As budget challenges continue to plague the Air Force, the service has focused on simulation as a way to keep its personnel up to speed and combat-ready at a lower cost. Gen. Robin Rand, who took over at Air Education and Training Command in October 2013, is the man charged with leading the service into the future of simulation.
Q. Where is the Air Force in terms of its use of simulation?
A. I can speak to where we are at in AETC, and I think that we are probably representative of a lot of the Air Force. It is really important to us and we're looking at increasing that in every way we can with the use of simulation.
One [reason] is because it is so much better than it used to be. Obviously, it is very efficient.
I would tell you that simulation, right now, is one of the keys that is helping us to overcome some of the other challenges that we have in terms of parts and supplies and flying hours and those things. I think when you think of simulation, everyone immediately gravitates toward flying simulations. In AETC, we have so many examples of the use of simulation that have nothing to do with flying, and that is why I say it is remarkable what we are able to do.
Q. Can you give some examples?
A. When you go out to our security forces school — and we train all our security forces — they have unbelievable training simulation where it would be like going into a hostile area, people pop up and they are able to replicate the weapon use under the real pressure of what we do. You go to Luke Air Force Base, and you go into the Medical Group — and you can go into where our physicians and our medical technicians are able to use simulation on dummies and actually do triage. And it's so close to reality, it's almost scary when you're doing it.
Obviously in all of our flying organizations, simulation is just critical to what we do, [including] our maintenance simulators, maintenance trainers that we have now. I do not think there is probably a base or organization that does not have some type of maintenance trainer, or some type of high-fidelity simulation.
Q. What challenges are there as you try to improve simulation?
A. Of course there are areas to improve in. LVC [live, virtual and constructive training] is still an area that we need to continue improvement, but we've come so far and it's just amazing. What you want simulation to be is as close to live as possible. That is not the easiest thing to do because some things you just cannot simulate as accurately.
One area for improvement, though, that we do, particularly in the flying world, is the standing up with the suites that the airplanes are at one level, and the simulator ... it's difficult to have the simulators be identical suites, and that's what we call the blocks, if you want to, that airplanes have. And you can still get a lot of practice in the simulators, but when they're a suite or two behind, there can be some negative learning that's not transferable from the simulator to the airplane. It is not always done in the most timely manner.
Q. Is that something that open architectures could help with?
A. Some of it is just that we have to continue to work with the contractors of these, and make sure that we just define our requirements and remember that sometimes simulators are managed and operated by different people than the actual equipment we are operating. It is not as perfect as we would like to see it. But we've made steps to shorten or narrow that gap that exists between simulators and actual weapon systems that we are using. [Mostly] it is communicating that as aircraft avionics packages come, that we need to make sure that we are working both angles with the airplanes and with the simulators. It is just communication.
Q. On issues like that one, has industry been flexible enough?
A. I would just say that it is just a daunting challenge. We just have to communicate and work together. I am not putting the burden on industry. These things are not free, they are not just going to hand it to us. We have to identify the requirements, and then we have to be willing to pay for the requirements.
Q. One concern with new technologies coming online, like the F-35 joint strike fighter, is that traditional training on ranges may not be enough. Is that something you're concerned about?
A. I am concerned about it. I think that is the reality. That is a vision that we have, and that is where LVC is eventually going to take us. That is where we are working toward. We will be able to do things with [LVC] that will be able to replicate, I think, high-end threats even better than we could do in the latter environment. An example of that would be to think of [Exercise] Red Flag. The equipment that is out at Red Flag that [represents] the adversary threat is not cheap. They have to manage, and if the enemy has progressed, we have not been able to get our hands on some of the capabilities that currently exist. So, we need to be able to replicate that in some type of virtual construct environment. That makes a lot of sense to go that way, and we will.
Q. Are there other advantages to simulation versus live training?
A. [Simulation] really gets these young men and women a lot farther with the same amount of training, and so much cheaper. There is so much that we can show them, that can be repetitive, and they are just getting a lot more looks at things before they actually have to demonstrate proficiency in it. You go up to an F-16 at Luke Air Force Base, and we will go in a simulator and simulate four F-16s against multiple adversaries. And for an hour and a half you can get multiple intercepts to engagements and the communications that you would use, and the employment techniques and, to a degree, the formations you fly, and the cadence of all those habit patterns that are so important. It's just amazing. If you need to, you can hit freeze and you can talk about what went wrong from one engagement to the other. You can set it up and repeat that. You just do not have those opportunities when you are doing that live training.
Q. Can you foresee in the next five to 10 years moving away from Red Flag events in favor of large LVC exercises?
A. No, but you'll have to check back with me in 10 years. I think we have a commitment to our international partners to provide them some of the high-end training that they need, that we need to work with them and that will only be possible in a Red Flag type of scenario. So, I still believe that there will be a place for that Red Flag environment for many years. I think where we'll be leaning toward is we'll still have Red Flag, but they'll be used to prepare us for these high-end LVC-type of scenarios. ... That is what we are working toward.
Q. What needs to happen to get to that point?
A. We have to get a better understanding of the real threats that are out there, one. Number two, technology has to continue to catch up, and we have to have put investment into it. It's not going to happen because we wish it to happen. We have to make investments into it. And those investments will be balanced against everything else that is competing for those precious dollars. So those will be the challenges.
Q. Is there a magic ratio of simulation to live training to aim for?
A. I would be the wrong person to ask. I am not the expert. I count on other people to come up with that.
I think we have done a pretty good job of balancing it out, and again, the ratio will increase as the simulation improves. Thirty-five years ago, what I did, there was great training, but there some things you just could not replicate in the simulator. Today we are able to replicate things that we could not even have dreamed of 20 years ago, so that ratio will vary based on the simulation, and to some degree the task and the weapon systems you are talking about. In an airplane that pulls 7 or 8 Gs, you've still got to go out there and pull 7 or 8 Gs. You cannot rely on the simulator to do all that for you. So that's why I say it kind of varies from weapon system to weapon system, but it's safe to say that we're able to upload more into the simulation than we ever have before, and I imagine we'll continue to do more than we ever have before.
But smarter people than me are going to have to figure out what that ratio is. They are out there, the really smart people who know exactly what the right mix is. And we review our syllabi annually just to address these types of things.
Aaron Mehta was deputy editor and senior Pentagon correspondent for Defense News, covering policy, strategy and acquisition at the highest levels of the Defense Department and its international partners.
