8/8/2019 MR1441.chap1

1/3

Chapter One

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

The Navy training continuum moves from individual to unit to multiunit and

finally to battle grouplevel training. This continuum has traditionally flowed

from the classroom, to the unit location (naval base or naval air station), to the

at-sea, or deployed, environment. Unit-level training is designed to achieveproficiency in all Primary Mission Areas (PMAs). These PMAs are specified in a

weapon systems Required Operational Capabilities/Projected Operational

Environment (ROC/POE) documents. Type Commanders and Immediate

Superiors in Command (ISICs) manage a tiered Interdeployment Training Cycle

(IDTC), which is structured to increase unit readiness progressively, peaking

immediately before deployment. The foundation of this training process is

platform-specific training matrices (e.g., DDG-51, F/A-18) that define specific

events needed to meet readiness requirements and sustain mission proficiency

in each PMA.

Navy unit training has traditionally focused on live training events. However,

constrained budgets have led to a shortage of repair parts, fully mission capableaircraft, and systems needed to conduct live training. Also, access to training

ranges has become more difficult in the face of increased opposition from envi-

ronmental and local interest groups.

At the same time, significant technological advancements have improved pro-

ductivity and realism in the modeling, simulation, and distributed learning

areas. However, the balance among live, simulated, and classroom training

have not changed significantly since the 1970s. Potential training efficiencies

may exist that would streamline the training events during the IDTC while

maintaining or increasing the desired levels of readiness and proficiency. For

example, the naval aviation training standard of 83 percent Primary Mission

Readiness, including the arbitrary 2 percent simulator programmatic cap, hasnot changed since the early 1980s. Similarly, the contributions of Advanced

1

8/8/2019 MR1441.chap1

2/3

2 Striking a Balance: Simulator and Live Training for Navy Units

Distributed Simulation have not been integrated into the overall training cur-

riculum in the surface community.

In recent years, many units have struggled to deploy at the desired level of

training readiness primarily because of resource constraints that have pre-

vented the desired progressive increase in proficiency during the IDTC.Achieving proficiency in multiple mission areas exacerbates the challenge. This

situation has generated concerns about proficiency in several challenging mis-

sion areas such as strike and antisubmarine warfare (ASW).

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The objective of this research is to examine alternative combinations of live,

simulated, and classroom tactical unit training events to achieve desired levels

of readiness and proficiency. The research concentrates on antisubmarine war-

fare and strike missions and describes the current unit training profiles for three

systems: two U.S. Navy airborne systems (P-3C and F/A-18) and one sea-basedsystem (DDG-51-class destroyers).

These training problems are not unique to the Navy but also afflict the other

military services, our allies, and commercial institutions. Therefore, the

research also examines how the training curriculums of these other organiza-

tions have evolved to help identify alternative mixes of live, simulated, and

schoolhouse training events to achieve greater readiness and proficiency for

naval units.

Finally, the research synthesizes the findings of previous research efforts on the

trade-offs between live and simulated training events to identify the cost and

readiness aspects of alternative training methods. Based on the current use of

live, simulated, and classroom events for the Navy, other U.S. services, and ourallies as well as the findings of previous research efforts, we describe the impor-

tant issues in examining and evaluating alternative unit training syllabi. This

report presents the results of the research.

DATA CAVEAT

Part of the research involved collecting and analyzing data on flying hours and

simulator use for U.S. Navy units, for the Marine Corps and Air Force, and for

British and French units. Unfortunately, there is no central source for the

needed data within the Navy. We, therefore, received various data from

numerous sources. The Center for Naval Analyses, Information Spectrum, Inc.,

and the East Coast P-3C Wings provided flying hour and simulator hour data for

the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps units. We reconciled these data as best as we

8/8/2019 MR1441.chap1

3/3

Introduction 3

could, but there were differences resulting from where the organizations

obtained the data and the underlying intent of their data collection.

The Air Force, British, and French data are based on information provided in

various reports and on interviews with different organizations.

We caution readers that the data presented in this report are best estimates

based on what was readily available for the analyses. The flying hour and simu-

lator hour averages are best viewed from a relative perspective between the

various cases we examined, not from the perspective of being absolutely cor-

rect. Our research focused on these relative differences and the trends in flying

hours and simulator use over the last several years.

ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

The report is organized into two parts, a main body and a series of appendices.

The appendices contain the bulk of the research gathered during the project.

The specific material in each is described below. Those interested in thedetailed information we gathered about the training programs of the Navy,

other services, or our allies should refer to those appendices. The next chapter

summarizes the appendices, indicating what we found about the different

training programs and comparing training resources across the organizations.

The third chapter addresses the trade-offs between live and simulated training.

It summarizes the current body of research on this topic, compares the use of

simulators across the three communities we surveyed, discusses what the Navy

would have to do to encourage greater use of simulators, and offers a model to

illustrate the nature of trade-offs between live and simulated training. We gath-

ered our most extensive data on fighter training. We have therefore devoted a

separate appendix to each organization that trains fighters, treating our allies as

a single organization. We present the results of our research into the air and

surface antisubmarine training in one appendix for each. The appendices are

as follows:

Navy F/A-18 Training

Marine Corps F/A-18 Training

Air Force F-16 Training

Allied Fighter Training

Air Antisubmarine Training

Surface Antisubmarine Training.