NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE
REPORTBY THE COMPTROLLERAND AUDITOR GENERAL
Ministry of Defence: Use of Simulators in Training
ORDEREDBY THE HOUSEOF COMMONS TO BE PRINTED 2 NOVEMBER1992
LONDON: HMSO 247 f7.95 NET MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: USE OF SIMULATORS IN TRAINING
This report has been prepared under Section 6 of the National Audit Act, 1983 for presentation to the House of Commons in accordance with Section 9 of the Act.
John Bourn National Audit Office Comptroller and Auditor General 7 September 1992
The Comptroller and Auditor General is the head of the National Audit Office employing some 900 staff. He, and the NAO are totally independent of Government. He certifies the accounts of all Government departments and a wide range of other public sector bodies; and he has statutory authority to report to Parliamenton the economy,efficiency and effectiveness with which departments and other bodies have used their resources. MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: “SE OF SIMULATORS IN TRAINING
Contents
Pages
Summary and conclusions 1
Part 1: Introduction and background 8
Part 2: The acquisition of Simulators for the Royal Air Force 10
Part 3: Utilisation of Simulators in the Royal Air Force 15
Part 4: The effectiveness of Simulators used by the Royal Air Force 23
Part 5: The use of Simulators by the Royal Navy and the Army 26
Appendices
1. National Audit Office Case Studies 29
2. Views Expressed by Simulator Manufacturers 37
3. Commissioned Work on Effectiveness 39
4. Examples of Simulators in the Royal Navy and the Army 41 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: USE OF SIMULATORS IN TRAINING
Summary and conclusions
1 Members of the Armed Forces must train effectively to achieve and maintain individual and collective operational capability. Simulators, in combination with more traditional forms of training, have a key role in the achievement of this objective.
2 In 1990 the Ministry of Defence (the Department) estimated that the 3000 or so simulators in use by the three Services had cost in excess of E450 million. The Department plan to spend E700 million on simulators over the next ten years.
3 The training of the Armed Forces in peace presents many problems, especially in a developed society. United Kingdom airspace is limited, the extant and use of training land for large scale exercises is inevitably circumscribed by the needs of civil society and the economy, and coastal waters carry heavy traffic. Simulation can provide an important way of supplementing the amount of live training that it is practically and economically possible to carry out at home and overseas. For example, simulation may allow training to be conducted in greater safety, in adverse weather conditions or regardless of time of day. It can also reduce the need for live training which might damage the environment. As regards financial benefits, the operating costs of simulators are generally about 10 per cent of those for parent equipments [paragraphs 1.1-1.2, 1.7-1.8).
4 The National Audit Office examined the acquisition, utilisation and effectiveness of simulators used in training. The examination covered the use of simulators in all three Services but concentrated on the Royal Air Force because of the wide range of simulators employed, the high cost of flight simulators and the special relevance of simulation to Royal Air Force training and flight safety. But this should not obscure the attention already paid and in prospect for simulation in the Royal Navy and the Army, and the findings and conclusions of this Report are applicable in large part to all three Services.
The acquisition of 5 Where possible the Department acquire simulators by competitive tender. Simulators for the They also pursue opportunities for collaboration with other nations, for Royal Air Force example simulators are being developed collaboratively for the European Fighter Aircraft. Some commercial simulators are used on a repayment basis, and the Department are considering the scope for contracting out simulator training for multi-engined aircraft (paragraphs 2.5-2.17).
6 The Department have not acquired any simulator specifically to avoid damage to the environment, but they take account of environmental factors when considering acquisition of simulators. In October 1991 the Department announced that they expect the planned withdrawal of operational squadrons and the introduction of Tucano propeller turbine aircraft for flying training to reduce jet low flying in the United Kingdom by about a
1 MlNISTRY OF DEFENCE: USE OF SIMULATORS IN TRAINING
third over three years; and that simulators would be used where possible. However there are no simulators currently in service which can provide realistic low flying training. The simulator for the Tornado GRl, the Royal Air Force’s principal low flying aircraft, is significantly behind available technology-in particular it does not have a visual system. The Department recognise the need for improvements to the existing Tornado GRl simulators, but have other priorities for funding (paragraphs 2.8-2.11).
7 In March 1990 the House of Commons Defence Committee recommended that the Department substantially increase their research and development in simulation technology. The Department informed the Committee that El25 million had been spent on flight simulators in the previous five years, a significant proportion of which was for research and development for the new Harrier GR5 simulator. The Department added that this simulator may be used to study the extent to which similar systems could provide a cost- effective contribution to low flying. Research in Germany is examining how simulation might substitute for Tornado low flying (paragraphs 2.10-2.12).
8 The Department point out that they have not always had the resources to acquire the simulators they would like, and that they have not always been able to update or replace simulators to keep pace with rapidly changing simulator technology. Moreover, as the acquisition of simulators is an infrequent occurrence in relation to the pace of technical developments--no contracts for major flight simulators have been let since 1987-it is difficult to capitalise on up-to-date technology. The Department recognise, however, that there have been inadequacies in the definition of training needs and failures in making the most effective use of available technology which, in the past, have contributed to simulators failing to meet users’ needs. And as simulators have frequently entered service after parent equipment the full benefits of simulation have not always been achieved (paragraphs 2.13416).
9 The Harrier GR5 aircraft, for example, has been in service since 1988, but the simulator is not due to be introduced until late 1992. Training has therefore been undertaken on other nations’ less appropriate simulators at an estimated extra cost of f~2 million. Recognising that where possible simulators should enter service with or before parent equipment, the Department have identified a need for future proposals for simulators to be developedconcurrently with thosefor newparent equipment. Commercial airlines require that simulators are in service before new aircraft (paragraphs 2.16-2.18).
10 In recognition of previous acquisition problems, a “Policy for Synthetic Training” in the Royal Air Force was promulgated by the Department in 1989. A cornerstone of the Policy is “Training Needs Analysis”, which is now mandatory for all new simulator programmes. The approach is supported by simulator manufacturers and has been adopted by other countries. The aim is to achieve the best mix of what the Department wants and can afford, as well as revealing what technologies might be exploited. The Department have conducted two major Training Needs Analyses to date-for the European Fighter Aircraft and Tornado GRl Mid-Life Update. As the simulators so identified are not yet in-service, it is too early to assess the impact of the approach-but the Department expect it to help overcome many of the limitations of earlier acquisitions. At present, however, there is
2 MlNlSTRY OF DEFENCE: USE OF SIMULATORS IN TRAINlNG
no standard structure for such analyses, nor authoritative guidance on all the points that analyses should cover (paragraphs 2.19-2.22).
11 The National Audit Office conclude that, to maintain and build on the significant progress already made in overcoming weaknesses in the acquisition of simulators for the Royal Air Force, the Department should pay particular attention to: ensuring that acquisition choices are based on improved, and more timely, definition of training needs, and on a full appreciation of the technology available. To this end it is important that the Department’s initiative to introduce Training Needs Analysis, which is still in its early days, is driven home-and strengthened by standardising the approach to such analysis. It will be important for the Department to assess the impact of the early analyses carried out, and identify lessons for the future; formulating a clear plan, with well defined priorities, for future acquisitions; ensuring that Departmental environmental objectives are fully considered in decisions to acquire simulators, and in deciding the most cost-effective balance between simulation and live training. Research in Germany, and study opportunities provided by the new Harrier GR5 simulator, could make a positive contribution in the environmentally sensitive area of low flying training.
The utilisation of 12 In 1989 the Department recognised the need for “Operating Policy of Simulators in Statements” specifying the training role of simulators, the resources the Royal Air Force required to operate them and the utilisation levels expected. A total of 20 such statements will be required to cover the existing major flight simulator inventory. As at July 1992, one statement had been issued and a further nine were in an advanced state of preparation. The work has been hampered by staff shortages, the Gulf War and uncertainties over the future location of simulators as a result of extensive re-deployment proposals resulting from Options for Change. As a result there is no current target date for the completion of the remaining statements (paragraphs 3.2-3.3).
13 The Department require that as much training as possible be carried out on simulators, and they have achieved significant financial savings by adopting this policy. For example, the Air Traffic Control School at RAF Shawbury used to fly Jet Provost aircraft specifically to provide radar traces for air traffic control students. Simulators have since been acquired which simulate the radar traces needed for training, and the Jet Provost flights have been stopped, saving some El.8 million a year. The scope for reductions in ‘live’ training-especially flying time-has also been a factor in the Department’s decisions to acquire particular simulators. For example, the new Air Navigation Trainer was partly justified by the Department in terms of reductions in ‘live’ flying, which were estimated in 1988 to realise E83 million over 15 years (paragraphs 3.4-3.8).
14 Spare simulator capacity (paragraphs 3.10-3.20) and advances in simulator technology underline the need to keep under review the balance between simulation and ‘live’ training. Defining the best mix of simulation and ‘live’ training will be facilitated by increasing use of Training Needs Analysis.
3 MlNlSTRY OF DEFENCE: “SE OF SIMULATORS IN TRAlNlNG
However, in making such important judgements it is vital that the Department have sufficient assurance as to the capabilities of simulators. The Department recognise that research to define the best mix of simulation and ‘live’ training is likely to be needed to underpin military judgement in this area [paragraph 3.9).
15 The Department monitor centrally the utilisation of simulators for aircrew, but not other simulators. Utilisation of about a third of the 76 simulators subject to monitoring fell below 60 per cent of planned levels in 1989-90 [the last representative year-1990-91 and X991-92 figures were distorted by the Gulf conflict). Overall, the training task utilised only one third of the theoretical total simulator availability. In some cases this is the result of reduction in numbers of parent aircraft, airbases and aircrew since the original simulators were acquired. But in the National Audit Office’s view this level of unused simulator capacity points to the need for the Department to explore fully the further opportunities for use of simulators in training; to review the number and location of simulators; and to review the manpower levels currently allocated to simulators. The National Audit Office noted that British Airways’ simulators, although catering for a different training task, are operated for 20 hours a day (paragraphs 3.10-3.18).
16 The main reason for lower utilisation than planned was the shortfall in the training load. But the non-availability of simulators because, for example, of technical problems and a shortage of instructors, also affected some simulators. In 1989-90 the number of students requiring training was 18 per cent less than planned, due partly to changes to the training task during the year. A further 8 per cent of planned training time was not used because students did not take up their scheduled places (paragraphs 3.19-3.20).
17 Some 14 per cent of training time in 1989-90 was degraded due to technical faults on simulators. And about 13 per cent of training did not proceed as planned because of non-availability of simulators. Non-availability was due to, among other things, technical failure of simulators; a shortage of simulator instructors; and a need for down time to modify simulators. Although training was disrupted there was sufficient simulator capacity to enable the Department to reschedule training. On recent acquisitions the Departmenthave taken steps to improvethe availabilityof simulatorsby requiring contractors to achieve a specified level of availability (paragraphs 3.20-3.21).
18 From their examination of the Department’s utilisation of simulators the National Audit Office conclude that the following will be important factors in the Department’s efforts to make best use of the available simulator resources:
. early completion of simulator operating policy statements, which spell out how the simulator is to be used and specify target availability of simulators;
. periodic review of the balance between simulation and live training with a view to carrying out as much training as possible on simulators where it is cost-effective to do so-a need which in the National Audit Office’s view is underlined by the potential cost and other benefits of simulation;
4 M,N,STRY OF DEFENCE: “SE OF SIMULATORS IN TRAlNING
the extent of spare simulator capacity; and advances in simulator technology;
. review of the number and location of simulators, and the support manpower required, where there is significant spare simulator capacity;
. continued effort to improve the availability of simulators once they are in service. New contracts will require simulator manufacturers to meet high reliability rates, but the National Audit Office suggest that the Department also need to consider the question of instructor shortages for simulators already in service.
The effectiveness 19 The ability of simulators to convince trainees that they are responding to a of Simulators in the real situation can be the key determinant of effectiveness. The National Royal Air Force Audit Office noted examples of simulators which were highly regarded by users at Royal Air Force Stations. However, the Department have identified lack of fidelity as a major concern regarding the extent to which simulators have met training needs. For example, since the Tornado GRl simulator cannot simulate low flying, it cannot contribute to this aspect of training which is currently carried out entirely in the air at a cost of some ~55 million a year. More generally, simulators for fast jets have often not been kept in the same modification state as the parent equipment. Although high fidelity is not necessary for all types of training, its absence can serve to limit their training value (paragraphs 4.3-4.6).
20 The National Audit Office observed that the Department have not regularly examined the fidelity of simulators to the parent equipment. However, an annual Fidelity Test procedure-based partly on Civil Aviation Authority procedures-was introduced in November 1990, but is only applicable to the more modern simulators. The Department point out that few existing simulators were built to such a standard as to warrant full fidelity testing. Moreover, each sortie is conducted in a more critical environment than is the case for civil operators, and crews and instructors are required to report on the performance of the simulator after each exercise. Nevertheless, they recognise that on relevant future simulators, such examinations, rigourously applied, would help maintain fidelity and inform decisions concerning both the value of simulator training provided and the balance with ‘live’ training. In the private sector high fidelity simulators are essential as some commercial pilot training is undertaken using only simulators. This requirement is backed up by formal annual inspections by the Civil Aviation Authority, who have the power to withdraw training licences if arrangements are not fully effective. They frequently exercise this sanction (paragraphs 4.7-4.8).
21 To derive the best balance between simulation and ‘live’ training, and make folly informed decisions about future acquisitions, the Department need to assess the training contribution made by simulators. The potential value of effectiveness measurement was illustrated when as a result of an evaluation in 1980 of the Jet Provost instrument trainer the amount of ‘live’ flying was reduced-with significant cost savings. The Department have long recognised the need for improved effectiveness measurement but progress in this complex area has been slow [paragraphs 4.9-4.13).
5 MlNlSTRY OF DEFENCE: USE OF SIMULATORS IN TRAINING
22 The National Audit Office recognise the difficulties inherent in effectiveness measurement and commissioned PA Consultants to assist them in reviewing research into simulator effectiveness carried out by experts at home and abroad. A digest has been provided to the Department. Research confirms that effectiveness measurement among users is usually an afterthought, although, in the case of the Services, this should change because of the new requirement for post-acquisition effectiveness audits as part of the Training Needs Analysis approach. It also identifies methods for measuring effectiveness which, largely untested, depend mainly on examining the times taken by different groups of trainees to attain required levels of operational capability-with one group using simulation and the other undergoing ‘live’ training (paragraph 4.14).
23 The National Audit Office conclude that there are three key areas which merit close attention by the Department if they are successfully to measure and maintain simulator effectiveness: . developing objective measures of the contribution that simulators make to training. This is essential if the Department are to make fully informed decisions about the acquisition and best utilisation of simulators. This is a highly complex area with no ready made solutions the Department can put in place ‘overnight’. However, the Department might wish to take account of the National Audit Office’s digest of research material, and consider whether there is scope for collaboration with industry in this area of mutual importance; . ensuring that the requirement for post acquisition effectiveness audits is enforced, and that lessons from these audits are fed back into the acquisition cycle. Ultimately, however, the success of these audits will depend on progress in developing appropriate measurement techniques; . pressing home the move to annual fidelity testing on suitable simulators which, though less rigorous than commercial practice, is a useful initiative.
The use of 24 Like the Royal Air Force, simulators for the Royal Navy and the Army have Simulators by the only infrequently been introduced into service at the same time as the Royal Navy and the parent equipment. Also, in the past, their acquisition has not been fully Army informed by a close definition of the training need. As a result, the potential benefits of simulation have not always been fully realised. The Royal Navy and the Army have, however, now introduced, like the Royal Air Force, a Training Needs Analysis approach in order to alleviate this and other acquisition problems. The Royal Navy and the Army, like the Royal Air Force, have not made a systematic attempt to measure objectively the effectiveness of their simulators.
25 The main differences between the Services are that: . the Department have not yet formulated a specific policy governing Royal Navy simulators in the manner of the Policy for Synthetic Training in the Royal Air Force, and the Strategy for Simulation in Training in the Army. However the concept of using simulation to meet training needs is embodied in procedures for preparing Operational Requirements for parent equipments for the Royal Navy [paragraphs 5.7-5.8);
6 MlNISTRYOFDEFENCE:USEOFSlMULATORSINTRAlNlNG
. utilisation of the Royal Navy and Army simulators, unlike those of the Royal Air Force, is not monitored. But there are plans to do so in the future (paragraphs 5.15-5.16). 26 The National Audit Office conclude that, leaving aside obvious differences in the types of simulators in use, there are strong similarities between the use of simulators in the three Services and that their findings and conclusions about the Royal Air Force are in large part applicable to the Royal Navy and the Army.
Overall conclusions 27 The Department have made a large investment in simulators-financially and in terms of training for operational effectiveness. In their efforts to derive maximum value from the investment the Department have focused particularly on improving their acquisition processes. More needs to be done, but in adopting the Training Needs Analysis approach they have put in place the cornerstone for improvement.
28 The significant amount of spare simulator capacity identified by the National Audit Office does not automatically mean over-provision when simulators were first acquired, or under utilisation. It should focus the Department’s attention, however, on ensuring that the number and location of simulators remains appropriate to their training needs, and on whether there is scope for greater, cost-effective, utilisation. But many factors come into play including social, economic, environmental and financial considerations. And ultimately the appropriate mix of live training and simulation is a matter of military judgement. At present such judgements are not based on a complete understanding of the training contribution of simulators and there are no fully tried and tested methods for assessing this. More work needs to be done in this area, perhaps in collaboration with industry. The Department recognise that measurement of the effectiveness of simulators is a key area for development if they are to exploit full potential benefits of simulation and derive maximum value from their substantial investment.
7 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: USE OF SIMULATORS IN TRAINING
Part 1: Introduction and background
1.1 Members of the Armed Forces must train and procedural skills, for example in effectively to achieve and maintain individual flying training: and collective operational capability. Training r;oller;tive skills trairling, which is covers a wide range of activities from concerned with training members of a classroom instruction to complex military team to work together, for example a exercises. Simulators are used by the Ministry warship operations room crew; of Defence (the Department), in combination with traditional forms of training, to improve command training, which is concerned operational capability. with training for effective decision making, for example training of Army 1.2 Training of the Armed Forces in peace formation commanders through simulated presents many problems, especially in a exercises. developed society where airspace is limited, 1.6 Many kinds of simulator are used in training. the extent and use of training land for large The three main types are: scale exercises is inevitably circumscribed by the needs of civil society and the economy, computer based trainers. These are and coastal waters carry heavy traffic. In usually commercially available micro- combination with more traditional forms of computers running custom-built software. training, and where it is cost-effective, They are used mainly in the early stages of simulators allow the Department to offset training to teach basic principles, for some of the physical, financial, practical and example engine and mechanical system environmental constraints on live training. operation in armoured fighting vehicles. They are generally low cost devices; 1.3 In 1990 the Department estimated that there part-task trainers. These are used at an were around 3,000 simulators in use by the intermediate stage of training to promote three Services, and that they had cost in familiarisation with the parent equipment. excess of E450 million. The Department plan Beyond that, they focus on specific to spend some f700 million on simulators procedures such as those relating to sonar over the next ten years. equipment handling on warships. Part-task trainers are normally computer based, and require specialised hardware to replicate Application of simulation to the parent equipment; training mission simulators. These simulators are used to train students to perform a 1.4 Simulation is a means of producing a complete operational function. They tend representation of operational conditions to to be technologically advanced and enable trainees to acquire and practice skills, expensive, and provide the trainee with a knowledge and attitudes. A simulator is any representation of, for example, an aircraft system or equipment used in the practice of cockpit. They may also add to realism by simulation. It is typically associated with an using motion, aural and visual systems to operational (parent] equipment. Stated represent real operations. simply, simulation models an operational situation and a simulator models operational 1.7 Simulation is neither a complete nor equipment. automatic alternative to ‘live’ training, although there are cases where effective 1.5 Simulation may be applied to three main training can only be carried out by simulation. types of training: Training usually involves combined use of suitable simulators and parent equipment. . individual skills training, which is Simulators can provide a controlled training concerned with an individual’s reactive environment and the ability to conduct
R MlNlSTRY OF DEFENCE: “SE OF SlMULATORS IN TRAINING
training gradually in relation to trainees’ The National Audit Office learning capability. Complete lessons or examination particular parts can be practised and repeated, and performance can be recorded to permit 1.9 feedback to the trainee. In the light of the Department’s significant investment in simulators (paragraph 1.3) and their importance in terms of safety, cost and 1.8 Other particular benefits of simulators are: the environment, the National Audit Office examined the Department’s use of simulators safety-simulation provides a safe training in training. The examination focused on the environment for rehearsing tasks, Royal Air Force because of the high cost of, abnormal situations and emergency drills, notably, flight simulators, the wide range of which would otherwise be considered too simulators used, and the special relevance of hazardous to the trainee or to third parties: simulation to their training, especially in terms of flight safety. The examination addressed three main aspects: costs-capital costs of simulators are often lower than those for the parent equipment, l acquisition of simulators [Part 2); although this is not always so (for example l utilisation of simulators (Part 3); the new Harrier mission simulators cost E25 million each, and a proposed . effectiveness of simulators [Part 4). simulator for search and rescue Sea Kings is sane 50 per cent more expensive than The acquisition, utilisation and effectiveness the helicopters themselves). Simulators of Royal Navy and Army simulators is have significantly lower running costs described in Part 5. than the parent equipment, particularly when training tasks have to be practised 1.10 The National Audit Office examined a sample repeatedly to reach the required standard. of 12 Royal Air Force simulators [Appendix The normal operating costs of a simulator 11, agreed by the Department as are generally about 10 per cent of the representative. Visits were made to 15 Royal operating costs of parent equipment. Air Force establishments; the Royal Navy’s Where simulators substitute for training on School of Maritime Operations at HMS Dryad, the parent equipment, they effectively Portsdown; the Royal Armoured Corps extend the life of that equipment. Cost is Gunnery Training School at Lulworth, and linked to safety in that the early stages of their Driving and Maintenance School at training are characterised by errors and by Bovington: the Defence Research Agency at accidents, with cost in terms of human life Bedford; and British International Helicopters and financial resources; Limited who have a Chinook helicopter simulator at the Defence Research Agency, impact on the environment-simulation Farnborough. can reduce the need for ‘live’ training which might damage the environment; and 1.11 The views of three principal United Kingdom simulator manufacturers-Link Miles Limited, practicality-the increasing operational Marconi Simulation Limited and Rediffusion capability, particularly in terms of range, Simulation Limited, were obtained (Appendix of weapons systems is a constraint on 2). In addition the National Audit Office ‘live’ training. Also, some training visited the British Airways flight simulator requirements which can only be met by complex at Cranebank, and sought the views simulation, for example the ability to of the Civil Aviation Authority. ‘The National practice mission training in a hostile Audit Office commissioned PA Consultants to environment. Simulation allows training assist in their examination of research to continue regardless of weather or time material on measuring the effectiveness of of day. simulators.
.I 9 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: USE OF SIMULATORS IN TRAINING
Part 2: The acquisition of Simulators for the Royal Air Force
Introduction Executive let the contract and the simulator, after completion and testing at the factory, 2.1 This Part covers: the reasons for acquiring goes through a commissioning stage which simulators; the acquisition process, including involves installation at the Royal Air Force environmental factors and the extent to which station and acceptance testing before formal simulators meet training needs; and the handover. Department’s initiatives to improve the acquisition process. 2.5 Contracts are let by competitive tender and for new aircraft programmes the Department now Reasons for acquiring Simulators seek a prime contractor for the parent equipment and training system together. The 2.2 A departmental report in 1989 identified smne prime cOntractor may then sub-contract the 405 simulators in service with the Royal Air simulator work. By this means the Department Force. These were used to meet a wide range transfer to the prime contractor the risks of training needs. For example, computer associated with integrating complex systems. based trainers to teach basic principles of navigation, and part-task trainers like the 2.6 For aircraft programmes involving Tornado Air Intercept Trainer used to teach collaboration with other countries, the Tornado F3 crews air interception techniques. Department seek to ensure that cmnnmn Mission simulators, such as those for the “core” simulators are acquired collaboratively. Tornado GR1 aircraft, are used to practice operational “sorties”. Their main aims are to avoid unnecessary duplication in research and development, and 2.3 Some El25 million has been spent on mission to reduce unit costs through bigger production simulators for the Royal Air Force since 1985 runs. This is the intention for the European and the Department plan to spend sane +Z260 Fighter Aircraft programme [Appendix 1 Case million (at 1992 prices] on major simulators 3) and was the intention for the Tornado GRl for the Royal Air Force LWX the next decade. programme. However, one of the participating nations withdrew from collaborative acquisitionof Tornadosimulators because of The acquisition process differing operational requirements. and the United Kingdom acquired their own 2.4 In outline the acquisition process is that Once a training need has been identified by the independently. Royal Air Force’s training branches, a Training Needs Analysis is initiated. This 2.7 In two cases examined by the National Audit analysis has to be made early enough for the Office (Tristar and Chinook) versions of the costs of the appropriate training system to be parent equipment are operated in the private identified, and for suitable provision to be sector. In these cases both the simulator and sought through the budgetary process. instruction are provided to the Royal Air Operational Requirements staff subsequently Force on a repayment basis by British Airways draft a “Staff Requirement” which sets out the and British International Helicopters Limited users requirement for the simulator and puts respectively. The Department are considering the case for acquisition. If the case is accepted, the Procurement Executive prepare extending private sector involvement in the a Technical Specification for the simulator provision of simulator training for parts of the and a tender for contract. The Procurement multi-engine fleet.
10 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: USE OF SIMULATORS IN TRAINING
Simulators and the environment research and development for the Harrier GR5 simulator, in addition to fll million for other 2.8 The Department have not acquired any research and development into simulators. simulators specifically to avoid damage to the The reply added that the latest visual environment that might be caused by ‘live’ technology in the new Harrier GR5 system training. However, they now have regard to would allow scope, subject to the necessary environmental benefits when assessing funding, to study the extent to which similar procurement proposals. The Department’s systems could provide a cost-effective Environment Manual issued in 1991 contribution to low flying. The Department’s specifically acknowledges the problem of budget for research and development into aircraft noise, and the need to make maximum flight simulation, including that for low use of simulators. flying, was il.5 million for financial year 1991-92. 2.9 In October 1991 the Department announced that they expect the planned withdrawal of operational squadrons and the introduction of Meeting training needs Tucano propeller turbine aircraft for flying training to cut the amount of jet low flying in 2.13 The Department point out that they have not this country by nearly one-third over three always had the resources to acquire the years, and that simulators would be used simulators they would like, and that it is where possible. However, the National Audit difficult to capitalise on up-to-date training Office observe that there are no simulators in technology. This is because the acquisition of Royal Air Force use capable of providing low simulators is an infrequent occurrence in flying training with any degree of realism. relation to the pace of technical developments. Recent internal reviews have 2.10 The House of Commons Defence Committee shown, however, that in the past the stated in March 1990 [HC 20, Session Department’s acquisition of simulators has not 1989-90) that it seemed extraordinary to them involved thorough analyses of training needs; that the simulator for the Tornado GRI, the whether such needs can be met by simulation; principal aircraft used for low flying, should and what kind of simulators are appropriate. be so far behind the available technology. Simulators, therefore, have often failed fully They recommended that the Department to meet user needs because of different examine the development of a visual facility perceptions of what simulators were needed for the simulator, and that the Department for, and different understandings of the substantially increase their commitment to technology available. Simulators both for fast research and development in simulation jets and for multi-engined aircraft have been technology. The Committee noted that the acquired ad hoc, rather than as planned Federal German Government were funding a elements of a training system. visual system for their Tornado simulators: this research and development programme, 2.14 Simulator manufacturers visited by the which is still running, is examining how National Audit Office considered that the simulation might be used to substitute for low Department had not fully appreciated the flying. training opportunities simulation could offer, and that the Department were not exploiting 2.11 The Government reply (HC 659, Session all the available technologies. 1989-90) recognised the potential attractions of using simulators to a greater extent in low 2.15 Against this background the National Audit flying training, and the need for a high Office observed that most simulators in their definition visual facility for the Tornado sample had only limited motion and no visual simnlntnr~ The reply added that other systems, and that a significant amount of equipment currently had higher priority for simulator capacity was unused (paragraphs funds. 3.10-3.181. The importance of a thorough and structured approach to identifying training 2.12 Regarding the Department’s commitment to needs is also illustrated by the following research and development, the reply pointed CX%S: out that a significant proportion of the El25 million spent on procurement of flight . for the Chinook helicopter [Appendix 1, simulators in the previous five years went on Case 5) the Department initially decided
11 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: “SE OF SIMULATORS IN TRAINING
that there was no need for a simulator to parent equipment, in one case (the Harrier practice, among other things, emergency GR5) four years later (Table 1). This meant drills. Following a crash the Department that training was initially compromised identified a requirement for a simulator. because there was no simulator to train on. The lack of core funding provision led the Accordingly potential benefits of simulation Department to use a commercially were not achieved. For example: operated simulator on a repayment basis . in the absence of a simulator for the (paragraph 2.17). Although it does not Harrier GR5 and GR7, trainees have since wholly replicate the Royal Air Force 1988 trained abroad on less appropriate Chinook, the simulator provides a safe simulators, at an estimated extra cost of means of practicing emergency and other fZ million: drills; l late delivery of the simulator for the . when the Rapier Missile System was Tucano aircraft, the Royal Air Force’s new acquired it was supported by part-task basic flying trainer which replaces the Jet trainers which proved incapable of Provost, resulted in the need for extra providing training for the Rapier crew as a flying hours and additional costs of team. As a result, the current simulator f40,OOO. (Appendix 1 Case 11) was acquired some ten years after the introduction of the In both these cases, where industrial reasons Rapier system to meet a training need contributed to the delay, the contractors have which had not been clearly identified at met the extra costs involved. the outset; and 2.17 A number of factors have led to simulators . in the case of the Harrier GR5 there were being delivered after parent equipment (Table delays of some two years in determining I and Appendix 1). However, recognising that the type and number of simulators difficulties with timing of delivery have arisen required (Appendix 1, Case 11. in the past, the Department now require Manufacturing difficulties have proposals for training equipment, including contributed to delays and the simulator is simulators, to be developed concurrently with now expected to enter service in late 1992 those for new parent equipment. (paragraph 2.161.
2.16 Ideally simulators should be in service when 2.18 The National Audit Office noted that the parent equipment enters service, but this commercial airlines acquire simulators before is often not achieved. The National Audit the in-Service date of parent equipments so Office noted from their case studies that pilot training can be completed before (Appendix 1) that of the seven simulators new aircraft arrive. The Department pointed associated with a parent equipment four out, however, that the relative complexity of entered service considerably later than the operational fast jet aircraft required by the
Table 1: In-service dates of parent equipment and associated Simulators Tornado GRl - Mission simulators arrived at RAFCottesmore and Marham in 1981 and 1983 respectively between one and one and a half years after the parent aircraft. Delayswere due to disagreement betweenthe nations DarbciDatinqin the Tornado ~lroqrammeas to whether the simulators should be acquired collabor&vely’or naiionally.
Nimrod Electronic The Yellowgate palt-task trainer arrived at RAFSt Mawgan in early 1987 two years after Support Measures the parent equipment. Delays were caused by debate as to the best technical solution for the (Yellowgate) simulator and. once this had been decided. by technical difficulties.
TUC?JO The Tucana flight simulator arrived at RAFChurch Fentonin mid-1990 one and a half years after the parent equipment. Delays were due to late supply of aircraft equipment from the manufacture1 for incorporation into the simulator and to design changesto the simulator specification.
Harrier GR5and Harrier GR5and GR7 mission simulators are now plannedto have In-ServiceDates of late GR7 1992 and 1993 which will be over four years and over three years respectively aner me parenr equipment. Delays are largely due to technical problems with these complex simulators. Source:National Audit Office examination This table gives examples of delays betweenthe in-Service dates of simulators and their parent equipment and gives brief reasonsfor those delays.
12 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: USE OF SIMULATORS IN TRAINING
Royal Air Force, involving advanced (al enables the user (the Royal Air Force] to technology and commercial confidentiality, see the effect on cost of changing their have made it more difficult for simulator training needs, and to observe the effect manufacturers to gain access to information on training of various levels of necessary to supply simulators early. expenditure;
[b) enables the training need to be met by the Initiatives to improve the lowest cost simulators possible, and by acquisition process the minimum number of simulators; (cl allows, by bringing all interested parties 2.19 In recognition of previous acquisition together, co-ordination of training needs difficulties the Department promulgated in and their solution; 1989 a “Policy for Synthetic Training” in the Royal Air Force. The Policy established how (d) ensures that training needs are fully taken future requirements for simulators should be into account when considering what determined, how they should be acquired, simulators to acquire. and how they should be managed and integrated within Royal Air Force training. It Further, Training Needs Analysis stresses that requires that the acquisition of synthetic parent equipment and associated training training equipment, including simulators, be requirements, including simulators, should be an integral part of future weapons systems seen as a package rather than considered as acquisitions. The Policy does not go as far as separate items. the Army’s Strategy for Simulation in Training, in setting out a programme for 2.21 The Department consider that the potential future acquisitions or requiring that benefits from such analyses will more than simulators contribute to the measurement of offset their cost of between 230,000 and operational effectiveness (paragraph 5.12). f500,OOO per project. Simulator manufacturers visited by the National Audit Office Training needs analysis confirmed the significant benefits of Training 2.20 A cornerstone of the Policy for Synthetic Needs Analysis [Appendix 2). The National Training is that a Training Needs Analysis be Audit Office noted that this approach has conducted for all new major equipments. already been adopted by the United States, Training Needs Analysis is a means of German, Italian and Spanish Air Forces, determining the best mix of: what a user among others. wants, in terms of training needs to be met; what the buyer can afford, in terms of 2.22 To date, two major Training Needs Analyses simulators to meet the training need; and have been conducted, for the European what the supplier can provide. (Table 2). The Fighter Aircraft and for the Tornado GRl Mid potential benefits of the approach are that it: Life Update. The Department commissioned
Table 2: Trainins NeedsAnalvsis Identification of This is done by a thorough analysis of the operational work to be undertakenby personnel and the training need by specification of the necessaryskills, knowledge and attitudes that have to be mastered (operational capability). The analysis comparesthis to the entry skills, knowledgeand attitude level of the trainees. so that an assessment of the extent and kind of training required, (the “training need”) can be made.
Identification of A Training NeedsAnalysis involves comparative examination 01the various training media and simulators Options available to determine whether their use is appropriate and which simulators are most relevant to the training need.
Choiceof Simulators This is based on full comprehensiveanalysis of the capital, infrastructure and support costs of the relevant simulators, over the projected life of the parent equipment. The analysis shows any cosV training capacity trade-offs, and identifies the most cost- effective training strategy. Source:Matfonal Audit Office examination. Note:Following implementation of the most cost-effective training system. audits should be conducted to determinewhether or notit is meeting thetraininn needs for whichit wasacouired. This table identifies the three key stages of Training NeedsAnalysis.
13 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: “SE OF SIMULATORS IN TRAINING
these analyses from private sector firms, and guidance on all the specific points they including leading simulator manufacturers should cover. Simulator manufacturers who have training groups within their contacted by the National Audit Office also corporate structure. It is too early to assess the considered that, whilst retaining necessary impact as these simulators are not yet in flexibility. there was a need for a ccnnmon service. However, the National Audit Office Analysis’ system with ccnnmon standards. A suggest that Training Needs Analysis should standard structure would help minimise the be further enhanced by promulgation of a risk of omissions and simplify the task of standard structure for Analysis documents, comparing analyses by different firms. MINlSTRY OF DEFENCE: USE OF SIMULATORS IN TRAINING
Part 3: Utilisation of Simulators in the Royal Air Force
Introduction The balance between simulation and live training 3.1 This Part ccwe~s: simulator operating policy; the balance between simulation and live 3.4 Simulators play a role in ground crew and training: the extent to which simulators are aircrew training. Ground crew training utilised; and the reasons for lower utilisation includes areas of fighter control, air traffic than planned. control, weapons systems and engineering support. Examples include the Area Radar Training Simulator used for air traffic control training (Appendix 1 Case 121, the Rapier Operating policy Dome Trainer used for Rapier weapon system training (Appendix 1 Case 111, and the 3.2 In the past, simulator users at Royal Air Force Avionics Systems Trainer used to teach stations have had little guidance on the Harrier GRS engineers. specific employment and management of simulators. In 1989 the Department 3.5 Simulators are fundamental to virtually all established a Policy for Synthetic Training in aircrew training. They are used at every stage the Royal Air Force, which requires that from initial training, through ‘conversion’ “Operating Policy Statements” be produced to training (from one aircraft type to another], to guide the management and use of simulators. ‘continuation’ training (training qualified Operating Policy Statements are potentially pilots for operational missions]. Simulation, valuable documents which specify: the which is integrated with other forms of training function of the simulators; the instruction such as classroom time and ‘live’ training task for which they are to be flying, accounts for sane 12 per cent of employed; the resources required in terms of aircrew training, and can accrxmt for 30 per the quality and numbers of instructors and cent of practical training time. engineering staff; and the utilisation and availability required of simulators. 3.6 In general the proportion of time spent in the simulator in relation to that spent on ‘live’ 3.3 As at July 1992, one Operating Policy training is greatest during initial and Statement had been issued and a further nine conversion training. For example, on the were in an advanced state of preparation. A Tornado GRl conversion course the ratio of total of 20 will be required to cover the flying to simulator time is 4:1, with 16 hours existing major flight simulator inventory. in the simulator. On continuation training the Limited progress has been partly due to ratio rises to 9:1, with aircrew flying 18 hours uncertainties as to the future location of per month and spending two hours in the simulators, and about reporting lines and simulator. staffing levels, following re-organisation resulting from Options for Change. A shortage 3.7 The Department’s Policy for Synthetic of staff in the Royal Air Force’s training Training in the Royal Air Force (paragraph organisation has also restricted progress and 2.19) requires that as much training as the Gulf War led to the reallocation of staff to possible be carried out on simulators where other, higher priority, tasks. The Department simulation is a realistic alternative. Their do not have a target date for the completion of objective is to maximise the use of simulators the Operating Policy Statements, mainly up to and including conversion training because of uncertainties over future staff where cost-effective to do so. The Policy also organisation resulting from Options for states that simulators should be used for the Change. continuation training of qualified aircrew for
15 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: “SE OF SIMULATORS IN TRAINING
reascms of safety and economy. However, the . the advanced technology Harrier GR5 and Policy does not envisage increased training on GR7 mission simulators will enable simulators substituting for flying time for training in weapon delivery, electronic trained aircrew, which military judgement warfare meaam~~, general handling, regards as already at the minimum necessary instrument flying, night flying and under for flight safety. operational effectiveness and low light conditions, take off and landing, aircrew motivation. transit, and air to air refuelling to be practised in the simulator. While the Department intend to make maximum use 3.8 From their case studies the National Audit of simulators, they do not consider that Office noted that scope for reductions in this will enable them to reduce the amount flying time had been a factor in the of flying training. But they believe it will Department’s consideration of whether to avoid the need for an increase in live acquire sane simulators. For example: training for night low level operations. . if the new Air Navigation Trainer, which In the National Audit Office’s view these is expected to enter service in March 1993, findings underline the need for the had not been acquired to replace the Department to keep under review the balance existing obsolete simulator. airborne between simulation and ‘live’ training- training using the Dominic aircraft would especially in the light of rapidly advancing have had to increase. This increase, technology. calculated in 1988, was 8,000 hours per year, which over the 15 year life of the 3.9 The balance between simulation and ‘live’ Dominic amounted to an estimated training involves operational, financial, additional cost of E83 million, about eight safety, morale and environmental times the projected cost of the trainer. considerations--and ultimately depends on Since 1988 a reduction in the number of military judgement. However, it is important navigators trained and changes to their that such decisions are based on assessment pattern of training have reduced this of the effectiveness of simulators in providing additional cost estimate but the the required training [paragraph 4.91, and the justification for the acquisition of the Department have recognized that research to trainer is still valid (Appendix 1. Case 8): define the best mix of simulation and ‘live’ training is needed. One aim of the Training at the Air Traffic Control School at RAF Needs Analysis approach is to establish the Shawbury, use of simulators in radar appropriate balance between the use of training has enabled Jet Provost flying simulators and parent equipment. previously conducted by a private firm to supply radar contacts to cease, saving some El.8 million per year; The extent to which simulators are in 1984 extended use of the Chinook used helicopter simulator from 1,500 to 2,000 hoursper year was partly justified by a 3.10 TheDepartment have assessed thetheoretical reduction in Chinook flying hours giving maximum availability of simulators for an estimated annual saving of E753,000; aircrew to be 2710 hours a year. This maximum is based on availability for 14 hours in 1991 the Department decided to reduce a day, six days a week for 38 weeks. It reflects by 23 per cent (32 hours per student] the a 18 per cent allowance for non-availability of number of flying hours in the Hawk aircrew for training, technical failure, spares aircraft. A Hawk Training Needs Analysis delay and other unscheduled reasons. It also which has recently been completed allows for public holidays and scheduled recommended the acquisition of four servicing. With a few exceptions, however, advanced simulators to supplement the training requirements are met by operating reduced flying course in order to maintain simulators for normal working hours-usually student output standards. In 1989 the eight in the morning to five in the evening, Department estimated that a reduction of over a five day week. five flying hours per student per year would save f3.5 million over the 15 year 3.11 Simulator manufacturers visited by the life of the aircraft; National Audit Office considered that, if
16 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: USE OF SIMULATORS IN TRAINING
necessary, current technology was capable of system were used less than originally planned producing simulator availability of 20 hours a and 24 of these achieved less than 60 per cent day. In this regard, the National Audit Office of planned utilisation although the training noted that British Airways’ simulators are task was met (Figure I]. operated for 20 hours a day, 50 weeks a year although this reflects very different patterns 3.13 The National Audit Office case studies both of where crew are based and their much illustrate the significant differences between larger total crew training requirement. both planned and actual utilisation of individual simulators, and the extent of 3.12 The Department monitor centrally the unused simulator capacity. Figures were utilisation of simulators for aircrew, but not available for 11 simulators at six locations other simulators. National Audit Office (Table 3). They showed that planned analysis of utilization data showed that few utilisation ranged from 894 hours each for the simulators are used for more than 1700 hours two Tornado Air Intercept Trainers to 2027 a year. And overall, in 1989-90 (the last hours for the Nimrod ‘Yellowgate’ simulator. representative year-1990-91 and 1991-92 Actual utilization taken from the sample figures were distorted by the Gulf conflict) ranged from 460 hours for ‘Yellowgate’ to only one third of the theoretical simulator 1731 hours for one of the Tornado GRl capacity was used. The National Audit Office simulators. also noted that planned utilization was 48.4 per cent of the theoretical maximum, and 3.14 Utilisation of the two Tornado Air Intercept actual utilisation was 69.7 per cent of the Trainers at RAF Coningsby exceeded planned level planned. Sixty two out of 76 simulators levels due to voluntary use by students covered by the Department’s monitoring outside planned training sessions. This
Figure 1: Utilisation rates against planned usage for Simulators in 1989-90
Number01 Simulators
24
Q-20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80 100 lOOi UtilisationRate [percentage)
Source:Royal Air ForceUtilisation Sfatistics Figure 1 shows that most simulators do not achieve their PlannedUsage, and 24 achieved less than 60 per cent of their Planned Usage
17 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: USE OF SIMULATORS IN TRAINING
appeared to reflect users’ perceptions of the confirmed by the fact that although planned usefulness of these simulators. In general, utilisation was evenly spread across the three however, utilisation levels were not a direct simulators at RAF Valley, most training was reflection of the effectiveness of simulators. achieved using just two. The No 1 simulator For example, despite the fact that the Tornado was used almost exclusively to develop and GRl mission simulator lacks the motion and test modifications for Hawk simulators. visual systems necessary to simulate low flying, those at RAF Cottesmore were used for 3.16 The unused simulator capacity observed by nmre time than any other simulator examined the National Audit Office can be partly by the National Audit Office [Table 31: this explained by reductions in the number of reflects the fact that Cottesmore is a tri- parent aircraft, airbases and aircrew since the national training unit with a large throughput original simulators were acquired. The of students on courses with a high simulator National Audit Office therefore suggest that content. the Department should review the number and location of simulators -particularly in those cases where they have more than one of 3.15 Utilisation of nine of the simulators in Table 3 was less than planned, in two cases [Nimrod a particular type. In this regard the National ‘Yellowgate’ and Hawk No 1 simulator) Audit Office noted, for example that: significantly less. In these two cases the in 1989-90 utilisation of the five Hawk training load was too low to sustain planned simulators, which were sited at three levels of utilisation. and in the case of stations in the United Kingdom (now two), ‘Yellowgate’ the National Audit Office were amounted to 6053 hours44 per cent of told that the utilisation figures reflected an the theoretical maximum; exceptional shortage of trainees and some under recording. The low training demand on the Department have a total of four the Hawk No 1 simulator at RAF Valley was Tornado GRl simulators at three stations
Table 3: Utilisation Rates for National Audit Office CaseStudy Simulators in 1989-90 Simulator PlannedUtilisation ActualUtilisation ActualUtilisation as a HOUlS Percentmeof AnnualTask SAF Cottesmore TORNADOGA1 (No 1) 1776 1651 93.0 TORNAOOGfll (NO2) 1776 1731 97,5
RAFConingsby TORNADOAIR INTERCEPT TRAINER (NO 1) 694 1302 145.6 TORNADOAIR INTERCEPT TRAINER (NO 2) 894 1106 123.9
SAF Valley HAWKMKI (No1) 1405 691 49.2
HAWKMKI(No2) 1405 1076 76.6
HAWKMKI (No3) 1405 1332 94.8
RAFSt Mawgan NIMROOYELLOWGATE CUBICLE 2027 460 22.7(Note1)
RAFFinningley AIR NAVIGATIONSIMULATOR (No 1) 1267 1207 95.3
AIR NAVIGATIONSIMULATOR (No 2) 1267 1049 82.8
RAF West Raynham RAPIERDOMETRAINER(Note 2) 1640 1471 79.9 Source: RAFUtilisation Statistics RapierTraining Unit Notes: 1. Thislow figure is pardyexplained by an exceptional shortage of N/modAir ElectronicsOperators trainees at St Mawganand SOme underrecording. 2. f99&91figures This table shows a wide variation betweenactual and planned utilisation and indicates that all but tw of the simulators were not used to the extent planned.
18 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: USE OF SIMULATORS IN TRAINING
in the United Kingdom. Between 1986 and between simulation and ‘live’ training. 1n 1990 one of the simulators was not addition it points to the need to review the available and the trainees had to travel to manpower devoted to simulators. The one of the other stations. Utilisation of the National Audit Office noted that nearly all three in-service simulators amounted to Royal Air Force simulators have sufficient 4987 hours46 per cent of the theoretical engineering support to provide over 3,500 maximum for the four simulators; and training hours a year-this is to provide maximum flexibility for aircrew and meet l in 1989-90 utilisation of the two Tornado declared training requirements. However, GRl simulators at stations in Germany actual utilization is in all cases significantly amounted to 2942 hours-84 per cent of lower. The development of Operating Policy the theoretical maximum. Statements for simulators will be important in this respect to match support requirement 3.17 The National Audit Office recognise that this with projected tasking [paragraph 3.2). is a complex area in which the number and location of simulators reflect the way the Royal Air Force are organised for training and operations, and that provisioning may have Reasons for lower utilisation than reflected higher demand when parent aircraft first came into service. However, following planned ‘Options for Change’ the Department have an opportunity to consider these matters as part 3.19 The main factor influencing utilization is the of their wider review of training requirements. training load. In 1989-90 the number of students requiring training was 18 per cent 3.18 The extent of under-used simulator capacity lower than initially planned. On a day-to-day also underlines the need for the Department to basis 8 per cent of planned training time was explore fully the opportunities for use of ~mt used because students did not take up simulators in training, including the balance their scheduled training places. However, this
Figure 2: Reasonsfor non-available Simulator time 1989-90
No Instructor 7%
Modilications 30%
Source:Royal Air ForceUtilisation Statistics Figure2 shows that the main Iactors causing loss of simulator time are technical failure; the need to carry out modifications; and other reasons
19 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: “SE OF SIMULATORS IN TRAINING
The Harrier full mission simulator
The parent equipment-Harrier GR5
Relocatableair conditionedsimulator complex
Cutawayview of the dome showing esst
The dame which ho!ses the cockpit positionedon the advancedmotion system Instructorsstation which enablesflight and WI
20 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: “SE OF SIMULATORS IN TRAINING
An approximation of the pilot view from within the simulator showing the high resolutionarea surroundedby low resolution imagery projectedon the interior of the dome
‘ntial teatures
The helmet mountedOcculometer (eyetracker) which ensuresthat the high resolution imagery is positionedwherever the pilot is looking
?aponinstruction and tactics development Photographsby counesy of Link-Miles Ltd and Wing CommanderRM Prothem RAF
21 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: USE OF SIMULATORS IN TRAINING
training shortfall for individuals would have affected the credibility of instructors. In been made up subsequently. 1988 the Department identified a need to improve the quality and experience level 3.20 A further factor is the non-availability of of simulator instructors. The recent simulators, which in 1989-90 amounted to downturn in the employment market has some 13.5 per cent of planned utilisation meant that the Department have found it (Figure 2). The reasons for non-availability, easier to fill instructor vacancies where and their percentage share of the time lost current aircrew qualifications are not V?WtX required: . Other reasons (35 per cent). These l Technical failure of the simulator and non- included power failures; ‘no notice availability of spares (28 per cent). The exercises’; building works: lack of Department have recognised this problem simulator technicians; and other and now seek contractual guarantees of miscellaneous reasons. availability. For example, 96 per cent availability has been specified for the The need to carry out scheduled Harrier GR5 and GR7 simulators; modifications of simulators accounted for a further 29 per cent of non-available simulator . No instructor (7 per rent). The National time. It is important that the modification Audit Office found that there was a state of simulators matches that of parent shortage of instructors at some Royal Air equipments (paragraph 4.5, last indent). Force stations. For example, at RAF St Mawgan where there is a large range of 3.21 The National Audit Office noted that although simulators for the Nimrod aircraft, the training had been disrupted due to these instructor complement was at 29 per cent factors there was sufficient simulator capacity of establishment. More generally the to enable the Department to reschedule National Audit Office noted that some training courses. However, the National Audit instructors had no experience of the parent Office also noted that some 14.6 per cent of equipment and therefore limited aircrew training hours on simulators in knowledge of the respective capabilities of 1989-90 had been degraded due to technical aircraft and simulator. This in turn faults on the simulators.
22 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: USE OF SIMULATORS IN TRAINING
Part 4: The effectiveness of Simulators used by the Royal Air Force
4.1 This Part examines the effectiveness of the Tornado GRl simulator acquired in simulators and covers: factors which the early 1980s does not represent influence simulator effectiveness: the realistically the experience of low flying, Department’s arrangements for assessing the major role of the parent aircraft, effectiveness: and the National Audit Office’s principally because it has limited motion review of research material. and no visual system. Low flying training therefore is currently carried out entirely in the air at a cost of some ~55 million a Factors which influence yea*; effectiveness the Hawk simulator acquired in the mid 1970s has limited motion and no visual 4.2 Parts 2 and 3 of this report identify features of system. The Department are considering simulator acquisition and utilisation which future requirements for Hawk simulators; affect the benefit derived from simulators. These features are: the Tornado F3 mission simulator, a fixed base simulator without visual display, l definition of training need to ensure that cannot cover all the operational scenarios an appropriate simulator is acquired; required by the parent equipment. A l timely acquisition of simulators: programme of modifications to improve the degree to which the simulator reflects . the availability and use of simulators once the aircraft performance has been set in they are in service, including the quality train. However, a Departmental review in of instruction. 1991 noted that the general modification 4.3 The National Audit Office’s review of research state of the simulator will continue to lag into simulator effectiveness (paragraph 4.14) behind the parent equipment and that the suggests that, particularly for more advanced simulator may well provide inferior types of training, effectiveness depends on training. The review concluded that it was fidelity of the simulator (the degree of realism arguable that the simulator represents compared to the parent equipment) and the poor value for money; fidelity of simulation (the degree to which operational tasks are represented). as illustrated by the Tornado F3 example some simulators had not been kept in the 4.4 From their case studies the National Audit same modification state as the parent Office noted that smne simulators were highly equipment. The Department recognise regarded by users at Royal Air Force stations. that this is often the case particularly with For example, the Nimrod Maritime Crew mission simulators for fast jets. The Trainer of which the Electronic Support implications are that students may not be Measures simulator [‘Yellowgate’) is a part, fully prepared to operate the parent and the Tornado F3 Airborne Intercept equipment, and may learn skills and Trainer. Also, the Department are expecting knowledge on the simulator which are no simulators for the Harriers GR5 and GR7, and longer required. The Department have European Fighter Aircraft, to provide high recognised the need to ensure that in fidelity and, as a consequence, greatly extend future simulator design [for example the the simulator’s training capability. European Fighter Aircraft] is flexible enough to allow adaptation to 4.5 However, the National Audit Office noted accommodate new technology and that: changes in training needs.
23 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: USE OF SIMULATORS IN TRAINING
4.6 In 1989 the Department identified lack of the Department need to be able to assess the fidelity as a major concern regarding the training contribution made by simulators. extent to which simulation had met training This would help underpin military judgement needs. But fidelity should not, as the about the most appropriate balance between Department recognise, be an end in itself- ‘live’ training and simulation. technical sophistication, and the cost associated with it, is not necessary for all 4.10 The Department monitor the performance of types of training. For example, research trainees on simulator sorties, and graduation indicates that trainees require a lower degree rates for training courses involving a of fidelity than experienced aircrew. The simulator element. They also conduct reviews Department’s increasing use of Training of training couwzs, and receive feedback from Needs Analysis (paragraphs 2.20-2.22) should the operational squadrons on which course help to ensure that technical requirements are members serve after training. But these pitched at the level appropriate to the training arrangements examine training as a whole, need. and do not isolate the contribution made by simulators. 4.7 Commercial airlines use advanced simulators which allow pilots to convert from one 4.11 The National Audit Office found that the only aircraft type to another by training on the simulator alone. This is only possible if the practical evaluation of an aircraft simulator had been for the Jet Provost instrument trainer simulator replicates the parent aircraft, and in 1980. The importance of assessing performs like it-high fidelity. To this end the Civil Aviation Authority annually conduct simulator effectiveness was illustrated by that objective technical tests undertaken by evaluation. For a period before the instrument engineering teams and subjective tests, trainers were available training was initially undertaken by qualified pilots, of simulator carried out entirely in the air. When the trainers entered service, flying hours were handling and performance compared to the reduced. By comparing the performance of parent aircraft. If the simulator is shown by these tests not to match the parent aircraft the different groups of students the Department simulator operator has 28 days to restore found that some 16 hours on the instrument fidelity or the Civil Aviation Authority may trainer were needed to compensate for 11 hours in the air. The hourly cost of the trainer withdraw the operator’s training licence for that particular simulator. The Authority was estimated to be a third of the cost of using frequently exercises this sanction. the aircraft.
4.8 There are significant differences between the 4.12 The Department have long recognised the aircraft and operational roles of commercial need for improvements in measuring the airlines and the Royal Air Force, and the way effectiveness of simulators, but they have in which simulators are used. The Departmeni made little progress: have not therefore considered it necessary to adopt a similar regime of annual testing to . in 1985 a Department-wide internal help underpin the effectivenessof Royal Air review was unable to assessthe extent to Force simulators. However, they introduced which training needs had been met in November 1990 an annual “Fidelity Test” because it could not identify any to check simulator handling and performance structured cost benefit analysis of any against the parent aircraft. This initiative is simulator in Service; partly based on Civil Aviation Authority . in 1989 the Department noted that the procedures, but the Department acknowledge training value of Royal Air Force that few tests have been conducted to date as simulators had been assessed only on an they are relevant to only a few simulators in ad hoc basis, and that consequently there current Royal Air Force service. was little data to indicate whether simulators had been a good investment, and no reliable basis for future plans; and Assessing Effectiveness . in 1991 a Department-wide internal 4.9 To gain maximum value from their significani review concluded that research on investment in simulators and make fully deriving effectiveness measures was informed decisions about future acquisitions, required as a matter of priority so that
24 MlNISTRYOFDEFENCE:USEOFSIMULATORSINTRAIN,NG
clear priorities for investment in simulator effectiveness carried out by experts simulators could be identified. at home and abroad, and to produce a digest of that research. This has bea passed &he During 1991 the Department undertook a Department. The digest confirmed the provisional study into effectiveness complexity of the subject, but pointed to areas measurement within the area of visual which, in the National Audit Office’s view, simulation, seeking to compare simulators would assist in the assessment of the with and without visuals. Also, some in-house effectiveness of simulators. A summary is at data collection and analysis is planned for the Appendix 3 and the main points are: Harrier GR5 mission simulator in late 1992 to define more closely what it can deliver in . various methodologies have been devised terms of training. to measure effectiveness, but remain largely untested; 4.13 In the National Audit Office’s view there may be advantages in collaboration between the . measurement of effectiveness is usually Department and industry in developing an afterthought. The National Audit Office techniques for measuring the effectiveness of noted, however, that as part of the simulators. Before investing in major Department’s recently introduced simulator projects the Department need to be Training Needs Andlysis approach they clear about the likely training contribution of will require post-acquisition audits of the simulator, and how it will be measured. simulator effectiveness (Table 2); . simulation and ‘live’ training are not absolute alternatives. Optimal cost National Audit Office review of effectiveness is obtained through a careful research material. combination of the two approaches. There is an urgent need for the development and 4.14 To assist them in their examination the maintenance of databases on the cost and National Audit Office commissioned PA effectiveness of current methods of Consultants to examine research into training including simulators.
25 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: USE OF SlMULATORS IN TRAINING
Part 5: Use of Simulators by the Royal Navy and the Army
Introduction effect of shrinking the ‘live’ firing ranges available. For example, 1960s anti-tank 5.1 This Part examines the way that simulators guided weapons typically had a range of 1,500 are used in the Royal Navy and the Army. It yards, whilst modern equivalents can carry covers the reasons why these Services use 4,500 yards. And for environmental and simulators: how they have been acquired; political reasons there has been a reduction in their utilisation: and whether and how they the number of ‘live’ training areas available, have assessed and measured simulator notably in Central Europe. effectiveness. 5.6 Safety factors are also important. The majority of recorded accidents have orrnrmd early in The Use of Simulators in the Royal the traditional ‘live’ training cycle when personnel were not totally familiar with Navy and the Army equipment and weapons operation. Financial constraints are also influential. For example (a) The Royal Navy the cost of a two week exercise for an 5.2 In the Royal Navy, as in the Army and Royal armoured division has been put at f24 Air Force, extensive use is made of simulators million. to train personnel at all levels and in all branches. There were srxne 220 simulators in use in the Royal Navy in 1989. Examples of Acquisition Royal Navy simulators are at Appendix 4. (a) The Royal Navy 5.3 As for the Royal Air Force, cost and safety are 5.7 In 1989 the Department found that, partly important reasons for using simulation. because of a lack of overall direction, the Regarding cost, maritime operations typically acquisition of Naval simulators had not involve ships, submarines, and aircraft consistently taken account of the overall operating in combination, so ‘live‘ exercises training requirement -proposals for new are expensive. The Royal Navy have parent equipments were written with little conservatively estimated that ‘live’ training regard for their training implications. With costs seven times as much as equivalent certain notable exceptions (eg Trident and the training on simulators. Regarding safety, an Type 23 main machinery trainer] simulators example of simulation is practice of damage were brought into service piecemeal and repair procedures on warships. Environmental usually separately from, and sometimes later factors have had relatively little influence on than, the parent equipment. For example, a the Royal Navy’s take-up of simulation. Command Team simulator for the Type 23 frigate has consistently been deferred due to (h) The Army financial constraints, and is currently due in 5.4 Simple forms of simulation have been in use service sxne two years after the planned in in the Army for many years. The Army, have service date of the command system of the some 2,500 simuhtors, covering some 77 frigate itself. However, the Royal Navy have different simulation systems in over 90 now adopted a defined Training Strategy and different locations. Examples of Army an overall policy governing the use of simulators are at Appendix 4. simulators in training.
5.5 The Army in recent years have had to cope 5.8 For the future therefore all new proposals for with increasing restrictions on ‘live’ training. parent equipment must include concurrent The increasing range of weapons has had the consideration of training requirements and
26 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: USE OF SIMULATORS IN TRAlNING
equipment, and the trend is firmly towards 5.13 The Strategy also identifies a range of integration of training and operational simulators required up to the turn of the requirements. The Future Frigate project, century, at an estimated cost of scune ~65 although at a very early stage, has a million. The simulators identified are to be comprehensive programme to ensure training ‘self-financing’ in that funds will be made requirements across the whole warship are available from savings in fuel, ammunition defined early, with a view to timely and track mileage. Again, in this definition of procurement action. In this respect Navy a future acquisition programme, the Army procedures correspond with those now in use Strategy goes beyond that for the Royal Air in the Royal Air Force. The Royal Navy Force. A permanent working group has been recognise the advantages of formal Training set up to ensure that new simulators are Needs Analysis to underpin the acquisition of considered and acquired at the same time as simulators, although they have not made such new weapons systems. analysis mandatory. 5.14 The Strategy now requires, like the Royal Air Force, that formal Training Needs Analyses 5.9 Unlike the Royal Air Force, the availability are conducted (paragraph 2.20). A guide to the and credibility of instructors is not a constraint on simulator utilisation. The Royal implementation of the Training Needs Analysis approach is being produced by the Navy regard recent operational experience as permanent working group and will be highly desirable, and require that instructors supplemented by a computer-based decision- have up to date knowledge of the parent making programme. equipments. The Naval School of Educational and Training Technology provides courses specifically for simulator instructors. Utilisation (h) The Army (a) The Royal Navy
5.10 In 1990 the Army established an overall 5.15 Like the Royal Air Force, the main strategy on simulation in training. Previously, determinants of the utilisation of Naval high level training directives were set, but it simulators are the number of trainees and the was left to individual corps and sometimes amount and range of training they require. units to determine how best to accomplish Most training is carried out within normal training. Simulators had usually been working hours (usually 0800 to 1600 hours acquired later than the parent equipment, Monday to Friday), although complex without adequate definition of the training simulators, particularly those for Command need, and in a piecemeal and an unco- Team Training, are in use for much longer ordinated fashion across the Army. hours. For new simulators the Royal Navy are seeking 98 per cent availability of equipment during working hours, through contract 5.11 This “Strategy for Simulation in Training” conditions. Unlike the Royal Air Force, sets out to promote an integrated simulation utilisation data is not collected at present, but policy. The main impetus for this strategy systems to monitor the use of simulators are came from perceived defects in operational effectiveness, which had arisen from unco- being introduced so that future simulator ordinated training and from increasing requirements can be more accurately determined. restrictions on ‘live’ training.
00) The Army 5.12 The Strategy gives priority to simulators that both enhance operational effectiveness and 5.16 Unlike the Royal Air Force, there has not been compensate for the loss of training resources any formal collection of data on the utilisation caused by environmental, safety and cost of simulators, so there is no feedback into the constraints (paragraphs 5.5 and 5.6). It acquisition cycle. All simulators to be requires that simulators contribute to the acquired in future, however, are likely to measurement of operational effectiveness, and incorporate automatic data capture which will in this respect goes further than that for the indicate when and how long simulators are Royal Air Force. used.
27 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: “SE OF SIMULATORS IN TRAINING
5.17 At unit level, demands on simulator @) The Army utilisation tend to fluctuate during the year. 5.19 In 1983 the Army School of Training found There are peak demands on simulators before that there was a marked lack of empirical ‘live’ exercises or before operations. High evidence concerning the effectiveness or simulator availability is of great importance otherwise of simulators in Army training, and therefore, to meet surges in demand. But recommended that evidence of the availability has not always been able to meet effectiveness and use of the higher cost demand. For new simulators, the Army are simulators should be collected in a seeking 35 per cent availability contractually continuous and systematic manner. This has guaranteed. been carried forward to the 1990 Strategy for Simulation in Training which recorded that the introduction of new simulators should Effectiveness contribute to the measurement of effectiveness. Consequently, all new (al The Royal Navy simulators will incorporate automatic data 5.18 The Royal Navy recognise that they do not capture to record trainee performance against have sufficient, reliable, objective data on preestablished training requirements. simulator effectiveness and the training value of simulation, No formal measurement of 5.20 There have been some studies into the effectiveness is attempted. The assessment of effectiveness of simulators, for example in effectiveness is a particularly difficult task for 1988 a study by the Army Personnel Research the Royal Navy. whose main simulators are Establishment examined the balance between for command and team training, unlike [he simulated and ‘live’ driving for tank driver Royal Air Force where there is a greater training. This study found that increased use emphasis on individual skills training. of the simulator could substitute for some However. fidelity of Royal Navy simulators is ‘live’ driving, with significant cost savings in high, as they tend to be based on real driver training. A study on the effectiveness of operational equipment ‘stimulated’ to provoke simulators used for training on the Warrior operational responses. Armoured Fighting Vehicle will be used in consideration of future acquisitions of similar simulators for other vehicles.
28 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: USE OF SIMULATORS IN TRAINING
Appendix 1 National Audit Office Case Studies
Case 1: Harrier GR5 and GR7 Mission Simulators (Visit to RAF Wittering)
Harrier GR5 and GR7 are complex and demanding aircraft requiring a high level of aircrew skill. Simulators are in the form of a simulated aircraft cockpit and visual display mounted on a motion platform. Instruction facilities include full replay, monitoring and debriefing facilities. Real world and threat data incorporated within the system allow full mission rehearsal. The GR5 will be sited at RAF Wittering, the GR7 at RAF Laarbruch. The GR5 simulator will eventually be upgraded to GR7 standard.
Acquisition 1 The need for a GR5 mission simulator had been under consideration since April 1982, but training objectives were not examined until late 1984. The intention was that the GR5 and subsequently GR7 mission simulators would be in service before the aircraft, or close to their In-Service Dates of 1988 and 1990 respectively. A contract was let in December 1986 for one GR5 and one GR7 mission simulator with respective In-Service Dates of February and July 1990. Slippage occurred as a result of technical problems, problems at the manufacturer due to change of ownership, and difficulties in getting certain items which were in short supply. Current planned In-Service Dates are late 1992 for the GR5 simulator and September 1993 for the GR7. Under Options for Change, the GR7 simulator will now be sited at RAF Laarbruch, not Gutersloh as originally intended. As the site at Laarbruch will not be ready until February 1993, the E25 million simulator will be held at the manufacturers, costing the Department some E95,OOO a month for storage.
2 Delays to the GR5 mission simulator have meant pilots on the Harrier GR5 conversion course going to the United States for simulator training, and continuation training for operational crews being undertaken on a Spanish Navy simulator with limited visuals and no motion. As a result there have been about EZ million extra costs, difficulties in programming training, and an overall loss of training time.
3 The selection of a superior and technologically advanced solution meant that the original funding provision (f10 million) for two mission simulators was inadequate. By August 1984 costs had escalated to f50 million. Two aircraft were deleted from the programme to fund the simulators which resulted in reduced fleet flying hours.
Utilisation and 4 The simulators are not yet in service. effectiveness
Case 2: Tornado GR114 Simulator (Visits to RAF Cottesmore and RAF Marham)
Tornado GRl dynamic simulators are used for conversion training by the Tri National Training Establishment at RAF Cottesmore and for continuation training at Royal Air Force units in Germany and the United Kingdom. Each simulator incorporates actual aircraft equipment, or accurate representations which provide
29 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: USE OF SIMULATORS IN TRAINING
high fidelity responses to trainee actions covering radar, navigation, communications, weapon selection and delivery. The GRl simulator has three degrees of motion but no visual system.
The original plan was to acquire similar ‘core’ simulators for use by the three nations acquiring the Tornado aircraft (Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom). Germany withdrew from the Tri National Simulator Procurement Agency and the Department sought a national solution to their training needs. This led to a complex equal partners contract, involving two manufacturers. The six simulators were delivered in the early 198Os, 18 months to two years after the aircraft.
In 1988 a Training Needs Analysis was used to determine the most effective training package for the Mid-Life Update (GR41 of the aircraft. In 1989 the combined cost of the cockpit update and visuals for the GR4 was estimated at f35 million (1990 prices), and these could not be funded. In March 1990 the House of Commons Defence Committee recommended that the Department examine the development of a visual facility for the Tornado simulator (Report. Paragraph 2.101.
Utilisation Late delivery of the GRl simulator to Cottesmore meant early training had to be undertaken on the manufacturer’s simulator. Utilisation is largely a product of the Tri National Training Establishment syllabi requirements and the number of students under training. For simulator utilisation figures see Report, Table 3. Like other stations planned availability is based on day time use and constrained by maintenance and modification downtime.
Marham operational aircrews use the simulator for continuation training only. From 1986 to 1990 Marham crews had to travel to RAF Honington for simulator training because their simulator was not available, because it had been removed to Saudi Arabia as part of a sale of Tornados to the Saudi Air Force. During this time the number of one and a half to two hour long sorties dropped from 12 per year to six per year. Since reinstatement of a GRl simulator at Marham simulator sorties have reverted to 12 per year. The current shortage of simulator instructors at Marham, will be resolved by October 1992.
Effectiveness 9 The original GRl simulators matched the aircraft quite well although in certain respects did not behave like the Tornado or handle like it. Modifications are undertaken to keep the simulator current but their introduction is nearly always behind the operational aircraft because of their number and development timescales.
10 Opinion amongst staff and students at Cottesmore generally is that the simulator is effective for what is demanded of it by the Tri National Training Establishment syllabi Instructors need to be satisfied that tasks in the simulator have been achieved before the student can progress to the next level. At Marham, however, operational crews were making restricted use of the replacement GRl simulator delivered in November 1990, although this was partly as a consequence of their involvement in Operation Granby and its aftermath. - Case 3: Simulators for the European Fighter Aircraft
The European Fighter Aircraft is being developed in collaboration with other countries. The aircraft will be built by Eurofighter, a consortium of national manufacturers. The aircraft will be optimised for Air Defence but have a full Air to Ground capability. The In-Service Date is expected to be 1998. Project management of the aircraf? and its simulators is by the NATO European Fighter Aircraft Management Agency. The aim is to acquire a ‘core’ of simulators internationally which can be adapted for each nation’s particular needs.
30 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: USE OF SIMULATORS IN TRAINING
Acquisition 11 The participating nations have differing operational requirements for the aircraft. But the intention is that the planned modular construction and convertibility of the aircraft simulators will enable these differences to be accommodated. A Training Needs Analysis approach has been used to determine the training needs, the options available for providing the training and the best mix of media and methods. The final mix of ‘core’ synthetic training aids remains to be agreed nationally. Mindful of the problems experienced in the past, when simulators have been acquired later than the aircraft, the plan is to introduce the simulators into service six months before the aircraft, in early 1998.
Utilisation and 12 The simulators are not yet in service. effectiveness
Case 4: Tristar Dynamic Simulator (Visits to RAF Erize Norton, and British Airways]
The Tristar in Royal Air Force service is a strategic air-to-air refuelling tanker/transport aircraft. It was acquired initially to support Hercules airbridge operations in the South Atlantic, but its operations have been considerably expanded. Six Tristar-500 aircraft were purchased from British Airways and three from Pan American. The British Airways aircraft were modified to undertake a dual air transport and tanker role. Training of Royal Air Force Tristar crews is carried out under contract, at the British Airways Cranebank training establishment at Heathrow. The contract allows for the conversion of six crews a year to Tristar and the continuation training of 22 established crews.
Acquisition 13 Under the current contract British Airways’ training commitment to the Royal Air Force ends in 1993. The Department are now in the process of purchasing their own simulator.
Utilisation 14 The Royal Air Force use about 360 four hour sorties which represents about 25 per cent of the Cranebank simulator’s availability, and costs f428,OOO a year. Cranebank operate the simulator 20 hours a day with allowance in the programme for planned servicing and maintenance.
Effectiveness 15 The British Airways simulator is certified annually by the Civil Aviation Authority, who check that, where appropriate, civil simulators are capable of providing zero flight time training. The British Airways system is efficient and reduces normal conversion training time for a typical Royal Air Force conversion course by more than half. However the course covers only civil standard Tristar-500 and not Tristar K/KC1 with which the Royal Air Force are equipped. A number of major systems, principally associated with the air-to-air refuelling role are not represented and importantly the Engineers Fuel Panel is totally unrepresentative. The Department are concerned by the restricted training effectiveness and flight safety risks generated by using such a limited simulator. This situation is a contributory factor in the Department’s plans to acquire a representative simulator.
Case 5: Chinook Helico ter Simulator (Visit to Defence Research Agency, Farn %orough)
The Royal Air Force use a Chinook helicopter simulator for conversion and continuation training. The simulator is owned and operated by British International Helicopters Limited. Since 1990 it has been situated at the Defence Research Agency, Farnborough. It has motion and visual systems. The visuals are limited to dusk and night scenes.
31 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: USE OF SIMULATORS IN TRAINING
Acquisition 16 The need to train for procedural instrument flying led the Department to contract in April 1983 with British Airways Helicopters [subsequently taken over by British International Helicopters Limited) to use their Chinook simulator at Aberdeen. The North Sea disaster involving a commercial Chinook helicopter led to the Chinook being withdrawn from commercial use, and left the Royal Air Force as the major customer for the simulator. In January 1984 proposals were advanced to relocate the simulator to a more accessible site. This option was chosen, in preference to acquiring a new Chinook simulator, on grounds of cost. A contract was let in July 1988, at E6 million for relocation, conversion and Royal Air Force use of the simulator for five years thereafter. Training began at Farnborough in May 1990.
Utilisation 17 The contract provides for fixed usage of 2,000 hours a year. Hours not taken up by the Royal Air Force have to be paid for. During the Gulf conflict, when many Chinook pilots were on active service, and throughput of student pilots converting to Chinook had also dropped, utilisation slipped to 1,200 hours. Use of the simulator has led to reduced flying hours on the helicopter itself. And it is possible to practice emergency drills on the simulator which either cannot be safely performed, or deliberately induced, on the helicopter.
Effectiveness 18 The existing contract with British International Helicopters Limited made no provision for the simulator to mirror modifications made to the Royal Air Force Chinook. Conscqucntly, the simulator is not now n wholly accurate rcprcscntation of the Royal Air Force Chinook. The visual system, as well as being dusk and night only, was not designed to accommodate the use of night vision goggles, which are increasingly used on the helicopter itself. However, night vision goggle flying represents only a proportion of overall flying and basic night techniques.
Case 6: Tucano Flight Simulator (Visit to RAF Church Fenton)
The Shorts Tucano was ordered in March 1985 to replace the Jet Provost as the Basic Trainer for the Royal Air Force at Flying Training Schools and the Central Flying School. Simulators are to be used for training in instrument and procedural flying, medium level navigation, emergency cockpit procedures and handling, effects of controls, general handling and normal cockpit and systems procedures. The flight simulator consists of the simulated area of the front cockpit of the Tucano, an instructor operator station, and a console operator station. Relatively simple visual and motion systems are fitted, sufficient for the basic training task.
Acquisition 19 The requirement for the Tucano flight simulator was initiated in November 1984. A contract for five simulators was awarded in October 1987. The forecast delivery date of the first Tucano flight simulator was August 1989. The simulator was accepted in August 1990. some 18 months behind the In-Service Date of the Tucano. Delays were due to: late supply of aircraft equipment from the manufacturer for incorporation into the simulator; late supply of equipment to the simulator manufacturer from a sub-contractor: and to design changes to the simulator specification. One consequence of this late delivery was that extra flying hours were needed to meet the training requirement, and additional costs of some &40,000 incurred. Compensation was sought from the simulator manufacturer to offset these costs.
Utilisation 20 The initial planned utilisation of the simulator at Church Fenton was about 1,900 hours per year. Initial utilisation was 95 per cent of this figure. But due to shortages of qualified instructors it has at times fallen to 60 per cent. Consequently, simulator exercises have been lost, and more time spent in the aircraft at additional cost to the Department. RAF Church Fenton is due to close in late 1992, and the simulator will be moved to RAF Scampton.
32 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: USE OF SIMULATORS IN TRAINING
Effectiveness 21 Students using the simulator are assessed against training objectives laid down in the course syllabus. These objectives were set by a course design team, who also had an important role in the assessment of the need for, and type of, simulators in the course.
22 Effectiveness of the simulator was originally compromised to some extent by some 70 discrepancies due variously to incorrect simulation or changes to aircraft design. Despite these discrepancies [where appropriate corrective or modification actions were promptly introduced) the National Audit Office were told by the Department that the simulator has high credibility amongst students at RAF Church Fenton, and is regarded as an effective trainer by both instructors and students. An indication of its effectiveness is that the output standard of students without the full complement of simulator exercises tends to be lower than that of students with a full complement.
Case 7: The Hawk Flight Simulator (Visit to RAF Valley)
The Royal Air Force have five Hawk simulators: Up to mid 1992 there were three at Valley and one each at Brawdy and Chivenor. In July 1992 the Brawdy simulator was moved to Chivenor pending the closure of Brawdy as a flying training base. They were built circa 1975. They have three degrees of motion and no visuals. They provide limited cockpit and emergencies procedures training, and some instrument flying training.
Acquisition 23 Replacement or refurbishment of the Hawk flight simulators has been under consideration since 1985. The Department decided that there was little prospect of approval for visual systems for the simulators unless the cost could be offset by reduced flying hours. In 1989 they estimated that if flying hours were reduced by five per student per year, g35 million could be saved over 15 years. The total cost for five new simulators was estimated at about s20 million. The Department decided that flying hours could not be reduced. However, a recent decision on the future pattern of Hawk training has resulted in the flying hours for the combined advanced flying and tactical weapons couxe being reduced by 23 per cent from 132 to 100. The Department have recently undertaken a comprehensive Training Analysis of future Hawk training which recommended the acquisition of four advanced simulators to supplement the reduced flying course, in order to maintain student output standards.
Utilisation 24 For simulator utilisation figures see Report, Table 3.
Effectiveness 25 Simulation accounts for 20 per cent of Royal Air Force Hawk fast jet training. Of 72 manoeuvres, excluding formation flying, performed in Royal Air Force fast jet training, 15 currently can be simulated. In considering the acquisition of replacement simulators the Department have noted that 59 of the flying syllabus manoeuvres could be taught in the recently developed Swiss Hawk simulator fitted with visual and motion cueing systems.
Case 8: Air Navigation Trainer (Visit to RAF Finningley]
The current navigation simulator is so old that interest has been expressed in it by the Science Museum. Whilst it is old, it is working well. However, it does not meet today’s training requirements. A replacement Air Navigation Trainer is currently being procured to provide instruction in the use of modern avionic and navigation systems, similar to those in the Dominie aircraft operated at Finningley. It will also introduce basic techniques needed to operate the high resolution radars and other equipment fitted to front-line aircraft. Instructors will be able to supervise up to 18
33 MlNISTRY OF DEFENCE USE OF SIMIJLATORS IN TRAlNING
students at a time. The displays are electronic which will enable them to be configured to represent equipments similar to to those in front line aircraft, although they will be initially based upon the equipment in the Dominic.
Acquisition 26 The requirement was initiated in early 1986, with a required In-Service Date of April 1991. Approval was given in July 1988, and contract let in August 1990. The current In-Service Date of the simulator is March 1993. There have been delays due to technical problems and the delay in plans to update the Dominic aircraft. The original intention was to base the trainer on an updated version of the Dominie, but delays to the Dominie Update Programme mean the trainer will have to be based on the current Dominic aircraft. Slippage in acquisition means that the problems associated with the old simulator will continue for an extra two years.
Utilisation and 27 The simulator is not yet in service. In 1988, its acquisition was partly justified on effectiveness the grounds that without it, airborne training would have had to increase by sane 8,000 Dominie hours a year. During the expected 15 year life of the trainer this amounted to ‘savings’ of sume f83 million, about eight times the projected cost of the trainer itself. Reductions in the number of Royal Air Force navigators in training since 1988 will have reduced this additional cost but the justification is still valid. The trainer is expected to absorb the current training load of the simulators it is replacing, and provide extra capacity beyond this. Utilisation will be based on a five day week, with two 3 hour exercises per day.
Case 9: Tornado Airborne Intercept Trainer (Visit to RAF Coningsby)
The Tornado Airborne Intercept Trainer is a part task trainer used to teach the theory and basic principles of air interception. This is part of the overall training requirements for crews of the Tornado F3 Air Defence Variant. The main users are aircrew converting to the Tornado F3, and existing F3 crews needing to maintain their skill level. The trainer consists of a simulated crew environment, and is based on real equipment.
Acquisition 28 The trainer was acquired via the Tornado programme multi-national management and procurement bodies. Initial delivery of the first of the two trainers required was to be December 1984. but production problems delayed acceptance until September 1985. However, the trainer entered service at about the same time as the Tornado itself. Delay on the first trainer led to consequent delay on the second, which was accepted in August 1987-two years after the Tornado F3 In-Service Date.
Utilisation 29 For utilisation figures see Report, Table 3. The trainer is heavily used, at up to 150 per cent of the planned annual usage. Crews are willing to use the trainer out of its normal working hours of 0800 hrs to 1700 hrs, and it is available up until 2100 hrs.
Effectiveness 30 Users at Royal Air Force Coningsby told the National Audit Office that the extensive voluntary utilisation of the simulator was because it was perceived to be effective, had high fidelity and was user friendly. The National Audit Office were also told that it would be impossible to train Tornado aircrew for their operational role without it. Air intercept operations are taught by instructors, experienced in flying the Tornado. The Department believe that this enhances their credibility with students, and in turn increases the effectiveness and credibility of the trainer itself. End user involvement at the design stage was also felt to have been important in ensuring the simulator met the training requirement effectively. Credibility is also enhanced by the trainer being generally up to the modification state of the Tornado used at the Operational Conversion Unit at RAF Coningsby.
34 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: USE OF SIMULATORS IN TRAINING
Case 10: Nimrod Electronic Su port Measures Part-Task Trainer (‘Yellowgate’) [Visit to IKAF St Mawgan)
To meet the existing requirements for realistic electronic warfare training the Department have an electronic environment simulator which simulates the ‘Yellowgate’ Electronic Support Measures systems used in the Nimrod Maritime Reconnaissance MKZ. The simulator is used as stand alone system for individual training and also as part of the Maritime Crew Trainer, which embraces all the Nimrod sensors and weapon systems for the collective training of the Nimrod rear crew.
Acquisition 31 The requirement for a ‘Yellowgate’ simulator was endorsed in September 1983, subject to the availability of funding. Using real equipment the simulator was expected to cost E6 million. However as a cost saving measure the Department decided on an emulation solution (an imitation of the parent equipment), and to set funding at 0 million. The Department subsequently decided to allow the procurement competition to accept either an emulator or simulator. Time had been lost. The contract was let in September 1984 for a simulator based on existing ‘in- service’ equipment supplied by the Department. A technical shortcut had been found which reduced hardware cost and technical risk. The cost wnn approximately f3 million.
32 Further delays were caused by underestimation of technical difficulties by the manufacturer, internal skilled manning shortages, problems of obtaining intellectual property data from the manufacturer of the parent equipment and difficulties of interfacing with the manufacturer of the Nimrod Maritime Crew Trainer. The manufacturers of the ‘Yellowgate’ simulator also complained of problems due to delay in the supply of Government Furnished Equipment by the Department. As a result the simulator was accepted at St Mawgan in February 1987, over a year later than originally planned and two years behind the parent equipment.
Utilisation 33 For utilisation figures see Report, Table 3.
Effectiveness 34 As the simulator was not available when the ‘Yellowgate’ parent equipment was introduced the training course had to be extended by four weeks to achieve the required training. The course consisted of classroom theory and limited practical work using the aircraft, and the manufacturer’s factory test bed facility which was expensive and time consuming. With arrival of the ‘Yellowgate’ simulator two years later in 1987 half the classroom training time was dispensed with, hours spent in the aircraft were significantly reduced and the standard of training achieved as measured by internal and external validation rose.
Case 11: Rapier Guided Missile Air Defence Tactical Training Theatre Simulator (Visit to RAF West Raynham)
The Rapier Air Defence Tactical Training Theatre or Dome Trainer is used to simulate firing of Rapier missiles against target aircraft. The simulator consists of a dome 17 metres in diameter and 10 metres high, with targets and terrain projected onto the inside surface of the dome. Rapier crews operate stimulated real Rapier equipment to track and engage the simulated aircraft.
Acquisition 35 When the Rapier weapons system was introduced in the early 1970s two part-task trainers were procured to meet perceived training requirements. Experience in the Falklands campaign showed there was a need for more realistic operational training for the complete Rapier crew. Deficiencies in the two part-task trainers were also identified. A contract for three Dome Trainers was placed in October 1983, with two to be supplied by March 1984 and one by October 1984. The Army also ordered two Dome Trainers to meet their training needs. The total cost of the five Dome Trainers was about 03 million. The West Raynham Dome Trainer was separately funded by
35 MlNISTRY OF DEFENCE: “SE OF S,MULATORS o-4TRAlNlNG
the United States Air Force as it was to be used by Rapier crews assigned to protection of United States Air Force bases. The West Raynham simulator entered service in March 1985.
Utilisation 36 No formal system is in operation for recording the utilisation of the Dome Trainer at West Raynham, which is limited to those crews assigned to the United States Air Force bases. Informal records show that, in 1990-91 the simulator was available for 1,840 hours and used for 1,028 hours. A reason for low utilisation was the ad hoc way the Dome Trainer was used by operational squadrons. A Training Directive has recently been introduced specifying simulator training requirements, and utilisation is expected to increase.
Effectiveness 37 The simulator contains built-in assessment of crews’ performance, together with playback of the exercise. The National Audit Office were told by users at West Raynham that they perceive it to be very effective in meeting the training requirement, and that it is being considered for use in annual examinations of Rapier crews. Real Rapier equipment which matches the current modification state of the Rapier system, forms part of the Dome Trainer. The Dome Trainer is to he updated to reflect the mid-life update of the Rapier system. A completely new version of Rapier is also being developed which will require its own simulators. A full Training Needs Analysis has been carried out to determine what training aids will be required for the new system.
Case 12: Area Radar Training Simulator (Visit to RAF Shawbury)
The simulator is used to train students in the basic skills and knowledge required for them to become Area Radar Controllers. It consists of an operations room, an aircraft control room, and a computer room. Within the operations room there are six training consoles for students, and a control suite for instructors. Up to 138 aircraft traces can be simulated on the trainee’s radar displays. The radar simulation covers an area over the central United Kingdom of some 330 miles by 230 miles.
Acquisition 38 The initial requirement was prepared at the beginning of 1985. After delay due to savings measures, approval was given in October 1986. Staff shortages within the Department’s Procurement Executive led to further delays, and the contract was awarded in November 1988. Delivery was expected to be in August 1990, to fit in with the planned decommissioning of the old simulator. Problems at the manufacturers led to delays and software defects and reliability problems meant that the simulator was not in service until February 1991. This slippage led to a ten month gap in area radar training. Despite delays and continuing reliability problems users at RAF Shawbury told the National Audit Office that there was no long term detrimental effect on the training programme, and the project cost some 20 per cent less than the initial financial provision.
Utilisation 39 The use of simulators for Air Traffic Control work, and for radar training in particular, has been driven primarily by practicality and cost factors. It would be impractical, and very costly to produce sufficient radar traces for training using live aircraft. Utilisation of tho simulator has been limited by its late delivery, and also by continuing software difficulties-between October 1990 and May 1991 there were 78 operational faults.
Effectiveness 40 The student pass rate is used as an indicator of the effectiveness of the training course. The pass rate for the Area Radar Course now approaches 100 per cent. It is not possible to isolate the contributions made specifically by the simulator, but the course could not be run in its current form without it. The simulator provides a very much wider number of radar contacts, under varying conditions, than would be possible with live flying, In this respect it is the only means of meeting the training requirement, and more effective than live flying.
36 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: USE OF SIMULATORS IN TRAINING
Appendix 2 Views expressed by Simulator Manufacturers
1 The National Audit Office visited three principal United Kingdom manufacturers of simulators to gain an industrial view on the Service’s use of simulators in training. The National Audit Office are grateful for the contributions made by Link-Miles Limited, Marconi Simulation Limited and Rediffusion Simulation Limited. The views of the manufacturers are summarised below.
Acquisition 2 Manufacturers recognised the Department’s commitment to increased competitive tendering for equipment contracts, and acknowledged the benefits of healthy competition. They believed, however, that better screening of the technical and management expertise of manufacturers before bids were invited--a ‘qualification’ stage--would lead to a more logical choice of manufacturer for the final contract. Manufacturers also suggested that the details of the assessment criteria which the Department would use to assess bids under competitive tendering should be made available by the Department.
3 The manufacturers expressed interest in the contracting out of simulator training. They believed that some certain areas of training could be run as a business at lower cost and provide continuity as well as quality using professional training staff. This would take pressure off the uniformed service and allow them to concentrate on their operational role.
4 The manufacturers were very supportive of the Training Needs Analysis approach as the best way of determining the balance between what the customer needs, what he can afford and what equipment the manufacturer can supply. In short, the Training Needs Analysis approach allowed the customer to match training needs to simulators within a cost framework. Other advantages were that the approach enabled the customer to see the effect on cost of changing his training needs, and the effect on training of various levels of expenditure.
5 Manufacturers thought that in the past the Department did not know how to define the training need in terms that manufacturers could readily translate into technology; and that the Department had tended to concentrate on technical specifications without considering what they needed the simulators for. Training Needs Analysis was cited as the best way of avoiding these pitfalls.
6 They considered it important that the Department maintain momentum on the Training Needs Analysis approach. And they thought that the current absence of a definitive directive on the conduct of an Analysis, and of a detailed specification of what an Analysis should cover, may cause problems in future. Manufacturers considered that there was a need for a common Analysis system with common standards, that was understood by everyone but was flexible enough to meet the inevitable variations between training needs. Overall, manufacturers maintained that if Training Needs Analysis were conducted in detail, to a common standard, then economic acquisition and efficient and effective utilisation of simulators would follow.
37 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: USE OF SIMULATORS IN TRAINING
7 Manufacturers considered that the Department had not fully appreciated the training opportunities simulation could offer, and that consequently the Department were not exploiting all the available technologies. Manufacturers said that this was in contrast to commercial users of simulators, who exploited technology to the extent that they used ‘zero flight time conversion’ for pilots-that is pilot training could be completed on simulators without any training in the parent equipment. Manufacturers recognised that by comparison to commercial pilots, military pilots had more skills to master and greater flying challenges to face. But they thought that available simulator technology could be exploited more fully than at present by the Department. Advanced and increasingly cheap visual systems and motion platforms were cited as examples.
Utilisation 8 Manufacturers told the National Audit Office that current technology was capable of producing simulator availability of 20 hours a day for 365 days in the year.
9 Manufacturers suggested that to maximise utilisation simulators should be acquired at the same time as the parent equipment and remain in the same modification state as the parent equipment. By those means training value could be maximised, the trainee’s belief in the value of the simulator would be increased, and high utilisation would follow.
10 They considered that one way of guaranteeing that the simulator corresponds to the parent equipment, and thus enhancing utilisation, would be to subject military simulators to enforceable regulations. For example in the commercial airline sector, users of flight simulators were bound by stringent Civil Aviation Authority regulations which required that the simulator exactly replicate the parent aircraft’s flight characteristics and handling. Manufacturers considered that this discipline might usefully be extended to military aircraft. Common modification states for simulator and aircraft, and the increased fidelity that would be required would enhance the credibility of the simulator and therefore its use.
Effectiveness 11 Manufacturers considered that the Department need measures of effectiveness to inform future acquisitions. Implementation of the Training Needs Analysis approach would maximise the prospects for effectiveness as it established a close link between training needs and simulator configuration.
12 Manufacturers thought that effectiveness could also be enhanced by increasing fidelity, that is by making the simulator resemble more closely the parent equipment in terms of physical and performance characteristics. and by making the simulation more realistic by greater use of visual and motion systems.
38 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: USE OF SIMULATORS IN TRAINING
Appendix 3 Summarv of Research into Simulator Effectivekess
The National Audit Office commissioned PA Consultants to assist them in reviewing a wide range of research on simulator effectiveness. This Appendix summarises the main points which, in the National Audit Office’s view, the Department should consider to develop effectiveness measurement techniques (Report, paragraph 4.14).
. Measurement of effectiveness, both in military and civilian applications, is usually an afterthought. There is often reluctance to commit the necessary resources for detailed investigations; . Effectiveness measurement should have regard both to training transfer and to cost. That is: - whether training on the simulator has enabled the trainees to carry out their operational task, or to achieve the required degree of competence before moving to ‘live’ training and/or operations; - whether the simulator enables required levels of performance to be achieved at lower cost-by reducing the overall time required for training, and/or by greater use of simulators and less use of more costly training procedures (for example ‘live’ training);
l Simulation and ‘live’ training are not absolute alternatives. Optimum cost- effectiveness is achieved through careful combination of the two approaches, and through trade-offs between cost and effectiveness. There is an urgent need for the development and maintenance of databases on the cost and effectiveness of current methods of training;
l Research has shown that up to a certain point larger amounts of time in a simulator lead to larger savings of flying time, thereafter additional simulator time saves diminishing amounts of flight time. Different training tasks are likely to produce different cut-off points;
l Assessment of the transfer of training seeks to derive a value for: - how long it takes to learn the task in the simulator; - how effectively the task is subsequently performed ‘live’; - how much ‘live’ training is saved by use of the simulator. . To achieve this it is necessary to measure: - the learning achieved in the simulator; - the learning which transfers to the ‘live’ situation; ~ the savings mode as n result of using the simulator.
l Transfer of training can be expressed as a Transfer Effectiveness Ratio. This is defined as the ratio of the hours in the simulator to the number of hours, for the same level of achievement, that would otherwise have to be given in the aircraft.
Transfer Effectiveness = Aircraft time (with no simulators)
Ratio Time sat in the simulator
39 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: USE OF SIMULATORS IN TRAINING
For example, a Ministry of Defence study of the Jet Provost Trainer in 1980 indicated that the transfer effectiveness ratio was .67 which meant that one hour in the trainer was worth 40 minutes in the air. In 22 studies undertaken over a 10 year period in the United States a median value of 0.48 was derived suggesting one hour in the simulator was worth 30 minutes in the air. The range was from 0.4 to 1.9 indicating that wxne applications showed greater savings that others; . The simplest way of measuring effectiveness is to compare the training times or achievement of two groups of trainees. A control group is trained in the traditional manner, an experimental group is trained using simulators. A pre- test administered to both groups is used to determine the level of knowledge or competence before the training, and a post-test determines the levels after training. The training gains are established and the relative effectiveness of each method can be measured. Determination of training effectiveness can be achieved using the Fixed Mastery or Fixed Time approach: [i) Fixed Mastery-variable time
seeks to measure how much time or training resource is saved through the use of the simulator. This approach determines the amount of simulator training or the number of repetitions needed to achieve desired operational performance. This approach is best suited to assessment of simulators contribution to straightforward procedural tasks such as instrument flying or basic manwuvres. [ii) Fixed Time-variable mastery
seeks to measure operational excellence. It may identify smne useful factors of military value which are overlooked in the Fixed Mastery approach and may be suited for combat and tactical training where competitive edge is involved.
l There are numerrxts study design models for determining effectiveness, each with differing claims as to their suitability for particular tasks and largely untested. These models need to be tested, to determine the extent to which they can provide useful information on effectiveness and thus inform decision making about the procurement and use of training simulations.
40 MlNISTRY OF DEFENCE: USE OF SIMULATORS IN TRAlNING
Appendix 4 Examples of Simulators in the Royal Navy and the Army
The Royal Navy The Royal Navy have a wide range of simulators. Examples of current and planned simulators include:
l Submarine Command Team Trainers.
A significant proportion of the training of submarine command teams can be accomplished ashore in simulators. Sonar detections are simulated, motion reflects steering decisions, and computer graphics visuals are used for periscope vision. Up to ten surface, submarine or air targets can be simulated simultaneously and torpedoes and missiles “fired” and monitored. Such simulators incorporate a full replay facility to aid the de-briefing of trainees’ performance.
l Phalanx “Cubic” Trainer
This is an example of a simulator used to provide training in the maintenance of equipment. The simulator replicates the functions of the Phalanx automatic gun fire control mechanism. About 500 malfunctions can be input by instructors for trainees to detect, monitor, and correct. The simulator incorporates the actual test equipment that is used on board ship for fault finding (to add realism). It has a facility to print out the faults input and the actions subsequently taken by the trainee (to aid de-briefing). The advantages of this simulator are that training can take place in complete safety and in much less time than if the parent equipment was used.
l Bridge Simulator
The Bridge Simulator is due to be in service early in 1994. It will be used to train officers in navigation and ship handling skills. This has traditionally been done by a combination of classroom work, blind pilotage in a simulator, and practical instruction at sea. The Royal Navy undertook a series of trials which demonstrated that training could be more cost-effective using a dedicated simulator.
The Bridge Simulator will provide accurate simulation of the handling characteristics of all principal Royal Navy warships and Royal Fleet Auxiliaries. Motion and vibration will be incorporated to replicate the effects of sea state, tide and other ships passing. A visual display will provide a 270 degree view for day and night operations, and will include computer modelling of a variety of civil and military aircraft, ships and submarines. Coastline features will also be represented and linked to radar displays. The simulator will provide accurate responses to ship manoeuvering in harbour and the open sea, in company with other vessels. The simulator should allow the present requirement for ‘live’ training at sea to be cut by 50 per cent, with a consequent decrease in costs and a reduced risk of collisions in training.
The Department pointed out that examples of the most heavily utilised Royal Navy simulators are the Sea King MR5/6 Full Mission Simulator at RNAS Culdrose (9-12 hours a day, 5 days a week) and the Lynx Full Mission Simulator at HMS Osprey (up to 12 hours a day, 5 days a week).
41 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: USE OF SIMULATORS IN TRAINING
The Army The Army have a large number of diverse, but ageing, simulators. Many new simulators are planned for the 1990s. Examples of current and planned simulators ?“I?:
l Driver Training Simulators at the Driving and Maintenance School at the Royal Armoured Corps Training School, Bovington were introduced in 1972 to reduce demand on parent equipment (principally tanks and armoured fighting vehicles) and to save on running costs. The simulators consist of vehicles driver’s cabs and controls, set on a motion platform. The trainee “drives” the cab by reference to a projected image derived from a camera which moves across a terrain model. The simulator was introduced without the benefit of a clear definition of training requirements, and subsequent research has shown that more than four hours training requirements on the simulator at a time leads to diminishing training benefit. The Army have, therefore, carried out a Training Needs Analysis on driver training and this will lead to the replacement of the current driving simulator by a combination of computer-based training, part-task trainers and ‘live’ training.
l Gunnery Training A Gunnery Training System Simulator was introduced in 1963 to teach firing drills for tanks. It has since been modified to take account of changes to the fire control systems on the Chieftain, and, more recently, the Challenger 1. The simulator is configured as a full size tank turret, facing a screen onto which targets are projected. The simulator has several disadvantages, including a very high workload for the instructor in setting up and monitoring scenarios; relative unreliability; poor representation of targets (targets coming towards the trainee cannot be replicated): and inaccuracy in aiming compared to the parent equipments.
l Combined Arms Tactical Trainer This simulator will be introduced in the mid-1990s. Its purpose is to conduct tactical and procedural training from troop/platoon to battlegroup level, through a computer-based system that allows crew and vehicle simulators to be linked in a realistic combat scenario, using a 100 square kilometre terrain database. The database will enable accurate representation of topographical features, and allow vehicles, artillery, aircraft and formations to be deployed, and to manoeuvre realistically in relation to each other and to a simulated enemy. The simulator is expected to cost some El00 million. ‘Live’ training for such a combination of forces would be impossible because of safety and training area restrictions. The simulator will allow a proper assessment and measurement to be made of the real value of each of the component parts of the training system and of their relative contribution to operational effectiveness.
42