253

QuickStrike ASOe Battlefield Simulation: Preparingthe War fighter to Win

Richard L. Jones, Lt Col, USAF (ret)VTMAK

rjones@mak.com

ABSTRACT. The QuickStrike ASOC (Air Support Operations Center) Battlefield Simulation fills a crucial gap inUSAF and United Kingdom Close Air Support (CAS) and airspace manager training. The system now provides sixsquadrons with the capability to conduct total-mission training events whenever the personnel and time areavailable.

When the 111th ASOC returned from their first deployment to Afghanistan they realized the training available priorto deployment was inadequate. They sought an organic training capability focused on the ASOC mission that waslow cost, simple to use, adaptable, and available now. Using a commercial off-the-shelf simulation, theydeveloped a complete training system by adapting the simulation to their training needs. Through more than twoyears of spiral development, incorporating lessons learned, the system has matured, and can now realisticallyreplicate the Tactical Operations Center (TOC) in Kabul, Afghanistan, the TOC supporting the mission in Iraq, orcan expand to support a major conflict scenario. The training system provides a collaborative workspace for thetraining audience and exercise control group via integrated software and workstations that can easily adapt to newmission reqUirements and TOC configurations. The system continues to mature. Based on inputs from the warfighter, new capabilities have been incorporated to add realism and simplify the scenario development process.The QuickStrike simulation can now import TBMCS Air Tasking Order air mission data and can provide air andground tracks to a common operating picture; presented through either C2PC or JADOCS.

This or~anic capability to practice team processes and tasks and to conduct mission rehearsals proved its value inthe 111 h ASOS's next deployment. The ease of scenario development and the simple to learn and intuitive game­like interface enables the squadrons to develop and share scenarios incorporating lessons learned from everydeployment. These war fighters have now filled the training gap and have the capability they need to train to win.

INTRODUCTION

The ASOC, a subordinate element of the AirOperations Center (AOC), is the principlecommand and control (C2) node in the close air­ground battle. It is the senior air C2 node alignedwith the Army, (typically co-located with thehighest Army echelon in theater) responsible formanaging air assets in support of groundmaneuver and in the execution of Close AirSupport (CAS). As such it plays a critical role inensuring the Army and the Air Force operateeffectively together. Recent experiences in Iraqand Afghanistan underscore the crucial nature ofthis role.

The ASOC environment is uniquely challengingand demanding. Fighter Duty Technicians (FDTs)and Fighter Duty Officers (FDOs) work in adynamic and fast-paced setting wherecommunications expertise, tactical knowledge,

planning ability, weapons systems knowledge,coordination skills, and teamwork all play asignificant role. Situational awareness (SA) of theground battle and the air picture is essential.FDO/FDT performance is critical in getting bombson target quickly and safely, providing directsupport for Joint Terminal Attack Controllers(JTACs) or ground forces in contact with theenemy.

1. BASELINE EXPERIENCES

Following a combat deployment, the 111 th ASOCcompleted a thorough internal debrief of allaspects of the deployment from preparationthrough execution and re-deployment. One of themost important debriefing items was theinadequate operations spin-up training. From theperspective of the FDOs and FDTs operating inthe Joint Operations Center (JOC), pre­deployment preparation had significant flaws that

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20100012879 2020-07-10T18:30:22+00:00Z

254

were summarized in two broad categories: Focus,and C2 Tools.

1.1 FocusSpin-up training was based on operationalassumptions that were not valid in the currentconflict. The conflict was non-linear andasymmetric. From an Air Force perspective thismodel of warfare combined with the theater'sunique geography and infrastructure andfriendly/enemy Order of Battle meant that CASwas the primary means of support to troops-in­contact situations. That is, there were often noother supporting arms options (artillery, naval gunfire, or army aviation) for troops that neededsupport. Due to the nature of the conflict, CAScoverage was required across the entire theaterpractically 24 hours-a-day.

While 111th ASOC spin-up training and standardcombat mission ready training had been intenseand rigorous, it had focused largely on a moretraditional linear, symmetric fight. Over a period oftime, the focus had slid into a familiar andcomfortable rhythm of force-on-force war fighterexercises. This was the wrong focus forAfghanistan.

In hindsight, and assessing a more generic view ofASOC training, the major flaw was not that the111th were focused on training for one model ofwarfare rather than the other; it was that thetraining curriculum and capabilities did notaccommodate multiple models of warfare.

1.2 C2 ToolsIn theater, the C2 systems and trackingmechanisms were significantly different to thosethe 111th had trained with during spin-up. Thetraining had typically used large scale, customizedC2 systems that covered all aspects of C2 fromplanning through execution (for example TheaterBattle Management Core System - TBMCS). Intheater, the tools were the product of networkingtechnology and a blend of simple and flexiblesoftware applications. This patch-work C2architecture was in place due to expediency,operational need, and some very talentedindividuals who found ways to add functionalityand capability piece by piece to a baselinecommunications network.

Most notably, Internet Relay Chat (IRC) was theprimary method of communication in theater. Inaddition, Excel spreadsheets and commonmapping tools such as FalconView added vital

elements. The unit was familiar with the Excel andmapping tools but IRC posed new challenges:learning a new shorthand 'chat' language and aneed for transmitting time critical C2 data in (real­time) text format rather than through voice.

Also, operators had to develop softer skills suchas an ability to lead and execute the CAS fightappropriately through a text interface. This meantinteracting with and coordinating with a wide rangeof C2 agencies in a distributed, stressful andsometimes confused C2 environment using textalone. This required a unique combination oftactical and doctrinal knowledge, coordinationcapability, leadership, motivational ability, and ofall things, typing and prose capability! The 111thlearned to use IRC the hard way - on the jobtraining while in theater.

Following redeployment and debriefing, Squadronleadership began formulating a solution to thetraining environment so that follow-ondeployments had the right training focus andexposure to the correct C2 tools.

It is also significant to point out that duringdebriefing positive aspects of training were alsoidentified. Defining what went well providedsquadron leadership with valuable referencepoints on areas of training that needed overhaul.Most notably, operations personnel pointed outthat training in CAS doctrine and the overall CASprocess was sufficient and useful even in theasymmetric, non-linear arena.

2. REQUIREMENTS DEFINITION ANDPRELIMINARY DESIGN

Squadron leadership made a simple but far­reaching request following the debriefing sessions:"Find a way to capture the experiences we learnedin theater so we can prepare better for the nexttime." In addition to this top-level challenge, thesquadron was charged with developing a way toimprove training focus specifically for pre­deployment spin-up and to include training on IRCand the associated applications. The challengewas issued with one caveat: ensure that theresultant approach was flexible enough to allow fora variety of warfare models, not just reactionaryeffort to the Afghanistan experience.

Squadron personnel looked at a variety ofresponses to these challenges. Briefings,computer based training and specific (stand­alone) applications training were considered and

255

assessed to be a valid way to prepare for acombat deployment. However, the operationssection began to look at live constructivesimulation and quickly assessed them as the mosteffective method to create the desired trainingenvironment. Through simulation, an accurate,holistic, immersive training environment could becreated, presenting a realistic series of decisionpoints to be resolved by the ASOC crews.Squadron personnel anticipated that thissimulation environment, if properly constructed,would be broadly capable in terms of the warfaremodels used and would be. extensible and flexiblein terms of C2 tools that may be used in the future.

2.1 Preliminary DesignThe preliminary simulation design was outlined ina PowerPoint briefing and endorsed by squadronleadership. The initial design included a simulationengine (yet to be defined), mlRC (a sharewareIRC program), and Excel spreadsheets for AirTasking Order (ATO) breakouts.

A preliminary design review presented a variety ofsimulation frameworks that could be applied,ranging from commercial-off-the shelf (COTS)simulations to research and development effortsthat involved intelligent agents. Due to squadroncost and schedule constraints the decision wasmade to pursue a COTS solution.

Based on this framework, the next decision wasthe choice of a suitable simulation engine.Because this was an unfunded Air Force effortbeing undertaken at the squadron level, therewere three characteristics to be optimized: cost,usability, and classification level. The idealsimulation engine would be cheap to purchase,would require no ongoing contractor support,could be operated by an average squadronoperator, would be unclassified and, as a result,easy to field, maintain, and store.

2.2 Screen Available SimulationsAvailable simulations were down-selected to theepotential products. These three simulation engineswere functionally tested by squadron staff. Thethree simulations were:

Decisive Action, a simulation by Jim Lunsford,published by HPL. A Division and Corps levelsimulation that depicts combat with maneuverbrigades and battalions along with supportingartillery and air strikes. This game was used by USArmy Command and General Staff College as atraining tool for officers.

Joint Conflict and Tactical Simulation (JCATS),developed by the Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory. An interactive simulation toolsponsored by U.S. Joint Forces Command andmanaged from the command's Joint War fightingCenter. The military uses JCATS for training,analysis, and mission planning and rehearsal.

Battle Command and its follow-on USAF version,Quickstrike, were developed by MAKTechnologies, now VT MAK. Battle Commandwas designed with a game-like feel to supportArmy battalion and brigade commands and theirstaff officers in preparing and executing operationorders. The simulation is a military tactical trainerthat allows commanders and their staff officers topractice planning and execution skills in asimulated environment.

3. ASOC BATTLE SIMULATIONDESCRIPTION

Followihg functional evaluation of the alternatives,Battle Command was chosen as the best initial fitfor the simulation engine. The system was alreadyowned by the Air Force and so was freelyavailable. It was unclassified, and it was veryeasily operated with little instruction required. Witha minimum of familiarization training, squadronstaff could "drive" the simulation as well as designand create new scenarios. Based on discussionswith the contractor, the 111 th anticipatedswapping out Battle Command with a more air­orientated follow-on (QuickStrike), once thatproduct had finished development. QuickStrikewas based on Battle Command but specificallydesigned for the US Air Force. It accuratelyportrays a variety of tactical situations, stimulatingstaff interactions and the rapid decision makingneeded for successfully conducting mission­essential tasks. QuickStrike supports individualstudent training and more dynamic multi-playerteam training events. It is HLA compliant and hasthe capability to integrate with larger distributedexercises.

256

Figure 1, Combined USAF and UK ASOCTraining using the ASOC Battle Simulation

Between late 2004 and late 2006 the 111 th ASOCassembled and embellished the ASOC BattleSimulation. Radios, Joint Automated DeepOperations Coordination System (JADOCS),Tactical Air Control Party Close Air SupportSystem (TACP CASS) were added to providemore fidelity to real operations. Staff alsoexperimented with comprehensive trainingprograms and developed scenarios that providedoperators with near-real-world experience, usingunclassified real-world events as simulationevents.

A variety of training frameworks were tried,ranging from zero preparation 15-20 minute fightsto force-on-force scripted events lasting 8 hours. Avariety of asymmetric, non-linear, symmetric andlinear scenarios were developed and used. Inaddition, training objectives and debriefingtemplates were developed to help focus trainingevents and capture individual training progress.Finally the unit experimented by using thesimulation in conjunction with simulated JTACtraining events in the field. Although there was nodirect connectivity between the simulations, thescenarios were synchronized and information waspassed via radio and data link from one agency tothe other.

A significant benefit of the simulation was that itenabled the unit to train autonomously. Previously,the best way to train was as a supporting unit inlarge Army exercises. While these opportunitiesare still vital in terms of interaction and reciprocallearning and training with Army JOC staff, theywere now no longer the only avenue to effectivetraining. In addition, the ASOC Battle Simulationoffers flexibility in terms of time, location, and paceof learning for ASOC staff.

In 2007, the ASOC Battle Simulation was adoptedUS Air Force wide. In 2008, the Royal Air Force(RAF) adopted the simulation to train its AirOperations Co-Ordination Centre (Land) AOCC(L)unit (ASOC equivalent organization).

4. CURRENT ASOC BATTLE SIMULATIONCONFIGURATION

The ASOC Battle Simulation comes to the unit asa complete package of hardware and software,preconfigured and ready to operate. Networksetup assistance as well as training in systemoperation, scenario development, and exercisedevelopment and conduct is also provided. Thesystem is comprised of networked workstationsand peripherals for the FDO, FDT, and INTEL(intelligence) seats in the training audience andadditional workstations for the "Control Group";those role-playing high control, low control, andlateral organizations. It is easily reconfigured formultiple versions of training audience commandand control variations based on the mission.Many of the squadrons with the ASOC missionsplit up the FDO and FDT tasks due to increasedmission complexity. Many now have a Joint AirRequest Net (JARN) operator, an AirspaceManager (ASM), an ATO Manager (ATOM), and aProcedural Controller (PC) setup. A VOIP phonesystem is also provided to emulate telephonecommunications between the ASOC and outsideorganizations. The collaborative workspace MiRCchat is provided as well. The ASOCs provide theirown radio communications equipment to enhancethe realism of the event. A projector and highreflection screen for the display of the CommonOperating Picture (COP) are also provided. All ofthe workstations are laptops making the entiresystem easily deployable. Currently, the COP isprovided by Command and Control PersonalComputer (C2PC) by way of an interface withQuickStrike. The investigation of integratingQuickStrike with JADOCS is currently underway.This setup was easily modified to meet thespecific training needs of ASOC organizations withtheater-specific requirements that drove uniqueconfigurations of workstations. As each ASOChas their own training philosophies and facilitylimitations, the system is flexible enough to be setup in a single room or in multiple locations,separating the training audience from the ControlGroup.

The "Control Group" runs the exercise and isorganized and managed by a chief facilitator, or"Pit Boss". This facilitator is the individual

257

responsible for organizing control grouppersonnel, designing and running the exercise,and facilitating the after-action review. Due to theintuitive game-like operation and interface ofQuickStrike, a single operator can be trained in amatter of hours to manipulate every aspect of thesimulation. Scenarios are easily developed fromscratch or existing scenarios provided as part ofthe system can be modified to adjust to changesin procedures, processes, or theater operations.QuickStrike has an event editor built in to developand manage the input of training injects into thetraining audience. This gives the Control Groupthe capability to develop a Master Scenario EventsList (MSEL) imbedded in the scenario to providetimed or dynamic inputs at crucial decision-makingtimes in the exercise to reach desired trainingobjectives. As an integral part of the ASOC team,intelligence is crucial to overall situationalawareness. To assist, the intelligence workstationhas the capability to emulate the Predator or anyother UAV view using the VT MAK Stealth 3Dviewer, which is also provided in the training suite.The latest version of QuickStrike is StandardDesktop Configuration compliant allowing thesoftware on any Air Force computer and isundergoing the formal USAF accreditationprocess.

As mentioned briefly earlier, VT MAK providestraining on manipulating QuickStrike as well astraining for Control Group personnel. Using a triedand true training approach, the Control Groupquickly develops the skills required to conduct atraining event and develop or modify scenarios.This capability enables each ASOC to design andrun comprehensive training events in just a matterof days. Each ASOC is provided "turnkey"scenarios and terrain for both the Iraq andAfghanistan operations. VT MAK collectsfeedback from the ASOCs and has releasedseveral new versions addressing inputs from thefield. Requested enhancements includedeveloping a method to populate the QuickStrikeair mission data base with all the air mission datafrom a USMTF TBMCS ATO and displaying all thegraphics from the supporting Airspace ControlOrder, intended to greatly streamline the scenariodevelopment task and enable complete missionintegration with other exercises such as VirtualFlag.

5. FOLLOW-ON DEPLOYMENT ANDSIMULATION VALIDATION

The 111th ASOC deployed again in 2007. Thisdeployment was in support of the InternationalSecurity Assistance Force (ISAF) at Headquarterslevel. The ASOC was embedded in the JointOperations Center (JOC), HQ ISAF, Kabul,Afghanistan. The initial advance teamcommunicated operational conditions andoperations tempo in theater to the homesquadron. Training managers at the squadroneasily updated QuickStrike scenarios to reflectcurrent conditions, enabling realistic ASOCTactics, Techniques and Procedures (TIPs) to bepracticed. Operations personnel trained regularlyusing the simulation and were deemed combatdeployable based on their simulation check-rideperformance.

Based on this approach to manning the ASOCISAF JOC, spin-up time in theater was minimal.New arrivals were already familiar with thetoolsets, the operations tempo, and the processesneeded to perform their duties quickly andefficiently. This resulted in minimum handoveroverlap and minimum unit changeover impact tothe theater C2 network. In addition, as a whole,the response to Troops-in-Contact (TIC) situationswas more standardized. In comparison to theunit's 2004 experience, the on-the-job learningcurve was significantly reduced and the level ofpreparedness of the unit was vastly improved.This resulted in maximizing the impact of theASOC in down-range operations.

One short-coming was the overly simplisticmodeling of the complex NATO C2 structure intheater. Although the correct C2 nodes were usedin our ASOC Battle Simulation, our interpretationof the C2 structure was based on a US doctrinalinterpretation rather than the reality of the NATOC2 structure in Afghanistan. There are significantdifferences and understanding the finer elementsof the NATO C2 structure and becoming effectivecoordinating between them took some on-the-jobtraining in theater. In hindsight, the unit wasconstrained by role-playing in a stand-alonesimulation rather than having the benefit ofparticipating in an interactive exercise with otherNATO agencies. A more accurate representationof the real-world C2 structure (either viadistributed mission operations or role playing)would have been extremely beneficial to the FDOsand FDTs during spin-up.

258

6. CONCLUSION

Overall, the ASOC Battle Simulation has opened anew era in ASOC training. Its primary benefits areits flexibility, extensibility and game-like simplicity.The 111th has learned valuable lessons overseasthat can be easily recreated with the simulation fortraining purposes. The future success of thesimulation depends on two factors: how well thesimulation is integrated into a broader simulationtraining environment, and how effectively unittraining staffs employ the system. The 111 th hasidentified five attainable objectives that will helpguide the progression of the simulation over thecoming years:

6.1 Match real world operations withsimulation scenarios. This objective includesaccurate modeling/recreation of the wider C2infrastructure surrounding the ASOC as it existsrather than modeling an ideal doctrinal state.

6.2 Integrate the ASOC simulation inbroader simulation-based exercises thatincorporate the full range of C2 nodes. Forexample, linking up with the Air Operations Center(AOC), JTACS, various Army echelons, Controland Reporting Centers (CRCs), AWACS,fighter/bomber aircraft, and Wing OperationsCenters (WaCs). With QuickStrike's HLAframework, this distributed simulation operation istechnically attainable and will directly supportObjective 1 by forcing staff integration of multipleagencies rather than relying solely on role-playing.

6.3 Use the ASOC Battle Simulation as atool to expose non-ASOC personnel, such asArmy JOC staff, and the AOC staff, to thecomplexities of applying CAS in the ground fight.

6.4 Incorporate both pre-planning andexecution ASOC roles in the simulation. This mayrequire minor software augmentation in order tostimulate a simulated Army Air Support Request(ASR) structure or in a distributed simulationscenario as suggested in Objective 2, the Armycould provide actual ASR inputs.

6.5 Maintain a flexible outlook on ASOCoperations, enabling training preparation formultiple warfare models rather than focusing on asingle type of fight. Simulations are inherentlyflexible in this regard; the responsibility in attainingthis objective rests with those charged withdesigning the training syllabus and the simulationscenarios.