Epic show report

I/ITSEC 2005

Report by Donald Clark, Epic

I've just lifted a RPG launcher onto my shoulder - those things are heavy. Through the viewfinder I see a hovering US helicopter. I aim, press the trigger, release and off it goes. Boom! A direct hit. The instructor tells me that helicopter hits are just lucky shots as RPGs are crude old Russian technology with hardly any precision beyond a few hundred feet. Thanks! Then a Humvee screams round the corner. I reload, take again and fire again. Once again, it's blasted off the road. I'm feeling lucky, lucky to be able to play with the most expensive toys on the planet - military simulators. I get to quell riots in a realtime multiplayer game, fly aircraft, drive armoured vehicles and generally muck around on all of those things we see every night on the TV. For a civilian like me this is only possible at I/ITSEC, the world's largest military and training and simulation conference.

In fact, all learning professionals need to sit up and take notice of what's happening in military education and training. These guys have the imperatives (usually war but increasingly peacekeeping, policing and humanitarian missions) as well as the budgets, time and experience to do things that would be unthinkable in the civilian sphere. When you have a half billion budget (US alone) and a training department bigger than many large companies, you can get things done. We can learn much from military efforts in simulations, as well as their now fast-moving use of games in learning.

Military-industrial complex
In fact, there's a lot at stake in this conference. The future of military training is undergoing some serious traumas and transformations. As Sir Rupert Smith recently outlined in his book 'The Utility of War', we no longer fight conventional 'wars'. Interstate, industrial wars with defined battlespace and one side's hardware pitched against the other have gone. We now fight conflicts among the people where the enemy doesn't present targets, used improvised weapons and fights in small groups, and if the fundamental nature of war changes, so must military training.

top

Eisenhower was right to warn us about the 'Military-industrial complex'. It has gained so much momentum that the production of hardware and training carries on as if we were still fighting the cold war. All of this hardware is proving relatively ineffective in this new type of conflict. Yet a whole nexus of buyers, suppliers, models, expectations and traditions is still pushing us down the wrong road. We're still working within a cold war model nearly a decade and a half after the cold war was won in 1991. (One could argue that the military-industrial complex won us the cold war, but many argue it was the Soviet Union's own commitment to the cold war arms race that led it to implode economically.)

The military is really one big training organisation and they don't come bigger than the US forces, with an annual budget of $500 billion. Indeed, there was strong political representation at this conference with Congressmen, knowledgeable on simulations and games, supporting innovation in military training with real fiscal clout. Weirdly, on this opening day, the news and papers all led on Republican congressman Randy 'Duke' Cunningham (the guy who inspired Top Gun - a crime in itself), who was nailed for bribery and corruption from defence contractors. Looks as if he'll be going to jail in February. The scale of his crimes was truly breathtaking, with cash, houses, furniture, yacht club fees, a boat and even a Rolls Royce! This ran into millions. Eisenhower would have laughed at this one - a vindication of his warning.

It was this tension between the old world and the new world that made this event so fascinating. I was there as the international speaker giving a talk on the 'Military-entertainment complex', contrasting the old industrial model of training with the newer paradigm. We no longer fight industrial wars, we are involved in war among the people. It's not weapons that count but winning the will of the people. This tension surfaced time and time again.

top

Opening salvo - two worlds collide
'One Fight, One Team, One Training future' was the conference theme, announced through an MTV inspired video. This is not as easy as it sounds. In most countries, there's three armed forces (army, navy and airforce), with hundreds of different vehicles, weapons, databases and qualifications. In short - it's a mess. But they're getting there, and the politicians and military leaders have recognised the scale of the problem along with the need for transformation. 'Transformation in training' is something you hear a lot in US military training.

Bizarrely, this introduction was followed by a dozen soldiers doing a precision marching drill on stage. The contrast between these old-style, parade ground troops, marching unthinkingly to order couldn't have been more at odds with the reality of modern conflict.

Dennis Mullenburg
Boeing's Dennis Mullenburg gave us their view of the future; Future Combat Systems (FCS) - on the leading edge of training transformation - well maybe. Their vision, unsurprisingly, integrates the soldier and entire network on an unprecedented scale with training embedded all the way. Brigade combat teams with around 32,000 people plus vehicles and weapons need to act as one entity. One soldier, one network and 18 integrated systems. The focus is the soldier, with manned systems, unmanned air systems (Class 1-IV), unattended munitions, unmanned ground vehicles (armed assault vehicles, armed robotic vehicles, manpackable unmanned ground vehicles carried by individual soldier), countermine mules all networked.

They claim savings of 30-50% by reducing logistics infrastructure at the backend. This new form of combat is agile and flexible. See first, understand first, act first, finish decisively. Unmanned helicopters hovers and look through windows, robots clearing road side bombs and explore buildings and caves. (These can be carried in a backpack.) Embedded training is critical to its success with training on the vehicle, on route to the mission and during the mission. This supports the individual, crew, collective, unit and leader. Knowledge repositories, stand-alone simulators, part-task simulators all contribute to the effort. This is a huge project with one common, consistent, integrated capability involving 362 suppliers from 35 states.

Believe me, this was impressive but what was fascinating is the degree to which all of this has gone down to the level of what looks like toys and mobile devices - it's all small unmanned devices. But it's still all about hardware. The soldiers look like Startroopers. Making the soldiers look like fighting machines does nothing to solve the people problems. Killing people at a distance raises some serious moral problems. What is a warfighter? What type of wars are they and will they be fighting? While this project takes training to the soldier, not the soldier to the training, the assumption is still brutal 'combat' not people skills. This ignores the fact that the inappropriate use of force exacerbates problems, it doesn't solve them.

top

Head of Acquisitions - Joseph Yakovac
No slides from this guy, who talked straight from the hip. He had some cautionary notes and concerns urging us all to stop and think. A soldier used to be a cheap instrument of war - a $2000 man, simple and primarily mechanical and the training was defined before action using subcalibre and pneumatic weapons training. Then came collective training with scoring - then simply a number on each man and vehicle - if you saw a number or vehicle they were taken out. A bit hokey but it worked. Then, in the 80s, came collective and individual training in huge training centres. This was where the instrumentation and kit was replicated and housed separately. Hardware simulators replicated fire control and missions. This is where it started to get expensive

As he pointed out, things are getting expensive with a $4 million Bradley or $7 million tank. The demands for lethality and survivability are increasing. Networking doesn't just happen and it doesn't come free. Too many fiefdoms, we need to work together. ONE TEAM, one set of standards. Real time data input into databases. Quick build simulations are needs so that recent data is in the system. Embed across the battlespace. In other words, suppliers are being asked to work together - or else. This has led to a bottom up look at saving money through closing training facilities, seeing training as a dynamic, field activity. For example, convoy trainers are now mobile training devices that can be modified to reflect the environment. They need to grow with real experience.

Live from Iraq
We then went live to Iraq (very impressive). Colonel Stringer, commander of an Apache Longbow Unit has a Longbow Crew Trainer (simulator) needed to train pilots in theatre. The need to maintain instrument proficiency, adapt to different weather conditions, cope with multiple failures is all too real in Iraq. As he says, no two pieces of terrain are the same so there's a need to be extremely flexible. "We're not out there fighting formations. Every job is different." Exactly. This is no longer conventional warfare. It's unpredictable. They constantly rehearse missions and work through potential problems. "We never stop training, day in, day out." Outgoing and incoming ground units need to share information and experience. The training therefore needs to be relevant and low cost. "Time is precious out here."

Worried experts
The panel members were the cream of the US military establishment. Each in turn brought the tension between the old and new to our attention.

Dr Mayberry stressed the need for joint knowledge and communications. There's now a single web-based portals integrated with LMSs, populated with 12 joint forces. JKDDC, a dynamic Global Knowledge Network - all SCORM compliant, adopted by NATO through Partnership for Peace. He pointed towards the need for language and cultural skills. This theme - joint training, has been around for some time in the US and UK. He pointed out that joint training needs a single platform, a plug and play training network with nodes for national training throughout the US. As an example he tried to turn the US response to Katrina into a 'success', which it clearly wasn't. However, the issue is interesting. The US military are having to respond not to conventional wars but to humanitarian missions, even within their own country. Yet nothing in this conference suggested adequate training for these new missions.

LTG Curran is the Director of the Futures Centre for the US Army. The Army under stress to maintain operational tempo as well as preparing for the future. Putting his bravado to one side, he was honest about the problems. There's a need to develop adaptive leaders and adaptive learners. As overwhelming military force and authority is no longer an adequate deterrent, so army culture needs to undergo deep seated change. The soldier must remain the centerpiece of this transformation. He used a strange phrase here - 'full spectrum dominance'. What he meant, I think, was a wider set of capabilities and skills. You can see the problem. The average US soldier is likely NOT to have travelled outside of the US, unlikely to speak a second language and unlikely to understand other cultures. This was OK in the cold war, where fighting battles in Western Europe did not require many to speak Russian. Speaking at least some Arabic in Iraq is a necessity.

top

Kevin Moran, US Navy showed the now famous 5 vector model - Human Capital Objects - individualised training for the sailor of the future. The unemployment rate among ex-servicemen in the US is still worryingly high at up to 20%. This means training people for the future in and outside of the navy. Sailors are now hybrid, able to do three jobs as opposed to being a specialist in one. They have rationalised their training, cutting out duplication of sites, courses and qualifications. In fact they found huge areas of commonality and a desperate need to have common standards for databases. They have also looked at increasingly outsourcing non-military roles to civilians and contractors.

Major Jon Gallinetti of the Joint Warfighting Center.
As one would expect he went on (at length) about joint stuff and multinational missions and forces. Again the need for live, virtual and constructive components that provide seamless training to support a broad range of joint operations was needed. Again the new multinational world of varied missions is the one which we must address.

Admiral Brice O'Hara of the US Coastguard.
Hurricane Katrina was again described along with the coastguard maintaining a 'shield for the nation'. Now there haven't been many Al Queda naval attacks, as they don't seem to have any boats, so I'm assuming she means immigration, drugs and all that jazz. What she did stress, rightly, was the need to equip people and not staff equipment. This is a good point. Most of the exhibition stands saw learners as mere computer peripherals, hanging off their network. In the new world, people skills matter more than equipment.

Major General Stalder is the Commanding general for Training and Education Command and he was blunt about the problems. We have lessons coming out of our ears and the new needs are clear. These include training in theatre (challenging), culture training with more appreciation of cultures wherever we operate but with specific focus on identified hot spots (read Middle east), scenario-based training to make the training more relevant, language training not to be fluent but enough to be operational, agile training, for example on IEDs, joint training across forces and agencies. He recognised that the enemy were fast learners, capable of changing tactics and adaptable.

Peterson of the Airforce Director of Operations and Training explained why simulators were essential. Live flying is VERY expensive, planes are now in high tempo operations, simulators give you an unlimited battlespace, can be operated from home station and there's increased weapon availability. Superior training gives superior combat power.

top

Questions had to be submitted from the floor on special cards. I was lucky as my question was the first of only three questions they had time to answer. I asked whether softskills had become more important than hard skills in modern war and, if so, what do they plan to do about it.

They are looking at compulsory culture and language proficiency courses - but big C, little L. New entry officers may have to learn a language and they're looking again at pre-entry skills. We think there's a big payoff on this - too right there is. The LIMA programme, for example, brought more native speakers into the service. They are also creating new roles such as Research Affairs Officers.

Open source games engine in military training
Off the shelf games engines are really middleware libraries, partial in capability, often difficult to use and have license issues. Delta3D is, the authors claim, the first useable open source games engine that really delivers. It's been around since August 2004 and ties together the best of breed open sources modules.

Deliberately modular so that each module can be swapped out it includes; Audio, Scripting, GUI, Character animation, Scene graphics, XML, Physics, Windows management, Input devices and Networking,

Remember - there are NO licensing fees, no additional run-time costs. This was an impressive presentation and shows how far the military are in the use of game engines in training.

Massive Multi-player Environments
This was a fascinating glimpse into the future of games in training. Recognising that the nature of conflict has changed and that:

• Terrorist values are different
• Entrepreneurial enemy
• Unfamiliar strategies
• Changing tactics
• Shifting targets
• Plain clothes combatants
• Face-to-face
• Winning hearts and minds

This has created a need for urban awareness and cultural comprehension. The solution was to build a training environment for multi-player use which is scalable and networked, so that it's available worldwide. What does it mean when all the children suddenly disappear from the streets? What do you do if a woman suddenly comes up to you in the street?

Mission checkpoint duty and house searches. Lots of human contact and lots of confusion. Feedback showed that facial likeness was NOT important but uniform accuracy, correct gear and ability to ID avatars were important. The system used OIP but the users didn't like the voice training, which was eliminated. They also wanted a better game-like interface and game controller input device. More realism was also required on explosions and medical injury indications. In other words the simulation needed to be more realistic and easier to use, matching the real-life environment.

top

They also wanted to be able to configure the avatars, buildings and scenarios as well as weather, lighting and viewpoints. After Action Reviews (AARs), replays, bookmarks and statistics were also on the wish list. When asked whether they thought this could be used for army training 88% said yes, 12% said no. Interestingly, when asked why they had said no the reason was invariably fears over the loss of live training and not the weakness of the training itself.

One can easily see how this sort of software, commonplace on the web through online gaming, and played by millions worldwide, has a real role to play in the future of training.

Animated characters in training
These guys are simulating the most difficult thing of all - us. They're after believable, context-aware and culturally-specific human behaviours. The name of the presenter was Ed Sims (no joke) and he is fascinated by observable human communication and sees this work as having a practical role in virtual instructors, characters in simulations, mentors and so on.

He draws on research by Koneya and Barbour showing:

• Voice 38%
• Eye contact, Gesture & Attitude 55%
• Speech 7%

The next frontier in gaming, he thinks, is character animation. While game environments are approaching movie level quality, when a character enters, the illusion goes. He has taken the international phonetic alphabet and matched it to 22 'visemes' or mouth shapes. These are then matched to culturally specific gestures and hand movements. His 'gesture builder' allows you to build gestures or draw on a database of gestures used around the world.

Another useful look at the future of characters in animation. Interestingly, another presentation was quite negative about avatars that are supposed to represent real humans, when in fact, they behave like, well, avatars. At this stage in simulation work it may well be better in terms of cost, realism and training effectiveness to use video, rather than avatars for softskills training.

Motivational checklist for e-learning
Interesting approach to motivational design from the Norwegian military. Motivational principles, taken from something called Didactical Relational Theory (DRT), are used as a checklist, containing criteria such as involvement, feedback, emotions, socialisation and self-efficacy. These are applied to all e-learning designs in both hardskills and softskills. Good to see design breaking free from the sterile 'training objectives' and systems approach to design. Of course the checklist was useful, but no real substitute for experienced, knowledgeable designers and writers.

In my talk we presented a genre of simulations on softskills that use a combination of video, branching decisions and games techniques to produce a powerful mix of scenario-based learning for the military. We designed, with military experts, several military police scenarios. You are given a case, have to deal with the parties and their problems, making a long series of decisions and receiving face-on video responses. If you fail, as in a game, you suffer catastrophic failure, and have to go back to the start of the task. This encourages correct decision making and reinforces through repeated practice. This case study was particularly relevant as the military are increasingly involved in policing and humanitarian missions.

I like the term 'First Person Thinkers' (as opposed to First Person Shooters' for this type of simulation. There is clearly a huge need for cultural, language and softskills learning in the military and elsewhere. This. I believe, is the genre that holds most promise.

Conclusion
We have a lot to learn from the military and they have a lot to learn from civilian training. The work on simulations is mind blowing and their forays into games in learning is bearing fruit. As necessity is the mother of invention, they are also being forced to undergo transformational change, making this a great hunting ground for innovation in change management and embedded learning.

top