Battle Ground Simulations

Even though Navy budget cuts mean nondeployed sailors can expect to spend about a third less time at sea this year, that doesn’t mean they’ll spend less time at their duty stations aboard ships. In fact, they could spend more.

Commanders are trying to make up for that lost sea time — and a lack of available ships to play the “bad guys” — by relying more on “synthetic” training, in which sailors practice using their equipment aboard their ships in port.

Big Navy is so confident about synthetic training that commanders on the East Coast plan to deploy about one of every three carrier strike groups without them having completed a joint task force exercise, which traditionally has been the capstone to pre-deployment work-ups. Instead, those ships will do it virtually.

“Today we have limited live opposing forces we can bring to it,” said Adm. Jonathan Greenert, head of Fleet Forces Command, in a May 4 presentation near Washington, D.C. “It’s not just an issue of Navy forces — remember, it’s a joint task force — but a limit of total joint forces we have available. We need an efficient and effective alternative to make sure we have these forces ready.”

That alternative, Greenert said, is to simulate many of the things that sailors have traditionally practiced at sea. Although he and other Navy officials concede that some things still must be learned at sea, Greenert said synthetic training can be as good as, or better than, traditional time underway.

The Navy’s first big experiment with that principle is taking place now: In February, the Dwight D. Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group became the first flotilla to run an entirely synthetic JTFEX, having trained earlier at sea in a traditional composite training unit exercise. So far, Ike’s deployment to the Middle East has been routine.

However, skeptics worry that depending too much on synthetic training will backfire. Sailors without real experience operating their ships and systems in such intensive and realistic “final exam” scenarios could have more mishaps, they say. More broadly, the skills of sailors whose jobs can’t easily be artificially replicated — engineers and boatswain’s mates, for example — could atrophy.

Officials haven’t decided yet how much more synthetic training sailors will get to make up for the time they would have spent at sea, but the Navy should have no problem scaling up the practice time, said Eric Seeland, Fleet Forces Command’s top synthetic training manager.

“We will support whatever the numbered fleet commanders and strike group commanders desire for training,” Seeland said. “We can [dial] up and down different warfare areas, different levels of difficulties; we can tailor to different strike groups to make sure each one gets what they want.”

Rear Adm. Garry White, commander of Strike Force Training Atlantic, said strike groups will go with a combination of synthetic and real training, depending on what works for that specific group.

“Whether a JTFEX or a [fleet synthetic training-joint] is conducted as the certifying event will be dependent on a number of factors including experience, proficiency, type and level of training needed, and whether live or synthetic will be the most effective at accomplishing that training,” he said. “Tailoring the training for the specific strike group could lead us to an FST-J, a JTFEX, or possibly a hybrid that includes a modified combination of both.”

When it comes time to train, Navy computers can integrate the instruments aboard surface ships, aircraft, shore stations and submarines so that sailors thousands of miles apart can work together as a virtual strike group.

For example, a P-3 Orion air crewman sitting at a console on the West Coast might call a fire controlman in a destroyer in Norfolk, Va., to tell him about a new contact picked up by his sonobuoy. The destroyer and the airplane would work together to hunt a submarine in the virtual training world, even though the sailors are thousands of miles apart.

Seeland said synthetic training is best used to practice high-level command and control decision-making.

“You’re looking at the tactical link picture, you’re going forward and making command decisions on who to engage and who not to engage,” he said.

From the perspective of the sailors at their consoles in a combat information center, everything about the scenario would be the same as it would be if the ship were at sea, only with no motion of the deck.  Synthetic training also works well to integrate international allies into U.S. exercises. Fleet Forces Command has brought together American sailors in Yokosuka, Japan; Royal Navy sailors at their base in Great Britain; and German pilots and sailors at their bases in Germany.

The Ike strike group’s synthetic version of its JTFEX included the command staffs from the Eisenhower, the Enterprise and the French carrier Charles de Gaulle, according to 2nd Fleet officials. Eisenhower’s command staff dialed into the Navy’s training network from their ship at the pier. Enterprise was in the shipyard at the time, so its staff joined from a simulator at Tactical Training Group Atlantic at Naval Surface Warfare Center Dam Neck, Va. And de Gaulle’s staff trained from a simulator in Toulon, France.

Doing the drills synthetically meant Big E and de Gaulle could keep their shipyard work on schedule and save French and U.S. taxpayers $25 million worth of steaming days, White said. The synthetic version of the exercise cost $500,000.

“The cost difference is obviously significant, and in these fiscal times that’s a consideration,” White said. “We’re not going to let any fiscal driver impact on our readiness, but we’re going to maintain the same level of readiness while conserving energy, if you will.”

He also said one strike group would not be “more ready” than another because it did the physical JTFEX.

“We assess and evaluate to the same standard whether the certifying event is live or synthetic,” White said. “The combination of live and synthetic training provides the best possible training because each venue has distinct advantages that may be unobtainable with the exclusive use of one or the other.”

The cost and time savings aren’t just things that admirals and bean counters can appreciate: Aviation Boatswain’s Mate (Fuels) 2nd Class (AW/SW) Pablo Rodriguez, a fuel depot supervisor at Naval Station Mayport, Fla., told Navy Times he liked the individual focus in the shift to more synthetic training.

“Instead of paying someone or using someone’s time to come and train us as a group of people, [it] can be avoided by using virtual training. We can be self-trained with an automated system that lets us know all our personal training requirements,” he said.

For as much potential as top Navy officials credit to synthetic training, skeptics see just as much to be concerned about. Greenert, Seeland and other officials are quick to acknowledge that sailors still need to spend time at sea learning to do underway replenishments, taking off and landing, and generally being stressed and challenged.

“There’s never really a substitute for being underway for six or seven days, knowing you’re going to be underway for several more days, and this is your fourth mid-watch, and you got two hours of sleep the night before, and seaman Johnny has an issue, and you’ve got to work on your own personal qualifications, and you’ve got to write a message for the captain — and, oh by the way, you have to go stand watch,” Seeland said.

“All of those things going on in the back of your head,” he said. “We can simulate that a little bit, and that’s not a huge factor in the area of training, but is there a one-to-one correlation? No, not completely. We still need that underway flavor.”

And it can go even deeper than that. Sailors in ships at the pier can get so inured to synthetic scenarios that they start to tune out drills that have life-or-death consequences on deployment.

“It’s hard to pretend you’re tracking aircraft or surface contacts when you have regular daily 1MC calls blaring in the background,” said Cryptologic Technician (Collection) 1st Class (SW) Andrew Dunn, who recalled virtual training in the combat information center of a docked ship. “The realism factor is lost pretty quickly. One minute you have a contact inbound and the next minute you hear ‘mail call’ over the 1MC.”

Expand that phenomenon to an entire ship’s company, and even routine jobs could become dangerous, said two retired commanding officers. Both, a retired submarine commander and a retired cruiser commander, have experience with synthetic training but asked not to be named because they still work closely with the Navy. They agreed that unless crews can take their training seriously, they may not be ready for the real thing.

What’s more, the retired sub commander said synthetic training takes away trainers’ ability to see a ship fight “hurt,” if its gear breaks, weather interferes or other unpredictable events crop up during an exercise. Scripted exercises can lock ships into performing to the script, he said, even though they’re easier to grade.

Seeland said engineers in particular benefit from the experience of running the propulsion plant of a ship that’s underway on the ocean because it can also include experiences that can’t be replicated in a schoolhouse.

“Having been an engineer, there is nothing more embarrassing than being that guy on watch, walking into the wardroom after you lost power and the ship went cold and dark out at sea, and knowing everybody was looking at you,” he said. “You don’t really quite get that same feel, when it’s just an ‘oops’ in the trainer.”

By Philip Ewing – navytimes.com

The Lockheed Martin Virtual Combat Convoy Trainer (VCCT) provides convoy training for drivers, shooters, communicators, and decision-makers – each according to the unique requirements of their position, tactical circumstances, and unit or service standard operating procedure. VCCT is a full-scale training system designed to improve the convoy crew’s ability to identify and react to threats in the contemporary operating environment.

The VCCT is a realistic, joint training system designed to constantly test the warfighter’s ability to maintain vigilance, identify and assess the threat, and take appropriate action. Crew members learn to coordinate actions in a single vehicle, between multiple vehicles, and with higher headquarters, air & ground fire units, and medical evacuation support. They gain familiarity with objective terrain conditions and perform the procedures they’ll employ under combat conditions. The system portrays accurate weapons effects, and demands advanced driving skills for a wide range of conditions. Crew members face shoot/don’t shoot situations and take action to avoid man-made obstacles, direct and indirect fire, and improvised explosive devices.

Supports Multiple Missions:

Full family of trucks in the U.S. military inventory

• Helicopters
• Boats
• Armored vehicles
• Artillery
• Call for Fire
• Close Air Support

After Action Review (AAR):

• Event tagging creates focused after action review
• Reverse view angle allows Soldier to see enemy eye-point

Replicates the Contemporary Operating Environment:

• Realistic convoy environment
• Multiple manned and un-manned vehicles
• Realistic weapons engagement training
• Mission rehearsal capability
• Scenario generation feature allows instructor to rapidly create new scenarios as required to support Soldiers in the field
• Multiple systems can be networked together to provide collective training

Saab has received a contract to produce and field the Instrumented – Tactical Simulation Engagement System (I-TESS) for the U.S. Marine Corps. Within the frame of the contract, that has a possible value of approximately $29 million USD, a first order, valued at $22 million USD, has been placed.

“We are pleased to be able to continue to support the US Marine Corps and the US war fighting capabilities,” says Lars Borgwing, President, Saab Training USA. “I-TESS will significantly expand the current base of instrumentation systems already fielded by Saab for the U.S. Marine Corps. The system will provide many of the specialized urban warfare training skills required in today’s asymmetric warfare.”

Saab was selected in a competitive procurement, requiring a detailed technical proposal and field demonstration of capabilities at the Marine Corps Base (MCB) Quantico, Virginia.

The same instrumentation system is fielded with the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy SEALs and five major armies in Europe.

About I-TESS
I-TESS is a modular and mobile integrated range instrumentation system with modern laser simulators that provide greatly improved training capabilities over currently fielded devices used in urban warfare training exercises. I-TESS provides exercise control, battle tracking, data collection and rapid After-Action Reviews (AARs) for live training events. The real-time situational awareness, exercise control capabilities, and adjudication of indirect fire engagements maximize the training exercise benefits and reduce the amount of time needed for live training. Additionally, I-TESS interfaces with virtual and constructive simulations for an integrated training program at multiple locations and command levels.

The system leverages Saab’s military training and communications technologies developed under the U.S. Army’s Deployable Instrumented Training System (DITS) and major instrumented combat training centers in Europe. Saab’s rapid production capabilities were proven with the first deliveries of the same systems to the U.S. Army in Iraq in 2004.

Large unit tactical exercises are instrumented by I-TESS to provide command and control in tracking all Marines and weapon systems, simulation of direct fire and indirect fire of artillery and naval gunfire and the collection of data for after action reviews. The system provides the self-contained infrastructure for all communication and simulation. The systems will be fielded at various Marine Corps bases and installations for the USMC Pre-deployment Training Program and other type of individual and company level training.

A state-of-the-art computer simulation center in Butte is one step closer to fruition after a local business signed a contract with the Air Force.

Earlier this month, the Butte-based National Center for Health Care Informatics signed the agreement to produce the advanced computer-simulated training environments for Air Force combat rescue specialists.  Informatics would design virtual worlds made to resemble real-world environments, run on the new Butte supercomputer, which could serve as simulated training scenarios for the pararescuemen.  Retired Air Force Pararescue Sgt. Rod Alne is the operations superintendent with The Peak Inc., a local company that focuses on training for the military’s Special Forces.  His company will work in conjunction with Informatics as the “subject-matter experts,” he said.

“We’re there to make sure everything they design is real world stuff.” Alne said the simulations are important to good training and make good economic sense for the military.  “It’s a huge thing right now, especially in personnel recovery,” he said. “It’s a huge undertaking to design these training exercises.”

He said the virtual worlds could be as varied as rescuing a man out of a confined space –such as a blown-up building –to a jump at 10,000 feet.

“This thing will be able to change from a jungle to a desert in no time flat,” he said.

The actual training would be done in a large room where the 3-D world conjured up by the designers will appear.

“It’s basically virtual reality,” Alne said. “You walk into this big room and you are totally immersed into this environment.”

The initial efforts will focus on developing simulation training environments for the pararescuemen. But the simulation center will eventually expand to incorporate training scenarios for a variety of emergency and trauma care providers throughout the United States, with a special emphasis on rural health care.

Informatics is a certified “center of excellence” of Rocky Mountain Supercomputing Centers, which runs Big Sky, the Butte supercomputer.  Alex Philp, chief operative officer for RMSC said, “having IBM Deep Computing as one of its technology partners enhances the capabilities” of the company, and makes highly technical projects such as this possible.

Reporter Tim Trainor

As a leading technical and integration services company, SAIC solves customers’ most important mission-critical challenges through innovative applications of technology and domain knowledge. They showcase SAIC’s expertise in live, virtual and constructive training and simulation solutions at SAIC stand E-153 at ITEC 2009. Here are highlights of key featured solutions.

• Test fire the next generation of wireless, state-of-the-art Tactical Engagement Simulation System (TESS) Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System (MILES) technology using M16s in the Shooting Gallery and learn how this system supports live tactical training exercises with high-fidelity detection for real-time casualty assessment.
• See the new capabilities in One Semi-automated Forces (OneSAF®) that integrate with Joint Theater Level Simulation (JTLS) to provide next generation, composable simulation inside special areas of interest within larger multi-resolution federations, and enable representation of predefined and ad hoc high interest units at the entity level.

Next-Generation, wireless Tactical Engagement Simulation Systems (TESS) Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System (MILES) laser-based products and M16 Test Firing  SAIC’s state-of-the-art TESS training technology is the next generation MILES laser-based products for large scale, live military tactical training exercises and mission rehearsal. The wireless, modular, MILES, state-of-the-art, laser-based systems are easy to install and adaptable to the user. The lightweight, interoperable components help to minimize interference with training and weapon systems and allow for combining different wireless components to fit training needs. This makes the TESS MILES one of the most adaptable and flexible systems available today for the dismounted and mounted soldier.

The Individual Weapon System (IWS) is wireless, making it transparent to the warfighter. It is quick and easy to install, eliminating the distracting cables and harnesses associated with other MILES systems. The Instrumented MILES Combat Vehicle System (IMILES CVS) interoperates with the IWS System. The interoperable components that make up the IMILES CVS system are highly adaptable to other combat vehicles and weapons systems.

Through its modular design, the MK-19 Simulator Player Unit provides an interoperable solution that simulates the firing and actual effects of an MK-19 in a MILES environment. It provides the common approach for the Stryker Remote Weapon Station, M113 pintle mount, AAV, Humvee (HMMWV), and ground mount.

The lightweight, low power MILES components are interoperable from the dismounted warrior (IWS) to mounted Combat Vehicle Systems (CVS) and scalable to large live exercises at military training ranges. The modular design of the IWS and IMILES CVS facilitate lower life cycle costs and flexibility of use. Major components of the wireless MILES IWS and CVS are designed to support the U.S. Army MILES, One Tactical Engagement Simulation System (OneTESS), and Operational Test – Tactical Engagement System (OT-TES) programs and will meet current and future EU and international combat training center and home-station training needs.

“SAIC TESS MILES products represent a significant step toward our goal of embedding training and achieving convergence in live, virtual and constructive offerings,” said Beverly Seay, SAIC senior vice president and ASSET business unit general manager. “SAIC is uniquely positioned to provide governments across the globe with tactical, engagement simulation systems containing current and next generation products and technologies. We are transforming the live training industry by successfully fielding an advanced wireless system for laser-based tactical training, substantially reducing the life cycle logistics cost for those systems. We are very excited about these products and the capability they bring to SAIC’s live training simulation solutions.”

The chance to test fire the next generation of wireless, state-of-the-art TESS MILES technology using M16s in SAIC’s Shooting Gallery at stand E-153 ITEC 2009 and learn how this system supports live tactical training exercises with high-fidelity detection for real-time casualty assessment was offered.

New OneSAF capabilities and integration with Joint Theater Level Simulation (JTLS) brigade and above SAIC is integrating OneSAF with JTLS to provide OneSAF’s next generation, composable simulation capabilities and technology to expanding domestic and international audiences. By establishing a functional interface between OneSAF and JTLS, OneSAF can now be employed inside special areas of interest within a much larger multi-resolution federation. This enables representation of predefined and ad hoc high interest units at the entity level.

OneSAF is the computer-generated forces system that addresses short comings within the current multi-resolution federation while representing a wide range of operations, systems, and control processes–from individual combatants to brigades and above. Standards-based and adaptable, OneSAF is designed to flexibly incorporate new components and evolve with new technologies. SAIC can also expand OneSAF capabilities beyond current forces to include models of future forces that do not yet exist. OneSAF provides a comprehensive, composable, extensible, and reusable simulation resource to meet a wide range of experimentation, analysis, and training needs for the current and future force.

See the new capabilities in OneSAF that integrate with Joint Theater Level Simulation (JTLS) to provide next generation, composable simulation inside special areas of interest within larger multi-resolution federations and enable representation of predefined and ad hoc high interest units at the entity level.

Canadian Defence looks to computers to slash costs and improve safety in the training battleground. In the early days of reconstructing battle scenarios, Lt.-Col. Rusty Bassarab recalls some defence computer games taking a few liberties with physics.

“On one of the old (platforms), if you held up your hand in front of your body and a (bullet) hit your hand, your hand would bleed but the round would stop,” recalls the Department of National Defence’s director of land synthetic environments.  “That’s something that used to be there, but was corrected because we said, ‘Hey, that’s no good.’ And of course, once people learn that all you have to do is put something in front, well (they’ll do it because) they’re trying to win.”

It’s an ongoing struggle to completely replicate the “theatre” of combat in a war game, a battle that at least two Ottawa firms are willingly facing as the defence industry moves to less expensive simulations to train the troops.

Acron Capability Engineering’s software is already in place at CFB Gagetown – for training on artillery procedures – as well as the Defence Research and Development Canada in Toronto, where infantry can learn their tasks in a wrap-around 3D simulator.

Even outside of defence, the simulation company is doing well. The firm just recently signed an agreement with Prague’s Millennium Gate Company to distribute Acron’s 3D modelling software in eastern Europe, and also flew down to Mexico to discuss influenza modelling in light of the current swine flu situation.

“You don’t necessarily need to be in the field shooting really expensive missiles to learn how to use them,” says John Nicol, chief executive of Acron.

“It’s not only time and money, but it’s also the safety issues. You can make mistakes with the simulator or training course without putting you or your comrades in immediate danger.”

Make mistakes and also make actual kills; Lt.-Col. Bassarab points out a soldier being trained on patrol duty can’t exactly kill his crewmates during a simulation, something a computer would have no trouble showing.

But there the technology runs into a wall. Showing an event is one thing. Actually experiencing it on the field is another, says industry observer Philippe Lagasse.

“Obviously the closer that you get to the reality of the environment, the better trained the soldier in question will be,” says Mr. Lagasse, who teaches at the University of Ottawa.

“If you do want to mitigate some … costs through simulation, it’s a very attractive model. But you can’t solely rely on that. You can’t take a soldier exclusively trained in a computer-simulated environment and ploink them into an actual war zone.”

The technology still offers a lucrative revenue stream for companies such as Calian, though. That firm specializes in replicating situations that would take hundreds of soldiers to achieve, such as an all-out scale battle.

Its software is deployed at Canadian Forces bases in Kingston, Quebec City, Gagetown, Edmonton and Petawawa.

“When we started (in 1995) it was organizational training, sort of typical training within (defence); how you bring the next commander along,” says Jerry Johnston, vice-president of outsourcing at Calian.

“But in the last few years, it’s really become a mission rehearsal type facility. It’s been used by the teams that go to Afghanistan; it’s one of the standard training steps they now take before they actually deploy.”

Before long, full-scale simulations may be a standard training step for budding businesspeople as well, says Lt.-Col. Bassarab.

Already the forces have the capability to run a 3D simulation or computer game in the classroom rather than go over a procedure with a few PowerPoint slides – and Lt.-Col. Bassarab has already participated in two virtual conferences in platforms such as Second Life.

From his conversations in this virtual world, he says he knows schools outside the drama of defence are looking to use the technology in their own way.

“We ask people what is it are you trying to achieve and what are their training needs for your experiment, to meet their objectives,” he says.

“I think there’s a lot of (non-defence) professors and classrooms starting to do the same thing.”

the Army’s Intelligence and Cultural Awareness Center at Fort Huachuca, Arizona, commanders knew they had a problem. In the 21st century, the Army was sending younger soldiers into an arena they had little cultural experience in, and at the same time, new social networking sites were poised to broadcast their mistakes to the world.

Maj. Gen. John Custer, the leading officer at Fort Huachuca, knew that the Army not only needed trained linguists, but it also needed a new language of its own.

“The advent of social networking has changed the world. The soldiers who I see coming from basic to the intel center, what is the first question they ask? ‘Are you Wi-Fi?’,” he said.

Today, a third of the men and women the Army has deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan are between the ages of 20 and 24, and Custer believes the military has now entered the age of the “strategic private” — a young soldier reared on video games.

And because of social networking, that private is now armed with the ability to severely cripple a mission.  So Custer decided his young recruits needed some extra training in cultural awareness. For help, he turned to a group of former military men who also saw an opportunity to engage today’s Iraq-bound soldiers.

Russ Phelps spent a career in the Navy before starting a Denver, Colorado-based company called InVism, which combines live-action video and virtual-reality technology to create simulators that become learning tools for the military and other clients.

“I was watching the rise of the gaming world, and the impact and the power it was having over how people were interacting with information, and I thought there is something here,” Phelps said.

So Phelps, a trained Arabic linguist, worked with two other companies, Combat Film Productions and Quest Pictures, to help him create realistic, movie-like combat scenarios. Hollywood veterans shot the scenarios on an elaborate set in Southern California, adding real footage from Iraq whenever possible.

The result: an immersive cultural simulation program that is part video game, part blockbuster Hollywood movie. Soldiers use computers to train on an interactive DVD that plunges them into a series of scenarios and presents them with choices, such as whether to accept a cooler full of drinks from an Iraqi youth.  At the end of each scenario, the recruit clicks on his or her choice, then discovers whether it was the right one. In this way, the DVD becomes an immersive learning tool that trains soldiers in a way that lectures and textbooks cannot.  Ken Robinson, an Army Ranger turned Hollywood guru, is the project’s executive producer. He’s convinced that by grabbing soldiers’ attention with stunning graphics and compelling characters, and then engaging them in the decision-making process, the project will deliver the ultimate payoff.

“They’re gonna live, they’re gonna make choices on the battlefield that will prevent their first choice from being to use their weapon. They’re gonna use their mind.”

Robinson believes the simulator program is more effective then a traditional video game because soldiers relate more to human characters than virtual avatars.

“Nobody cares about an avatar that gets killed. You just get another avatar.” “It’s a ‘band of brothers’ mentality,” agreed Steve Wilson, Chief of Training at Fort Huachuca. “You are building a camaraderie.”

Wilson hopes that the soldiers build enough of a bond with the characters onscreen that they will be able to sense the shock and stress that come with the life-or-death situations they’ll soon be immersed in for real.  But can a soldier really save a life, or multiple lives, just by using more cultural sensitivity? Does it really matter if a U.S. soldier knows the difference between a Shiite and a Sunni? Custer thinks so.

“If an untrained soldier walks through a market, he’s gonna come back and tell you ‘there are a lot of tomatoes here today,’ ” Custer said. “The guy who has cultural training is gonna come back and say, ‘All the Sunnis in the market are talking about al-Dari, a meeting tonight.’ “

Pvt. Nicole Wright, 20, who doesn’t know yet when she’ll be deployed, has found the training useful.

“I’m going to be a little more aware of what I’m looking for, the people and the environment,” she said.

Spc. Andrew Omernick, 23, who grew up playing video games, agrees.

“The format was a little bit different from most video games I’ve seen. It was intuitive,” he said. “I thought this training was a significant step forward.”

Every soldier who takes the DVD immersion course is given a pre- and post-training test to measure the change in their cultural acuity. But there is an even more immediate feedback about whether the Army has achieved its mission of connecting with its young soldiers.

North of Philadelphia, in the suburban area of Bensalem, a recruiting center in the Franklin Mills Mall has achieved a 45 percent increase in Army recruits.

The $12 million, 14,500-square-foot Army Experience Center (AEC) has had a significant impact since it opened its doors in August 2008. The two-year pilot project may subsequently have a national scope.

The AEC is efficient and innovative. It consolidates recruiting stations and provides an eye-catching display of the Army’s opportunities and technology. Interested parties can review the wide variety of Army career choices and interact, through simulation exercises, with cutting-edge technology.

The AEC seeks to appeal to younger Americans who have lived their entire lives with computers. Prospective recruits can spin the world around, zoom in and out, and look at a parked car on the block courtesy of a Google-powered, crystal clear Global Base Locator.

The AEC includes a Tactical Operations Center and a gaming arena, filled to capacity on the weekend. Visitors can climb aboard a Black Hawk helicopter, sit behind the stick of an Apache helicopter, stand as the main gunner on a full-size Humvee, or participate in an active simulation, protecting an Army humanitarian convoy in some of the world’s hottest combat zones. The Tactical Operations Center also hosts video game tournaments, along a wall of 19 Xboxes facing 19 live-action gaming chairs.

The AEC also partners with the community to help underprivileged youth and gives students the ability to take classes online and pursue a GED. The AEC also hosts a variety of functions for Philadelphia’s school district, including field trips, drill competitions and a monthly congregation of all of the district’s guidance counselors.

“Community leaders, government officials and soldiers have been very supportive of the Army Experience Center and its efforts to educate visitors about the many career, training and educational opportunities available in the United States Army,” the Army says. “The AEC has demonstrated the Army’s commitment to education by partnering with public and private educational institutions in the Philadelphia area, and as a result, the AEC currently has close to 100 students enrolled in Phase 4 Learning at the AEC. Phase 4 Learning is a nonprofit organization that helps students obtain their high school diploma.”

In an effort to boost recruitment, the AEC highlights the opportunities of the modern Army and tries to dispel common myths about the armed forces – such as the notion that career opportunities in the Army are limited to the battlefield and that family life is not a focus, said Capt. Jared Auchey, who is on-site at the AEC.

Today’s soldiers, live, eat and play well, he added. The town homes, pools and parks on any base are not much different from those in the civilian world, Capt. Auchey said. He is also quick to point out that all of these amenities are subsidized for new soldiers.

Not all members of the community view the AEC in a favorable light, however. On May 2, DowningStreet.org, a nonpartisan coalition of more than 200 veterans groups, peace groups and political activist organizations participated in a peaceful protest against the AEC on the grounds that the simulated games make light of killing and teach youth that life is cheap.

The protests were supported by scores of other organizations such as Code Pink, Women for Peace, World Can’t Wait and Student Peace Action Network, among others. The protesters want AEC to be shut down. They say they will resist efforts to make this a national program.

Yet the AEC also has many supporters in the community. Since the end of World War II, the Philadelphia metropolitan area has struggled to maintain a vibrant economy. The city has one of the highest tax burdens in the country and loses thousands of residents every year. Unemployment has risen in recent years. In this environment, the AEC is trying not only to find new recruits but to be a beacon of hope to thousands of youth eager to escape big-city problems and find opportunities in the wider world.

• Jackson Parr is a writer, former military brat and resident of Philadelphia.

A newly issued U.S. Army field manual has put people on notice: Video games are serious training tools. In its first revision since 9/11, the U.S. Army field manual for Training and Full Spectrum Operations mentions gaming 32 times, describing it as as a key ingredient in replicating “an actual operational environment.”

Released in December 2008, the new doctrine is another reminder of how gaming is rapidly redefining military recruitment and training.

The push to use games as a recruiting tool dates back to 2002, when the Army released “America’s Army” — a free, downloadable video game that gave people a virtual peak into soldiering. Since then, the game has registered 9.7 million regular users worldwide, and military leaders suggest that a third of the cadets entering the Army’s West Point academy have played the first-person shooter game. It has also been praised as a cheaper alternative to television ads, which may not reach the targeted audience: 14- to 16-year-olds.

The same year that America’s Army was released, the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) launched a new program to revolutionize the use of experimental training in the military and take advantage of the technological advances in the computer-gaming industry. The project helped generate DARWARS Ambush, a multiplayer, first-person shooter game that since 2006 has taught thousands of troops about convoy operations, including how to react to and anticipate ambushes and improvised explosive devices.

This year, the military is spending millions more to upgrade the game with a modified version of Virtual Battlespace 2 (VBS2), known as “Game After Ambush.” The new version more accurately replicates what today’s soldiers encounter on the battlefield, and gives trainers more tools to edit missions, increase difficulty and run after-action reviews.

The military also relies on tactical language and cultural training tools — such as Tactical Iraqi and Tactical Pashto — to help familiarize troops with cultures and languages they will encounter in the Middle East. These programs immerse troops in a 3-D, interactive environment that simulates real life, teaching culturally sensitive communication that could benefit them in the field.

The United States is not the only country plugging into virtual reality. Gaming is being embraced by combat leaders in the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is also developing a tailor-made version of VBS2 for tactical training needs of member countries.

Critics, including antiwar groups and some researchers, accuse the military of preying on a generation of adolescents, raised on video games that blur the brutal reality of war. These groups often ask: If soldiers treat a game like war, what happens if they start treating war like a game?

U.S. military officials portray gaming as simply a cost-effective way to attract talent, and a proven platform for rehearsing missions, building leadership skills and developing teamwork. However, despite their confidence in the Defense Department’s multibillion-dollar investment, the impact of gaming is still unknown — and the military knows it.

“The only piece that is not there is some extensive study that shows numbers to prove it,” says Col. Gary Stephens, a product manager in the office responsible for developing, acquiring and fielding cutting-edge training and testing devices for the U.S. military.

Given all the complex variables that go into successful recruiting, training and performance on the battlefield, such a definitive study would be difficult to design.

Still, Stephens is confident that gaming works, and his claims got a boost from a 2007 study by the Canadian Armour School that found gaming proved successful when it was incorporated into an officers’ training course. In the study, the class with the most game-based simulations mixed in with live training performed much better in the course.

Col. Casey Wardynski, one of the creator’s of America’s Army, points to a 2007 study from Rochester University that showed that certain cognitive skills, useful in operational conditions, were improved by a few hours of daily gaming over the course of a month.

Others are more skeptical.

A 2008 report from the Congressional Research Office said that virtual reality games allow training missions to be repeated numerous times, without the risk of injury or wear and tear on military equipment. But the report also mentioned shortcomings, such as comfortable gaming environments that minimize the impact of real world conditions such as fatigue, stress and physical discomfort.

Wardynski says that while there “is still a need for a science-based study,” there is already enough anecdotal evidence of gaming’s success to justify its expanded use.

The Pentagon apparently agrees.

Last summer, the Army opened a controversial 14,500 square foot Army Experience Center at a mall in suburban Philadelphia, sparking recent protests in which seven people were arrested. The $12-million, taxpayer-funded “virtual education” facility is supposed to give anyone over the age of 13 years old a sneak peak into military life. Visitors can fly a simulated Black Hawk helicopter, shoot M-16s aboard an Army Humvee and play America’s Army — which will soon be upgraded to include authentic weapons.

In December, the Army also announced approval of roughly $50 million for a “games in training” program that will keep an eye on industry trends to identify technology that can be used for military training. The Army also freed up funding to help field Game After Ambush at least a year ahead of schedule, Stephens said.

By September, the Army is scheduled to have 70 Game After Ambush systems in 53 military locations across the globe — including Germany, Italy and South Korea.

The funding is a direct result of the Army’s decision in April 2008 to institutionalize its use of gaming technology, Stephens said. Before that, the Army used games informally and had never established a sustained program for the acquisition and use of games. Now, like other training devices, funding requests for gaming can be part of the line-item fiscal year budget.

“The army realized gaming technology really did have a place in training,” Stephens says. “It was a technology we need.”

Seth McLaughlin is a Washington-based journalist.

Soldiers have a time-honored way of figuring out what happened after a firefight. They sit down together and hash it out, endlessly going over every moment of the battle as they try to determine who shot first, who hit their target, who missed, etc.

Because of the limits of memory and perspective, some of those questions could never be answered. Today, however, a high-tech device called the Engagement Skills Trainer is giving Soldiers new insights into the anatomy of a firefight.

The EST is an interactive combat simulator. Using the EST, Soldiers encounter virtual combat engagements and receive instant feedback from the computer on every shot fired, without the costs or safety risks of firing real ammunition, said Michael Graziano, EST facility instructor.

“It tells you everything. The computer calculates time, space and distance to the second. On every shot fired, there’s feedback. And all it costs is electricity,” Graziano said.

One of only six EST facilities in the Army, Fort Bragg’s EST has been open for five years, said Graziano. Each setup can accommodate up to 10 Soldiers, who employ computer-connected weapons.

The difference between EST and video game: realism

As real-life combat scenarios play a screen before them, the Soldiers’ reactions are collected and analyzed by the computer for review. Depending on what the Soldiers do or don’t do, the computer adjusts the scenario.

What separates the EST from first-person shooter video games is its realism, said Graziano. Every weapon used in the EST is a real weapon that has been modified, rather than a replica. The action, recoil and feel of the weapons are no different than they would be on the range, he said.

Soldiers using the EST are not limited to firing only M-4s or M-16s. The facility has versions of virtually every weapon system used by the Army, Graziano said.

“If they’ve got it in the arms room, we’ve got it here,” he said.

Each “round” that the weapons fire at the screen is actually a laser beam that is tracked and analyzed by the EST computer. If the round hits one of the enemy fighters on the screen, the computer adjusts the scenario to show that he has been wounded or killed.

Paratroopers from 1st Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division, trained on the EST April 19.

Inside one of the dark rooms, Sgt. 1st Class Donel Hagelin monitored the computer while five Paratroopers got into position on the firing lanes. Hagelin commanded them to lock and load.

On screen, a white van came to a halt at the end of a sandy, desert road. Two unarmed men dismounted and began yelling in Arabic. Then, from the back of the van, two additional men ran out with AK-47s. Instantly, the Paratroopers unleashed a hail of simulated bullets at the screen. In seconds, it was all over.

During the replay, it became clear that one of the Paratroopers had shot at the unarmed men running away. Hagelin corrected him on the spot.

“Situational awareness, men – I can’t stress that enough. That’s something you’re going to have to live with if you kill someone who is just caught in the crossfire,” he said.

After running through several more scenarios, Hagelin was enthusiastic about the value of the EST. The simulator allowed him to give precise feedback to his Paratroopers, and gave them a chance to work on their techniques without having to waste rounds at the range, he said.

“It’s the fastest way to train troops and the easiest way to save money,” he said.