Armor Training 1997

Armor Training 1997 An Application of Embedded Training by Major H. Critz Hardy Technological progress in training now offers exciting opportunities to improve the U.S. Army’s ability to effectively employ modern, lethal weapons systems in combat. Advances in computational capacity and storage, interactive dynamic high-fidelity imagerv, networking, software and courseware, full-content voice recognition and generation, and artilicial intelligence’ may make possible far more effective training subsystems than previously available. The way we train and when we train may dramatically change by the late I W s and into the 21st Century. Moreover, the potential to actually apply this new training technology increases as our fighting vehicles become more technologically sophisticated - solid-state fire control computers, very high-speed integrated circuitry, and electronic display screens are a few key examples. This same capacity to improve a vehicle’s onboard data processing and storage capability permits a practical discussion of embedded training in future combat systems. What is embedded training? Eiiibcddcd trairiirig is training “that is proriiled by capabilities clesipied to he built into or added onto operational .YVS~C~I~I.Y to enharice arid maintain the skill proJicieiiqv iiccessun’ to operate arid niuiiirairi that eqiriyrrient end item ’” Embedded training subsystems can range from training subsystems added on to equipment to suhsys-tems that are built in. At the low end or the scale are appended training subsystems, which can be quickly attached to existing mounting hardware and datdelectronic connections. At the mid-point are training subsystems that are permanently mounted to the cornbat system, hut are ad,junct to the operational hardware. On the opposite end of this continuum are training suhsys-tcms that are totally integrated into the operational hardware (subsystems that share the same black box). Embedded training requires more than the simple presentation of information. It must assess the proficiency level of the user, feeding this assessment back to the user to improve his performance or reinforce correct performance. It must also keep records of the operator’s training proficiency progress. Most available training technology has been fielded after the new combat system has arrived at the using unit, hut embedded training must be designed into the combat system at the earliest engineering stages. This training subsystem must then be tested and produced at the same time as the combat system. Embedded training will permit instruction on how to operate the tank without the need for instructors. This capability will permit rapid trainup of soldiers who must use unfamiliar tanks from either pre-positioned stocks (POMCUS) or war reserve. Embedded training will also provide a readily available training package for sustainment training in units, and a training management (record kccping) capability that will relieve this t-ype of administrative burden from unit trainers. This capability may ultimately provide more objectivity in the readiness reporting system. Another advantage of embedded training is that it standardizes training across the force, regardless of the soldier’s geographic location or major Army command. The lesson content and performance standards originate from one source and are part of the combat system? Embedded training is not without its disadvantages. First, it is costly. This cost includes not only the acquisition price of the hardware and software to run the training subsys-tcm, but also the cost of software development of each lesson and changes to those lessons as doctrine evolves ovcr the life of the combat system. These costs will drive up the total procurement costs of the combat system - aggravated because the training system is often partially funded from sources usually not earmarked for combat system development. A second disadvantage is that embedded training requires more frequent use of the combat system. 34 ARMOR - November-December 7988

0 PRECISION TACTICAL

ENGAGEMENT

SIMULATION

0 LEADER AND CREW

TACTICAL TRAINER

NETWORKEDPLT-

THROUGH-EN

BATTLE SIMULATION

EMBEDDED TRAINING

CAPABILITIES IN THE M1 (Block 111)

0 DRIVERTRAINER

0 INDIVIDUAL CREW

STATION OPERATING

INSTRUCTIONS

0 0PERATOWORG.MAINT.

TRAINER

0 GUNNERY PROCEDURES

TRAINER

0 PERFORMANCE FEED

BACK

Therefore, there is more risk to the reliability, availability, and maintainability of the system. The parts of the system used for training must be made just as rugged as the system itself to ensure the system can maintain its rcquired operational rate. For those parts of the training subsystem that are fully embedded in the operational hardware, designers must ensure that failure of the training subsystem does not affect performance of the operational sub- 5 system.' Finally, because ernbedded training requires advanced technology, there are technical risks associated with choosing a technology thitt will be available in time for production. Failure to advance a key tcchnology may dramatically change the embedded training approach (of course, this is a risk to the operational system as well, but in the past, training developers frequently relied on proven technology to develop training devices for existing According to a 1987 Army policy systems). 6 letter: "Art embedded trairtirig capability will be thoroiigli!?~ ewliiated arid considered as tlic preferred alteniative ariiortg otlier approuclies to the incorporation of training siih~vsterits in rite dervlopriierit arid follow-ori Prodiict Iritproveriterit Pro anis of ull Amiy ritateriel qrteriis. It T The first armor combat system that possesses real potential for an embedded training subsystem is the Abrams Block 111 tank. It will be developed according to the guidelines of the Army policy on embedded training The Abrams Block 111 is currently scheduled for fielding in the late 1990s. Its training subsystem will integrate embedded training applications into the four areas of armor training: gunnery, tactics, driving, and maintenance. Embedded training will support unit sustainment, cross- and transition training. Instruction at the Armor Center will likely rely on separate stand-alone trainers (e.g., ICOV, driver trainer, close cornhat tactical trainer, and organizational maintenance traincr) to avoid requiring large numbers of the Abrams Block 111 at Fort Knox. However, institutional training will include instruction on how to use the ernbedded training subsystem on the tank. So, what is the potential application of embedded training to the Abrams Block Ill? Gunnery training will include individual and crew "how to" training, crew gunnery procedures training, precision tactical engagement simulation, and largcr unit (platoon, company) fire control and distribution training. Individual and crew "how to" training will be provided by artificially intelligent, computer-assisted instruction - interactive instruction on display screens at each crew station. Crew gunnery procedures training will provide "how to fight the tank" training through on-board, computer-generated imagery presented on display scrcens and direct view optics. This training will be similar to today's tank commanderlgunner training that occurs in the Unit Conduct of Fire Trainer, but will include the driver as well. Gunnery sustainment training (as well as tactical table-type training) will also occur during field training exercises through the use of an embedded tactical engagement system that fully rcpresents the operational fire control system. This capability may share many of the components of the operational system, such as the laser rangefinder and fire control cornputcr. The fire control and distribution training that now occurs in Simulation Networking (SIMNET) will be provided by the embedded systems of single tanks networked to three (platoon) or more (company/team) tanks. These tanks will be networked through a mobile central processing unit, which can be located at a field or garrison site. Tactical training will employ many of the samc cmbedded training components used to support gunnery training. Software will be added to the onboard computer (or provided from a central processing unit) to train the skills necessary for tactical I 1 ARMOR - November-December 1988 35 proficiency. Artificially intelligent computer-assisted instruction will provide leader instruction on the tactical employment of the tank, section, and platoon. Tank commanders and platoon leaders will be able to participate in tank TEWTs or CPXs using doctrinally-correct automated crewmembers (similar to

ICOFT)

and battle simulation presented on display screens and vision blocks. This will permit leader-only training (other crew members would be able to conduct other mission-related activities) under the physical constraints of his tank crew position. Trained leaders will then be integrated with their crews to conduct battle simulation exercises, much like today’s SIMNET. Leaders, crews, and units trained using this embedded battle simulation will then apply this knowledge in field training exercises supported by the same embedded precision tactical engagement simulation used during gunnery training. Driver training will occur through individual “how to” training and driver simulation training. Driver knowledge and procedure training will occur using the same embeddcd computer-assisted instruction with driver-specific software. Unit driver training will occur through embedded simulation using the same hardware interfaces that support the embedded gunnery procedure and tactical training. This unit driver training will Iwild upon the driver proficiency gained from driver trainers at the Armor School and complement the driver training that occurs as part of embedded gunnery and tactical training, as well as the driver training that occurs as part of live-fire gunnery training and vehicle-based Geld training exercises. Maintenance training will train crewniembers and organizational mechanics in the use of the onhoard embedded diagnostic and prognostic maintenance systems. Simulated fault programs will train the use of these systems, as well as provide practical experience in the use of the ernbedded maintenance software, which provides remove, replace, and repair instructions. Training performance feedback will improve dramatically over what is available today. This feedback capability, engineered from the beginning into the training suhsys-tcni. will provide audio, visual, and hard copy (disk or paper) records of individual, crew, and unit performance during the training exercises that occur on the tank. These exercises include those that use embedded training subsystems, as well as training that uses the operational system (e.g. live fire and FTXs). This training performance software will also do the analysis required to enable trainers to provide immediate after-action reviews. This performance data will also be linked (easy data transfer via floppy disk) to the Integrated Training Management System (ITMS) so that leaders can assess what additional training is required. Our goal is to provide the Armor Force with an improved Abrdnis that fully exploits the technological advantages we can bring to hear. This includes both maneuverability and lethal fircpower, as well as trained leaders and soldiers who can effectively apply this technology in combat. Embedded training will provide the force a training capability that will help us to understand modern warfare better than previously imaginable. Our challenge over the next several years is to define the most effective mix of training capabilities for the Abrams Block 111. It is this training capability mix that will sustain our training proficiency - a key element in our ability 10 provide a credible detcrrence - until the next opportunity to apply training technoloe advances - the Future Armored Combat system (Armored Family of Vehicles). Notes ”Armored Familv of Vehicles ( A M Training Studv, U.S. Army Project Manager for Training Devices, 30 Sep 87, pp 64-60 and 75-78. *“Embedded Training,” GEN M.R. Thurman and Hon J. R. Ambrose, Army policy letter, 3 Mar 87. “Embedded Training as a Svstem Alternative. H. C. Strasel. F.N. Dyer, J.T. Roth, Dec 87, VOL 2, pg 6. ImDlementina Embedded Training: Interim Overview, D.C. Finley, i.N. Alderman, D.S. Peckham, H.C. Strasel, Mar 87, ’Armored Familv of Vehicles (AFV Training Studv, US. Army Project Manager for Training Devices, 30 Sep 87, pp 82-84. “Trainina Svstems ConceDts for the Armored Familv of Vehicles with Consideration of the Roles of Embedded Traininq and Stand-Alone Trainina Devices, J.T. Roth, W.P. Cherry. H.C. Strasel, 31 Aug ““Embedded Training,” GEN M.R. Thurman and Hon J. R. Ambrose, Army policy letter, 3 Mar 87. 8’This discussion of ET applications for the Abrams Block 111 was taken from the draft requirements documents for the tank, the approved final draft of TC 17-12- 7, Armor Training Devices Macrostrateav, and the views of the author. 4. VOL 1, pg 2. 87, PP 38-40. Major H. Critz Hardy is a 1975 graduate of the U.S. Military Academy. He served with the 1st Bn., 37th Armor, and the 4th Bn., 40th Armor. He recently served as chief, Operations Research and Systems Analysis Division, Directorate of Training and Doctrine, U.S. Army Armor School, and is currently attending the U.S. Army Command and General Staff Officers Course, Fort Leavenworth, KS. 36 ARMOR - November-December 1988