Chapter 3 Operation Strategy by zoz17967


More Info
									                                       Chapter 3

                             Training Simulations
                                    Used in
                        Command and Control (C2) Training

            With the basic foundation provided in the first two chapters, a more
      focused look can be directed at C2 training simulations. This chapter
      reviews training simulations from a generic perspective and C2 training
      simulations from a refined perspective.

Section 3.1 Army C2 Training Simulations - Goals and Objectives

         The goals and objectives of the Army's C2 training simulations are focused and
driven by activities at the Combined Arms Center (CAC) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.
The specific charge of implementing this Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC)
initiative belongs to the National Simulation Center (NSC). As the executive agent for
TRADOC, the NSC is developing a family of associated C2 training simulations
resulting in a Distributed Interactive Simulation (DIS) package which will provide
increased cost effectiveness and realism in training.          The strategy goals are
enumerated below.

      *      Serve Army C2 training needs for the Active Component (AC) and the
             Reserve Component (RC) (U.S. Army Reserves (USAR) and the Army
             National Guard (ARNG)).

      *      Provide affordable, realistic, and efficient training tools to the field and
             TRADOC schools that will:

             **     Enhance operational and tactical C2 capabilities in battlefield
                    synchronization skills.

             **     Train and sustain command groups and battle staffs.

      *      Achieve consistency between Combat Development (CD) and Training
             Development (TD) models.

      The objectives of the strategy are to:

      *      Standardize Armywide training simulations (company through EAC)
             **    Hardware, software, operating systems, graphics language, and
                   communications protocols.
             **    Life cycle support (hardware maintenance, Post Deployment
                   Software Support (PDSS), and configuration control.
      *      Reduce proliferation of non-standardized C2 training simulations.

      *      Integrate functional training capability.
      *      Field quickly.
      *      Provide training simulations with distributive interactive capability (expand
             functionality through connectivity of models).
      *      Stimulate appropriate C2 systems and subsystems.
      *      Embed within operational systems.

Section 3.2 Army C2 Training Simulations - What They Can Be Expected to Do in
            the Training Environment

       The Army's C2 training simulations are computer-driven simulations that assist in
training leaders, commanders, and their staffs to develop and maintain unit readiness.
Most of these simulations place C2 elements of units in a combat-like environment that
stimulates decision-making, command and staff interaction, and staff coordination. In a
simulation driven exercise, the participating commanders and staffs (the trainees or
training audience) often operate in Command Posts (CPs) or Tactical Operation
Centers (TOCs) at field locations.

       Controllers, representing forces above, below, and adjacent to the participating
(trainee) headquarters (HQs) communicate with the trainees through organic tactical
communications systems. Through role-playing, the controllers provide feedback on
the course of the battle or operational situation that causes the desired reaction and
interaction of the command and staff being trained.

      More specifically, C2 training simulations can:

      *      Assist units in preparing for Mission Training Evaluation Plans (MTEPs)
             while minimizing costs and resources.
      *      Exercise and evaluate internal staff training and unit standard operating
             procedures (SOPs).
      *      Develop an awareness of the lethality and complexity of the modern
      *      Evaluate written material and verbal communication processes between:
             commanders and staff members; commanders and subordinate
             commanders; commanders and adjacent commanders (US or
             international); and commanders and higher levels of command.
      *      Provide feedback to measure situational responses and staff ability to
             develop alternative courses of action.

Section 3.3 Army C2 Training Simulations - What They Should Not Be Expected
            to Do in the Training Environment

        C2 training simulations basically serve in a support role to assist unit C2
elements to develop and maintain unit readiness. The training simulations can perform
their intended role quite well.

       However, they should not be used with high reliability and confidence to perform
other roles. For example, C2 training simulations should not be used as "truth
machines" relied upon to determine if C2 decisions made by commanders were correct
or incorrect. They should not be used in a context to provide a "go" or "no-go" solution
to a particular operational problem.

       C2 training simulations should not be employed to analyze plans in specific
terms of outcome. They can be used in a training environment, however, to assist in
learning about generalizations on maneuver and logistics, but they should not be relied
on to provide specifics on how much and what type of 'widgets' to use in a particular
scenario or operational situation.

        C2 training simulations should not be relied upon to validate war plans and they
must not be used for that purpose. C2 training simulations simulate the real world and
provide a simulation of the real-world conditions of approximately 80-85%, depending
on which simulation is used. However, this 80-85% simulation is not 100% and should
not be seen as an exact replication of the real-world; it is not. However, the 80-85%
"solution" that C2 training simulations represent means that they can perform their
assistance and support role to C2 elements very well if the exercise is designed around
legitimate training objectives.

        It is a mistake, repeat mistake, and a misuse of these simulations to attempt to
validate war plans. The algorithms used in training simulations provide sufficient fidelity
for training, not validation of war plans. This is due to the fact that important factors
(leadership, morale, terrain, weather, level of training of the units) and a myriad of
human and environmental impacts are not modeled in sufficient detail to provide the
types of plans analysis usually associated with warfighting decisions used to validate
war plans.

       The simulation is not the trainer; the exercise director, usually a representative, if
not the actual commander, of the training unit's higher HQ is the trainer. Simulation
provides the stimulus that this commander (trainer) uses to exercise the training

Section 3.4 C2 Training Simulations - A Descriptive Concept

       Training simulations, simply stated, are simulations used to train either
individuals or groups. In the training arena of the U.S. Army, simulations are popular
and widespread in use. Simulations can vary from fully automated to interactive with a

wide variation of combinations of these two states. The range of intervention during a
training exercise results as much from the development of simulations (over time) as it
does from repeated and sophisticated use of simulations. The intervention during a
training exercise should be made only to maintain and/or enhance the training focus of
the trainees. Simulation trainees can range from crews and squads to general officers
depending, of course, on the echelon by which the simulation was developed and

       Simulations that are used in training are designed to accurately substitute or
simulate reality in such a manner that training outcomes and behaviors can equal the
training outcomes that would have resulted from reality. Simulations, therefore, are
designed to benefit the trainees, whether individuals or groups, by simulating reality.
This process should be invisible to the trainee(s). By exercise design, physical layout,
and exercise conduct, the trainees normally have no physical contact with the
simulation. However, the interface between the trainee(s) and the simulation does
exist. This interface results from the interaction that the trainee(s) have with various
role-players that support the training event. The role-players normally act as
subordinate, adjacent, and higher echelons of the trainee(s).

       Training simulations can be understood by taking a snapshot of a training
exercise. The trainees for this example will be a battalion commander and the battalion
primary staff (S1, S2, S3, and S4). To satisfy some of the training objectives, the
commander and his staff must plan, coordinate, and move several of the companies
and attack a particular objective. The trainees are located in their normal wartime
environment (in this case, a battalion tactical CP located in the field). Planning of this
mission is conducted at the field location by the battalion commander and his primary

        To execute this mission, the trainees use their organic tactical communications
to execute the results of the planning process in the form of orders to the battalion's
company commanders. These commanders are located in workstations in a simulation
center and play their normal "role" in receiving and executing the orders from the
battalion commander. Instead of being in the field and actually moving their platoons
and supporting elements, these company commanders are using the simulation to
replicate this movement. By using the simulation, these role-players enter information
into the simulation using their workstation equipment.

        Once these orders are entered into the simulation, the simulation uses its
algorithms to move the specific units from their current position(s) to the objective.
Along the route of movement, the simulation will cause these units to experience many
of the same conditions and effect(s) that the unit would experience if it were actually
moving on the terrain and under the conditions depicted by the simulation. The units
move at speeds appropriate to the terrain, visibility, weather, obstacles, road conditions,
enemy contact, and other factors that would be encountered in the "real" terrain.
Depending on which simulation is being used, an opposing force (OPFOR) is always
played to provide realism and stress associated with military operations.

                  Figure 3.4 - Visualizing C2 Simulations in Training

       Information regarding interactions, degradations, movement rates, and combat
results are provided to the role-players by reports that come from the high-speed
printers located in their workstations. These reports give specific information in terms
of location, status, strength, posture, and many other items resulting from the
simulation's algorithms. These reports provide the role-players with specific information
on the unit as it moves from an initial location and position(s) to the objective.

       These workstation reports are passed from the role-players to the commander
and staff that are located in the tactical CP in the field. The trainees in the field use this
information to alter or otherwise influence their decisions and inputs into the overall
mission. This interaction cycle between the trainees and role-players and simulation
continues during the entire conduct of the exercise over the training audience's tactical
communications system.

Section 3.5 Simulations Used in C2 Training Environments - Some Associated

        Simulations are used to assist in training C2 processes at various echelons and
in various settings. C2 simulations are used extensively in all of these. There are four
major terms associated with this concept: command and staff training, seminar training,
battle simulation, and CPXs.

      *      Command and staff training. Command and staff is a system that is
supported by a simulation designed to facilitate the training primarily of a single echelon
command group and battle staff in those skills required for combined arms and services
C2 of combat operations. To accomplish this, however, the primary training audience
has to exercise utilizing at least the immediate, higher, and lower echelons of

       *       Seminar training. Seminar training is a simulation system designed to
depict situations as a vehicle to generate discussion and learning by a small group of
commanders, a commander and staff, or staff sections individually. The commanders
and staffs may be from combat, combat support (CS), combat service support (CSS)
units, or students organized as staffs at Army schools. Seminar training can be
valuable when employed with battle simulation training.

       *      Battle simulation training. Battle simulation training is a computer-driven
simulation that places the training unit C2 elements in a realistic combat-like
environment that stimulates decision-making and command and staff interaction and
coordination. In a simulation driven exercise, the participating commanders and staffs
are usually in their wartime field locations in actual CPs or TOCs.

       Controllers, acting as role-players for the forces above, below, and adjacent to
these HQs, communicate with the trainees through their Table of Organization and
Equipment (TO&E) communications equipment. The controllers provide feedback on
the course of the battle to cause the desired reaction and interaction of the command
and staff elements being trained. During the conduct of the exercise data is
accumulated to provide the commander and staff an After Action Review (AAR) of the
entire exercise to assist in evaluating SOPs and objectives.

       *      CPXs.     The CPX provides a simulated combat experience for
commanders and their staffs without incurring the uncertainties and costs associated
with actual war and other military operations or those associated with Field Training
Exercises (FTXs). The multi-echelon CPX places the C2 elements of units in a combat-
like environment that stimulates stressful decision-making, command and staff
interaction, and coordination.

       In a CPX the staffs of the HQs and Major Subordinate Commands (MSC) HQs
operate in actual CPs or TOCs at field locations. Controllers, those capable of
representing the forces above, below, and adjacent to these HQs, communicate with it
through organic communications. Through their role-playing, the controllers provide
feedback on the course of the battle that causes the desired reaction and interaction of
the elements being trained.

       The use of computer technology in CPXs allows the integration of all combat
elements. Logistics, for example, can limit combat activity. Use of computer simulations
eliminates the problem of coordinating multiple map boards found in manual simulation
methods and greatly improves exercise control. Data is automatically recorded
throughout the exercise for post-exercise analysis. This data can include replay of
portions of the exercise from various starting points and different variations or
operational states.

       More comprehensive and direct intervention in the progress of the exercise is
possible in simulation-driven CPXs. This allows the exercise director to examine
consequences of various initial conditions and operations plans either individually or in
concert. Exercise support technicians can facilitate the data reduction and analysis of
exercise results and in the processing of reports. The exercise director can provide a
replay of the actual battle, thereby improving the information available in the AAR

Section 3.6 Desired Characteristics/Requirements of C2 Training Simulations

       C2 training simulations should meet certain requirements to be effective. These
requirements are discussed briefly here but are elaborated on throughout this
       *      Realistic. The simulation must be realistic enough to support a realistic
and sufficient level of realism to drive the C2 decision making process. Therefore, the
simulation must portray effects of weather, terrain, equipment capabilities (i.e., speed,
travel distance between fueling), weapon lethality (direct and indirect fire), visibility,
time, and space in a realistic manner. W ithout a high degree of realism the simulation
is degraded and could be an ineffective training tool. The degree of realism required in
the automated simulations used by the Army will not allow unrealistic conditions or
outcomes to result. The level of realism required for vehicular movement, for example,
must be as realistic in the simulation, given the conditions (weather, terrain, type of
equipment, visibility, road conditions), as would be expected outside of the simulation.
Combat vehicles can not travel 85 kph in steep terrain outside of the simulation; they
can not accomplish this inside of the simulation either.

       The realism required in C2 training simulations, however, does not have to be a
100% replication or duplication of reality to be effective since the training audience is
not interacting directly with the simulation but through role-players portraying higher,
adjacent, and subordinate units and elements. Simulation interactors can take
simulation results (created by the simulation's algorithms), add unit standard operating
procedural formatting of these results, and transmit this information to the training
audience for another "cycle" of staff planning and information integration into the overall
C2 system. This realism can be provided without a complete 100% accuracy from the

       The term, real-time, is an extremely important part of the concept of realism. A
desired characteristic of C2 training simulations is that real-time is a functional part of
the simulation. Real-time means that one hour in the simulation is equal to one hour
outside of the simulation, or 1:1. The importance of this basic capability is that actual
time is used in the simulation to adjudicate the results of input, through orders, of the
simulation players (friendly, opposing, or exercise control). Real-time in a simulation, in
essence, provides results of actions in the same time periods as these actions would
provide outside of the simulation. The time of flights by aviation assets is the same in
the simulation (real-time) as it would be outside of the simulation.

       Another integral part of the simulation is a result that simulation realism causes:
stress. Stress is created by the realistic conditions of adjudications made by the
simulation based on the C2 processes employed. The adjudications are equipment
losses, casualties, fratricide, and combat ineffectiveness due to severe battle damage
or other causes. Losing tactically is a real result of C2 training simulations....this can be
very stressful. However, the high levels of stress that occur are an intentional and
essential element of C2 during wartime missions. A similar level of stress can occur
and is desirable in C2 training simulations.

        *      Neutral to the Decision-making Process. The simulation should remain
neutral to the process of decision making by all simulation players. This includes the
training audience, the OPFOR play, and decisions made by exercise controllers. This
neutrality allows input to be adjudicated by the simulation's algorithms regardless of the
logic involved in the decision. Results of the adjudication process will not be filtered by
the simulation to favor one set of players.

       Basically, this neutrality means that the simulation does not prevent "bad"
decisions from being adjudicated up to the point of realism that the simulation is
capable of playing. One example will illustrate this neutrality. Improper fire planning
allows indirect fires, for example, to impact where they were actually planned to impact
regardless of the intended target. If the fire planning process targeted a friendly
ammunition supply point in error, then that is where the indirect fires will impact. In
addition, the simulation will provide the damage sustained as a result of the impact
based upon the likely effects and capability of the weapons systems in the simulation.

      The neutrality of the simulation will not prevent the adjudication of results of
other decisions. Some of these results could be due to decisions of the training
audience to:

              *      ignore minefields;
              *      dismiss the importance of bridges that are destroyed;
              *      ignore line-of-sight capabilities of enemy weapons systems;
              *      ignore refueling; and/or
              *      ignore ADA threats or nap-of-earth flying.

        The results of these decisions will be similar in the simulation in the above five
situations as they would be outside of the simulation. Vehicles and/or troops would
sustain damage and injury and death; a road march would be abruptly brought to a halt;
weapon systems would be destroyed; vehicles and other equipment would become
inoperable; and aircraft would be shot down.

        Neutrality (to the decision-making process) is a simulation requirement. W ithout
it, bias and/or control of simulation results could slant the results. Neutrality of the
decision-making process supports realism.

       *      Free-play. Free-play is a requirement of C2 training simulations. Simply
stated, free-play requires that both the friendly and OPFORs are "free-to-play" their
individual functionalities without preset restrictions or automatic modes in the
simulation. The importance of this concept is that the training audience is forced to
maneuver units, assets, and resources to accomplish the mission that has been
directed by higher HQs against an OPFOR that is forced to conduct its mission in the
same manner.

      Free-play in simulations allows and forces orders to be given by friendly and
OPFORs with supporting resources and tactics that, in turn, allows the training
audience to perform C2 functions through the various staff processes.

             *      Invisible/transparent to the training audience.
             *      Provides appropriate levels of flexibility and adaptability. (database
                    builds...scenarios similar to real missions)
             *      Provides essential data for AARs.
             *      Can be remoted.
             *      Supports unit readiness. (has training utility can be used as a
                    training tool...not a do-all)

            This chapter closes the first part of this handbook, WHAT ARE
      SIMULATIONS?, by providing the last foundation necessary before a
      deeper look is taken into C2 training simulations. In this chapter, several
      important perspectives were established (goals and objectives, what
      simulations can and cannot be expected to provide, and a descriptive
      concept) and a descriptive concept was presented.


To top