Mil Flight Training Debates Synthetic-Live Balance

The three-day 2021 IQPC Military Flight Training Conference provided a comprehensive review of the airscape, including motivating Gen Z and transitioning to 6th Gen fighters. Dim Jones offers his take on the presentations and virtual format.

A key challenge for the UK Royal Air Force is the introduction of an improved flying training system for 5th- and 6th-Gen platforms, according to Air Cdre Jamie Hunter, Director Flying Training for the RAF’s 22 Group, in his MFTC keynote. The training system must take advantage of the opportunities offered by COTS technologies, while recognising the complexity in interconnections of the flight training pipeline – and all this while bedding in and introducing 6 new aircraft types: Hawk T2, Prefect (Grob 120TP), T-6 Texan II, Phenom, H135, and H145.

An issue for the fast-jet (FJ) force specifically is an outflow of experienced pilots from the front line, both internally to feed an instructor-intensive training system and externally to the airlines and elsewhere. The RAF has benefited from a Covid-19 dividend, in that there has been little or no outflow from the front line, and a return to temporary service of some aviators recently departed. This is unlikely to last, however, and provision must be made for a return to more normal times.

The target for FJ production is to reach an output of 50 per year to the OCUs within 24 months, and taking less than 24 months; when I was involved with fast-jet training in the mid-90s, the target was 50-55 IPS (Into Productive Service, i.e. Combat Ready on the squadrons) – a similar number, but servicing a significantly larger front line, reflecting a reduced current retention rate. This will require more innovation, a pipeline redesign, and downloading, not only between phases of the pipeline but also from live to virtual, taking advantage of the available technology, and all of it underpinned by experimentation and exploitation of data, biometrics and AI. Increased use of VR/AR/MR is key to this, and the RAF strategy is to go for high-end, highly immersive equipment, some elements of which will be relatively expensive, others – such as 360o video – less so.

The aim is to download training from aircraft to simulator to classroom, training to be student-demanded, rather than instructor-led, and progress proficiency-driven. Proposed pipeline permutations include a direct transition from ground school to basic rotary-wing (i.e. no fixed-wing elementary training), straight from Prefect to Hawk, and ground school direct to Texan and thence to the OCUs. There is a need to maintain a steady training capacity – contraction can be achieved overnight, but expansion takes years. The RAF plan to make any surplus available to foreign students, although they may find themselves with some competition in this area.

A key issue for many air forces is a shortage of qualified and experienced instructors, and various strategies were put forward to mitigate this. One is collaboration to achieve economies of scale, and the new International Flying Training School, a joint venture between the Italian Air Force and Leonardo, is an example. The IFTS will utilise the new M345 and M346 aircraft, Phases 2 and 3 being retained at Lecce/Galatina on the 345, and Phase 4 moving with the 346 to a new purpose-built facility at Decimomannu in Sardinia, due to start training students in mid-2022.

The student throughput is planned at 70 per year, of which 50-60% will be international, 40+ instructors of which 10-15 will be Italian AF, some exchange and the rest civilian contract (although all ex-military). Increased use of contract instructors is becoming widespread; they bring great experience and continuity, but perhaps at the expense of military ethos and recent exposure to current tactics. An IFTS plan to counter the latter is to schedule these instructors to take part in major exercises in the Red Air role. A recurring adage was that ‘one size does not fit all’, and that flexibility to meet unique customer requirements is key to any training system.

Continuing this theme of contract services, Draken Europe presented on their Helicopter Academy in Cornwall, which is both CAA ATO and Military Aviation Authority accredited. Staffed exclusively by CFS-qualified ex-military aviators, it offers tailored courses in both civil and military rotary-wing flying or a mixture of both.

Throughput Challenges

The disparity in training volume was nowhere better illustrated than in a presentation by the US Army, which revealed that the USA Aviation Center of Excellence at Fort Rucker, Alabama operates 600 aircraft (the UK Armed Forces, as of 2019, had 601 fixed-wing, and that included 331 trainers). In FY20, Fort Rucker flew 197,000 hours and trained 16,000 students on 130 different courses. The USAF, meanwhile, has a requirement for 1,200-1,500 pilots per year. Excepting our Russian and Chinese friends, therefore, the gulf between the US and any other air force attending the conference is so great as to make any direct comparison or read-across tenuous, if by no means invalid.

The US Army's Aviator Training Next program uses experimental VR technology. Image credit: Ryan Aerospace.

In that context, another role for contract aviation is provision of live-flying support services, such as adversary air, an area in which even the USAF has sought to make savings in both operating cost and fatigue in front-line airframes. However, having retained the 64th Aggressor Squadron (F-16), and stood down the 65th (F-15C), replacing them with contract air from Draken International (Aerovodochody L59 and Mirage F1) the 57th Wing now finds itself short of high-end Red Air capability, and is planning to reconstitute the 65th with F-35, the well-publicised operating cost of which must have been carefully weighed against the quality of training dividend.

Col Pete Saunders, the RCAF’s Director of Air Simulation Training, expressed the belief that the foundation of a successful training system is a capable and qualified instructor and a motivated student, a view with which it is hard to disagree. Having discussed the instructor shortage, and various ways to overcome it, the conference turned its attention to the students. Opinions vary about what motivates Generation Z – the digital natives in a system currently run by digital immigrants. Increased use of high-tech and learning at their own pace are certainly in there, and there seems to be an assumption among some of the more ‘enlightened’ air forces that the opportunity to use high-fidelity synthetic equipment is motivation enough, and that physical flying does not matter so much. This view is contested by some of the more ‘conservative’ forces, and they are not necessarily wrong. Although the older generations should not assume that what motivated them floats the boat of their children and grandchildren, the fact remains that the job air forces are there to do is in the air, not in the simulator. Equally, the training end-product must be determined by the operational requirement, not by the career and job-satisfaction aspirations of the student cohort. Retention is a key parameter, and Gp Capt Chris Hake, the RAAF’s Director Training Air Combat Group, outlined some personnel management measures they are taking to improve it.

While simulators reduce training cost and are increasingly needed as the only means of practising sensitive or complex missions – indeed, Commander 57th Wing reports that the 40,000 km2 Nellis Ranges are no longer big enough for some Red Flag and other live exercises – aspirations such as the 10/90% Live/Synthetic Balance, which the UK’s Chief of Air Staff’s Astra programme envisages for the future RAF, give me cause for doubt. The Israeli Air Force, who live surrounded by potent threats and really are fighting as they train, have moved from 15% synthetic in 2010 to 25% in 2021, and plan for 40% by 2025, with a concurrent shift of ST focus from fundamental (skills) to tactical training. The Pakistani Air Force, whose Deputy Chief of Air Staff (Training) fully embraces high-tech ST, is aiming for no more than 50% in the medium-term, with perhaps a small increase thereafter. It is also important that the synthetics do not outpace the hardware and it is worth remembering, in the race for 5th Gen and plans for 6th Gen, that it is estimated that 50% of the world’s front-line aircraft in 2040 will still be 4th Gen or older.

Other highlights of a varied and interesting agenda included reports on flying training plans from the Japanese Air Self-Defence Force – whose aircraft are scrambled 1,000 times a year in response to incursions by Russian and Chinese aircraft; Malaysia, who face multiple political and territorial issues in Southeast Asia; and from Serbia, Poland, Lithuania, Turkey, and Sweden. I have been hearing about Sweden’s plans to overhaul its training system and retire the venerable SK-60 for as long as I have been attending MFTC; well, it is finally happening, and now fast. However, while the Grob 120TP is being brought into service as a basic trainer, the acquisition process for an advanced trainer is not so mature, although given Saab’s involvement with T7A Red Hawk you would not want to bet against that being the eventual choice. In the interim, the Gripen C/D will be used as an ad-hoc advanced trainer, although the D-model was never intended as an ab initio trainer and is not optimally configured for it. The transition from Grob to Gripen will be a demanding one, and demonstrates that, although a flying training system should not be platform-driven, sometimes the realities trump the aspirations.

International Flight Training School, Italy. Image credit: Leonardo.

Virtual v. Live … Events

MFTC 2021 produced a full, varied, interesting and relevant agenda, ably marshalled by the distinguished co-chairmen, Lt Gen Tony Rock USAF (Ret’d) and Air Marshal Stuart Evans RAF (Ret’d), and transmitted to a large and worldwide audience. The speakers were of high quality, and the issues raised pertinent and interesting. The audience was both large and global, albeit by the same token cyclical. The virtual platform was more than adequate for the main purpose, but I found the quality and utility of the ancillary functions disappointing. Networking of a sort was possible, but unsatisfactory compared to a live event. I would be interested to know how those dislocated from Greenwich by many time zones coped with the schedule. Specifically, it should have been possible to get recordings of the elapsed proceedings onto the site while the conference was still in progress, thus enhancing it for them.

The decision to ‘go virtual’ was taken some while ago and, while some live events have already taken place in the UK, in view of the international nature of the MFTC audience and travel restrictions, it was undoubtedly a wise one. The S&T community has now had a fair bit of experience at virtual events and, although practice has not yet made perfect, much progress has been evident. Registration for the event was simple, and the online platform was easily navigable; it did not have the ‘bells and whistles’ associated with bigger events such as vIITSEC, but the centrepiece of this one was the conference, not the exhibition, and the visual presentation was generally very slick, although the sound quality was variable.

One self-evident result of the virtual format was the attendance – 485 registered participants representing 185 organisations from 85 nations – the majority of whom would probably not have had the time or resources to have attended in person. Another was the quality of the speakers, some of whom might otherwise have been constrained from attending by other commitments.

The speakers were obviously conscious of timing, and the timeline ran on rails, far more so than the live events I have attended in the past – not least because the chairmen had control of the questions submitted live online. If I have an adverse observation, it is that the Day 1 programme was a little too full-on, running from 0850 to 1545 BST with only two 30-minute breaks, which were earmarked for networking – precious little time for stretching legs and easing eyeballs, let alone attending to the inner man or woman; perhaps this is what 15 months of ‘working from home’ has done for us. Thankfully, possibly due to late withdrawals, the Day 2 programme was a little less frenetic, but Day 3 – albeit shorter – included only one 30-minute break.

The exhibition has always been a sideshow at MFTC, and this year was no different; the six event sponsors were the only exhibitors. With the exception of Lockheed Martin, there was little visual or documentary material to view and, although exhibit staff were listed for networking purposes, the platform, with only one or two exceptions, indicated the booths unmanned throughout, even during the ‘networking breaks’.

In sum, then, a useful conference in trying times; however, despite best efforts, for me virtual will never replace live, and I hope to attend MFTC 2022 in person.