8 · MT 2/2022 Theme: Training and Simulation The US Marine Corps will shortly be receiving its latest generation of laserbased TESS in the form of FoFTS-Next from Saab Inc. (Photo: US DoD) Live training has always been held in the highest regard, as providing a training environment that uses real troops, real vehicles and real communications, and therefore is most representative of actual combat. At present, it is the most trusted method of providing psychological and physiological stress to troops within a relatively safe and controlled environment. The only simulated aspect is the ammunition, although battlefield effects such as smoke obscurants and sound effects are widely used. Despite the benefits of previous generations of live collective training systems, there are a number of gaps when considering the current nearpeer, highly kinetic, all-arms conflict for which many nations are now training. Historically, one-way, laser-based tactical engagement simulation systems (TESS) were used which, although ballistically inaccurate, did allow infantry and armour units to train together. With greater ballistic accuracy being obtained using two-way lasers, the issue that still pertains is that lasers cannot penetrate leaves or grasses and, therefore, soldiers can be protected by using such foliage as cover. This has led the US Army to investigate the replacement of laser-based TESS that is at the core of its Instrumentable-Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System (I-MILES) through the adoption of new technologies such as geo-pairing. The other shortfall of I-TESS is that soldiers appreciate neither the need to ‘lead’ targets, nor the impact of ‘ballistic drop’ with rounds fired at longer ranges. A further aspect is that lasers travel at the speed of light and therefore the lag between squeezing the trigger and impact on the target is not representative of the real ammunition. This US-led laserless TESS project is still underway, and has now been subsumed into the wider US Army Synthetic Training Environment (STE) programme. Although such a requirement is to be welcomed, the substitution of I-MILES will not happen overnight. Nations have invested billions of dollars in laser-based TESS and its replacement will take decades to achieve and, globally, will cost a fortune. The end result is that many nations will ‘soldier-on’ with current laser-based systems for many years to come. The Risks of Negative Training Considering the need to make force-on-force training challenging (not to mention effective) for its participants, particularly in “inducing fear and stress,” the use of realistic battlefield effects is so minimal that this shortfall contributes significantly to negative training. In the real world, for example, the first indication that troops have come under fire is the ‘crack and thump’ of rounds fired and their impact with the There is a certain amount of confusion as to what force-on-force training is all about – and what the military wants to achieve through its wider adoption. To the law enforcement community, force-on-force training concentrates on providing training, “that induces fear and stress of a life-threatening situation using role players and real firearms that fire non-lethal ammunition”. Typically, this training features individuals or small groups firing non- lethal training ammunition (NLTA) of the types provided by companies such as UTM, Simunition or GMK. According to the Force Science Institute, such training has significant advantages over conventional range practice, specifically in that ‘suspects’ can shoot back; such exercises induce increased levels of stress; because suspects can shoot back, trainees are more likely to appreciate the need to adopt cover; and, finally, such training is more motivational than conventional range practice. This approach is not anathema to the military, of course, as such training is provided in so-called shoot-houses or to specialist groups. However, the military considers force-on-force training as more than just individual or small team training. Military force-on-force training is on an altogether different scale, and falls under the banner of collective training, which can encompass forces from company up to brigade sizes. Even at this larger scale, though, many in the military ask whether their concept of force-on-force training should not also “induce fear and stress,” and be more “motivational”? The question is, how are these desired attributes to be added? Realism and Fidelity The US Joint Publication JP 1-02 defines military force as, “an aggregation of military personnel, weapon systems, equipment and necessary support, or combination thereof”. Force-on-force, therefore, sees two such aggregated forces pitted against each other to train at the collective level in the live training domain. Trevor Nash The Force-on-Force Training Challenge f
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM5Mjg=