The availability of sophisticated computer-based simulation on
board combat vehicles will become a reality for Army crews in the
near future, officials said.
Under a program spearheaded by the Army’s Simulation, Training
and Instrumentation Command (STRICOM), a Humvee truck has been equipped
with built-in simulators, in order to prove that “embedded”
training technologies easily could be incorporated into tactical
vehicles. If the program moves forward as planned, soldiers would
be able to push a button and conduct training missions on a simulator,
without having to leave their vehicles.
The prototype Humvee (AM General M1097A2) simulation lab was assembled
by Orion Advanced Simulation and Intel Systems, in Merritt Island,
Fla. The company eventually plans to field similar technology in
a main battle tank. “We are developing a mobile crew-station
test bed, to be able to prove out simulation and training technologies
embedded into a Humvee first, before we embed it into an M1A2 Abrams
tank,” said Jorge L. Cadiz, manager of programs and business
development at Orion.
If the Army approves the next step of the program, it would take
12 months to transition the simulator to the tank, he said in an
interview.
STRICOM has been charged by the Army to deploy embedded simulators
in order to increase the availability of training opportunities
for soldiers while deployed. It would cost between $40,000 and $50,000
to equip a tank with a built-in simulator.
For a simulator to fit in the back of a truck, the processors and
image generators had to be shrunk and made “robust enough
for the environment in the vehicle,” said Cadiz. “Most
of the embedded system is going to be software,” and the additional
power needed comes from a 15kw generator.
“This is our first step toward making training easier for
the soldier,” said Hubert Bahr, principal investigator at
STRICOM. “We say embedded simulation rather than embedded
training because we feel it can do more things than just support
training,” he said in an interview. “There are other
things to embedded training, other than just simulation. ... We
see this as the future.”
“The initial program is for ground combat vehicles only,”
said Bahr. “We are now looking at taking it to the dismounted
soldier and on to aircraft as well.
“We are working with TRADOC [Training and Doctrine Command]
to lay out a timeline and a definition for exactly what they want.
STRICOM just builds technology. It’s TRADOC that defines how
to use it,” Bahr explained.
Even though the Army would spend $50,000 to equip a vehicle with
a simulator, the technology still wouldn’t be as rugged as
many computers in tanks today. “It may not be as hardened
as you’d like,” said Bahr. The Army must decide how
it will use these systems, he added, “before we decide how
much we want to spend on them.
“Do you want a system that will never break down? That changes
the cost picture quite a bit. We think at $50,000, we are cost effective,
and people will want to do it. Certainly, that is a bogey that in
the next few years will be fairly easy to accommodate.”
STRICOM currently is buying “commercial versions” of
the computers used in tanks. These PCs are about two or three times
the price of a home computer. But a fully ruggedized, military computer
would be four or five times as much, said Bahr. “The difference
in price between commercial technology and the full hardened milspec
is considerable. Yet, we are working so that we can use commercial
technology almost as is.”
The Army hopes the Marine Corps will adopt this technology as well.
“Those who provide money get the service,” Bahr said.
“We are having to scratch to get our funding, just like everybody
else.”
There is a significant opportunity for STRICOM to score big points,
if it can develop a low-cost, embedded trainer for the Army’s
future combat vehicle, called the FCS.
“TRADOC is looking at using FCS embedded simulators for collective
training, not just for the individual soldier or individual crew,
but for crews operating as a unit. ... We want to train the FCS
as an operating unit. We want to save money doing that,” he
said. “We require a very high definition terrain database
for training. If you have a terrain database of where you are fighting,
it’s also something you can use to plan your missions, to
keep track of where the enemy is, see what avenues of approach the
enemy might take. We look at this as a combat multiplier.”
The high resolution of the graphics in today’s computer video
games, Bahr added, “already gives us the fidelity we feel
is very effective. We aren’t just putting a tank silhouette
like we might have on a plywood target range. We are putting enough
detail so you can identify if it’s a friend or a foe, and
it has the proper heat signature if you look through a night sight.
“By the time we get FCS built, we aren’t going to have
a problem with how good the picture looks.”
STRICOM now is at the center of a debate within the Army on what
is the proper amount of training that should be done on simulators
and on live ranges. Generals have told Bahr that “troops who
dress like trees don’t want to cut back on live training.”
But “what we are saying is that we want to make their live
training more effective. Give them more bang for the buck. So we
aren’t necessarily advocating cutting back on live training
but cutting the cost of live training and doing it better.”
It has not been determined how many, if any, of the truck-mounted
simulation labs the Army will buy in the long term. The prototype
built by Orion was co-funded by the company and by STRICOM.
“I would see this becoming part of the FCS and retrofitted
to the digitized Bradley A3 and the M1A2 [digitized] Abrams,”
said Bahr. “Until we finish the research, get the acceptance,
funding, we can’t really tell. That is the scenario we are
campaigning for. The contractors have come to the same conclusion.”