institute of Simulation & Training Orlando, Florida There have been many changes in the past twenty years in the implementation of simulation and computer games, including game development, usage in fixed locations, and event-based experiences both in the civilian and commercial spaces. This paper examines each of these three areas individually in order to predict their likely future developments. It then evaluates the dynamic potential for the military that lies at the crossroads where these trends are merging, and relates their interaction to the growing popularity of the online computer gaming experience. Although far from a complete study, this paper aims to add to the discussion of these industry trends. The paper proposes that there is a strong benefit to the military for recruiting, pre-training, and training of active duty members through the combination of : § Choosing, building, or modifying effective combat simulation games for military use. § Operating computer game competitions with significant military presence – similar to the air shows of today – for event-based and location-based computer gaming competitions § Using the combined venues of (a) online gaming competitions, (b) location-based game centers, and (c) large scale gaming competitions § Operating under the sports model of Leagues (by appropriate military warfare specialty for each League) and further dividing the Leagues into competing Divisions.
This paper is available on the 2002 I/ITSEC CD ROM. Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website MISSION
TRAINING CENTER UTILIZATION TO AUGMENT OPERATIONAL TESTING
R.H. Taylor Dynetics, Inc. Fort Walton Beach,
Florida While the primary purpose remains the training of aerospace crews and system operators, the potential of the DMT environment and its components to support ancillary efforts such as experimentation, test, and tactics development has been theorized since the inception of the DMT initiative. An effort to investigate the potential utilization of the USAF Distributed Mission Training-Aircrew (DMT-A) initiative’s Mission Training Center (MTC) resources to augment Air Warfare Center’s 53d Wing (53WG) test activities has recently been proposed. Significant portions of the 53WG activities are dedicated to the support of operational test and evaluation of new equipment and systems proposed for use by these forces. The utilization of the MTCs is viewed as a possible means to not only further enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of 53WG test activities, but also as a way to mitigate the expense and personnel tempo issues associated with such activities. The flexibility offered by the high-fidelity simulators within the synthetic environment allows for direct application within the 53WG’s Design of Experiments (DOE) test methodology. The initial effort, which will focus on the replication of specific legacy tests and their associated objectives within the local F-15C MTC at Eglin AFB, FL, can easily be extended across 53WG functional missions and the spectrum of operational components within the DMT network.
This paper is available on the 2002 I/ITSEC CD ROM. Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website |
|
|
CONCURRENCY: A MOVING
TARGET
Jim Caylor CAE USA Inc., Military Simulation and Training Tampa, Florida Concurrency
is a significant challenge to the aircraft simulation industry. Concurrency is achieved when the simulator
configuration is kept current with, or slightly ahead of, the aircraft
configuration. This allows aircrews
and maintenance personnel to train on new systems before they experience them
on the aircraft. The most important
consideration in designing for concurrency is simulating the avionics systems
such that future changes to the aircraft configuration and software can be
incorporated into the simulator with minimal time and resources. With the proliferation of avionics
modernization programs and Global Air Traffic Management (GATM) driven
upgrades, concurrency has an even greater significance. The C-130 and C-5 Avionics Modernization
Programs (AMP), AH/MH-6M Mission Enhanced Little Bird (MELB) upgrade, H-60R/S
Common Cockpit upgrade, and the EA-6B Improved Capabilities III (ICAP3)
program are just a few current examples.
This paper describes one of the primary tools available to help
achieve concurrency objectives – ARINC Report 610, Guidance for Use of Avionics Equipment and Software in Simulators. Although a commercial document, ARINC
Report 610, can be effectively applied to military programs. There is no equivalent military guidance
document. This paper describes the
history of ARINC Report 610, from its initial publication in 1987, through
the release of revision B in December 2001.
The rationale behind the A and B revisions is described, and
supplemental guidance information is provided. Finally, the paper suggests how to use ARINC Report 610 on
military simulator development programs.
This paper is available on the 2002 I/ITSEC CD ROM. Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website |
|
|
To Hook or Not to Hook Toby Craig and Margaret Booher The Air Force has an Independent Review Team evaluating whether simulator software (hooks) should be placed in aircraft software. Many aircraft have already included these hooks in the software with no detrimental effects. There are other issues but this paper addresses the safety issue. In one respect, the aircraft is safer if the hooks are not used. In another respect, the aircraft is safer if the hooks are used. Our paper will address our investigation into the safety concern of a simulator hook firing in an aircraft while it is flying. The paper will also address our investigation into the safety concern of the simulator training not being concurrent with the aircraft due to time involved in updating simulator software. The third safety concern our paper will address is the difference between simulator operation and aircraft operation when stimulation is not used in the simulator.
This paper is available on the 2002 I/ITSEC CD ROM. Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website |
|
|
LEARNING AS A WEAPON SYSTEM Lt Col Richard R. Baskin Chief, Technology Requirements Branch Headquarters, Air Education and Training Command (AETC) Randolph Air Force Base, Texas Dr. Dean L. Schneider Texas Center for Applied Technology Texas Engineering Experiment Station San Antonio, Texas Instructional technologies are rapidly approaching a critical mass, made up of computer infrastructures, virtual reality technologies, modeling and simulation technologies, distributed learning capabilities, and intelligent systems. These technologies and capabilities, taken together, present us with the ability to transform the military training environment--by treating learning as a weapon system. Learning over a person's lifetime, like the Air Force's concept of the Air Operations Center as a weapon system, consists of diverse components containing individual capabilities that combine together to create a synergy greater than the sum of its components. Treating learning as a weapon system has the obvious advantage of allowing for corporate, programmatic funding of education and training throughout the Air Force, but it also has many advantages inherent in the Expeditionary Air Force. Some of these advantages include the development of integrated learning systems capable of providing the necessary learning to individuals at the correct time, place, and method for their jobs, thus enhancing the individual's effectiveness. It can also provide a map of required learning in relation to one’s career path, and allow better matching of personnel to training requirements, providing much higher accuracy of personnel placement. This paper will describe the idea of learning as a weapon system and will explore the implications of this idea to the Air Force. It will describe the criticality of adopting an institutional philosophy and practice of continuous lifetime learning to meet the professional development needs of our fighting forces on a just-in-time basis. The paper will also discuss the underlying technological advances that make this concept feasible now than ever before and some of the institutional advantages to this approach. It will also identify some of the roadblocks that will have to be overcome in order to adopt this concept.
This paper is available on the 2002 I/ITSEC CD ROM. Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website |
|
|
DISTRIBUTING AND DEVELOPING SIMULATION AND TRAINING TECHNOLOGY KNOWLEDGE THROUGH A COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE ENVIRONMENT Randy N. Adkins Air Force Materiel Command HQ Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio Michael J. Lipka Northrop Grumman Information Technology Dayton, Ohio A Community of Practices is a group of people who share similar goals, interests and activities. By leveraging the collective knowledge and efforts of the group, a Community of Practice can help a group collect and access information at a faster rate, solve business problems, and provide a breeding ground for innovation through the exchange of ideas. Driven by a need to quickly and systematically acquire information on the latest simulation and training technologies, the National Training Systems Association (NTSA), in conjunction with the Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC), is proposing the creation of a virtual Simulation and Training Technology Community of Practice. This resource would allow NTSA members and their customers immediate access to valuable information on simulation and training technology product lines, updates on new or improved technologies and points of contact at technology vendors. In addition, Community members can collaborate with each other to ask questions, share experiences and solve problems. The overall goals of this effort are threefold: 1) to reduce the time to collect such information, 2) reduce the delay in communicating new and improved technologies, and 3) increase the accuracy and integrity of information. By achieving this, NTSA members will be able to better disseminate information on their products and their customers will be able to make faster and better-informed decisions on the use of simulation and training technologies.
This paper is available on the 2002 I/ITSEC CD ROM. Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website |
|
|
GOING THE DISTANCE WITH E-LEARNING: MOTIVATIONAL FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE COURSE COMPLETION Major Paul William Thurston,
Ph.D., USAF Air Force Institute of
Technology Wright-Patterson Air Force
Base, Ohio and Captain Kevin A Reynolds,
M.S., USAF Air Force Reserve Command Robins Air Force Base, Georgia Recent studies comparing classroom and web-based courses reveal completion rates as much as 40% lower for learners using the Internet as their educational platform. Unfortunately, these studies do not adequately explain why web-based course completion rates are lower. This study focused on the role motivation plays in explaining why some people persist and others drop out of web-based courses. Distal and proximal theories of motivation were used to explain the factors that inhibit web-based learners from completing the courses in which they enroll, as well as factors that enable web-learners to persist until they have completed their courses. Design factors for eight web-based courses with completion rates ranging from 64-90% and the perceptions of 497 recent students were analyzed. Analysis of the eight courses indicated that enduring valence, and to a lesser extent, timely and appropriate feedback and module succinctness as factors that may increase completion rates. Perceptions of students who had completed their course without difficulty were compared to those who had difficulty completing their courses. Off-task distractions, technical problems, decreases in self-efficacy, and personal demands were more common for students who experienced difficulty completing their courses. Comparisons were also made between those who did not complete their course with those who had completed, and students who completed in spite of difficulty. Results indicated that initial confidence, environmental support (organization, supervisor, and family), convenience, and feedback were less common for students who had not completed their courses. Students who completed their courses with some difficulty (retake or extension) were more likely to report high self-efficacy as an important factor motivating their continued persistence.
This paper is available on the 2002 I/ITSEC CD ROM. Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website |
|
|
Interagency Education and Training:How to Fix What's Broken Marcy Stahl and Julia Loughran ThoughtLink, Inc., Vienna, Virginia US government (USG)
professionals face an increasing requirement for multi-agency coordination,
cooperation and planning. Operation
Enduring Freedom has highlighted the fact that DoD is not alone in responding
to this type of crisis. Instead,
multiple USG agencies are involved in providing a cooperative and coordinated
response, and this pattern of Interagency (IA) response will likely be the
case in the future. Recently, National
Defense University (NDU) was designated as the Lead Agent for training,
education, and after action review for USG response to Complex Contingency
Operations (CCOs). NDU is currently
developing an Interagency Education, Training, and After-Action Review (ITEA)
program and in support of that effort ThoughtLink, Inc. conducted a
requirements analysis that included 76 interviews with USG personnel from 8
different agencies. This paper will provide the results of this study, including revealing the breadth of government specialties, how widespread and commonplace IA coordination is, the huge demand for IA training, and recommendations for fixing the current IA education and training problem. The paper will highlight concrete results from the interviews including which subjects people wanted, how much time they might spend on training, and what forms of training they preferred. It will also provide an update on the current status of the ITEA Program.
This paper is available on the 2002 I/ITSEC CD ROM. Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website |
|
|
A COMMON LANGUAGE Clifford R Krieger Dynamics Research Corporation Andover, Massachusetts The Universal Joint Task List was developed to empower Joint Commanders and the Services with a common language to communicate mission requirements. Early in the development of the UJTL the decision was made to allow each Service to develop its own tactical level Task List. This held the promise of a richer task list for describing mission requirements. The result has been an unacceptable divergence of language, rather than a convergence. The Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard issued Universal Naval Task List is fully compatible with the UJTL. The Navy is using it extensively. Unfortunately, when it came time to update the latest version of the UNTL, the Marine Corps balked. The Army Universal Task List, compatible with the UJTL, is close to but still not published. Unfortunately, the AUTL has begun to diverge from the UJTL. The Air Force developers rejected the hierarchical framework of the UJTL, believing their mission capabilities demanded a single-level Task List. The Air Force Task List is incompatible with the UJTL and violates a number of the rules of the UJTL taxonomy. At the same time, the US Forces Command developed its own supplement to the UJTL, providing an additional set of Tactical Tasks. From 11 September 2001, we have seen increased emphasis on emerging and non-traditional threats. This has given new urgency to the development of an Interagency Task List to complement the UJTL. Thus, while the Services diverge, new players are joining the game. It is time to remerge the Service Tactical Task Lists with the UJTL and to once again provide a common language for all. A new process is needed that focuses on agency and interagency capabilities along those of the Services. This process must provide the basis for the affirmation of a common language and a hierarchical structure—the objective of the UJTL since the beginning. Greater commonality will increase communication, not only within the DoD, but also across agencies, as we move to cope with non-traditional threats.
This paper is available on the 2002 I/ITSEC CD ROM. Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website |
|
|
A JOINT PERSPECTIVE ON TRAINING TRANSFORMATION Dr. Don Gelosh, Mr. Steve Moore United States Joint Forces Command, Joint Warfighting Center Suffolk, Virginia A central objective of the Quadrennial Defense Review 2001 is to shift the basis of defense planning from a “threat-based” model to a “capabilities-based” model that focuses more on how an adversary might fight rather than on whom the adversary might be or where the war might occur. This will require a transformation of U.S. armed forces that not only leverages the latest technological advances but also adapts current capabilities and relies on new thinking. It has been said that transformation is not an end-state but rather a journey that may take years and cause us to travel many different roads. The engine of transformation is training. Regardless of what is transformed, doctrine, organizations, equipment and systems, facilities, all transformation will require people who are properly trained to implement those transformed tools. But reliance on the old ways of training as an engine of change will be as useless as reliance on the old ways of acquisition as a driver of change. There must be an affiliated training transformation. Training is an integrating environment that brings doctrine, organization, material, leaders, and people together to implement capabilities, identify shortfalls in capabilities, and develop the knowledge and expertise needed to implement improved capabilities. Training allows us to examine deficiencies, seams, and gaps providing an integrating environment in which we can inject new ideas and examine new capabilities. At the end of the day, training can bring together new ways of thinking and new technologies and transform them into new ways of fighting. This paper will describe the work being done at the Joint Warfighting Center to lead the training transformation of US Joint Forces. It will describe organizational changes being pursued and leading edge technologies and capabilities that will enable training transformation.
This paper is available on the 2002 I/ITSEC CD ROM. Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website |
|
|
ANALYSIS BASED MODELING AND SIMULATION IN THE ACQUISITION PROCESS LCDR Dylan Schmorrow Office of Naval Research, Arlington, Virginia and Dr. Linda J. Kelsey MTS Technologies, Inc., Virginia Beach, Virginia Simulation Based Acquisition [SBA] offers increased long-term effectiveness, improves acquisition cycle time, and reduces the total ownership costs [TOC] of new weapons systems. Technological advances allow procurement professionals, using operations analysis linked to modeling and simulation [M&S], to leverage mechanisms successfully deployed in training exercise environments. Office of Naval Research [ONR] has sponsored development of an SBA process, called WARCON (Warfighting Concepts to Future Weapon System Designs), which integrates Operations Analysis, Systems Engineering and Integration and Alternative Engineering Design processes to support the acquisition decision maker. M&S tools are employed to determine operational performance measures and TOC for future systems, and provide trade-off analyses among future design options and concepts for the military acquisition decision-maker. WARCON guiding principles ensure that models realistically represent valid doctrine and operations and address the customer’s acquisition issues. More than two years of WARCON development has resulted in a mature process that provides the flexibility to be tailored for a particular warfighting application while providing enough structure to be applied across a broad spectrum of platforms, systems, and scenarios. Employing many of the same M&S federates that the Navy Warfare Development Command [NWDC] uses for Fleet Battle Experiments [FBEs] and Joint Forces Command [JFCOM] uses for Joint Experimentation, WARCON has demonstrated that analysis linked to M&S can provide quantifiable Measures of Effectiveness [MOEs] and Measures of Performance [MOPs] to support acquisition decision-making.
This paper is available on the 2002 I/ITSEC CD ROM. Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website |
|
|