Naval Simulation Training
Written by Peter Buxbaum
MT2 2011 Volume: 16 Issue:4 (June)
Two years ago, U.S. Navy Captain Mark Woolley, writing in a U.S. Naval Institute magazine, complained, “The Army is using high-quality video games to attract recruits and train soldiers. Why can’t the Navy do the same for its sailors?”
In 2002, Woolley noted, the U.S. Army released America’s Army, a recruitment and training video game. In 2008 the Army announced plans to invest $50 million to develop video games for use in training soldiers for combat. “So where is the maritime version of America’s Army?” Woolley asked. “And why isn’t the Navy embracing off-theshelf gaming technology to train its sailors? Certainly this concept could be applied to a multitude of Navy systems, ranging from basic damage-control equipment to shipboard engineering and combat systems either in a multiplayer or individual game role.”
Much has changed since Woolley wrote those words. For one thing, Woolley himself has since retired from the Navy and took a position heading the North American office of Vstep, a simulation company based in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. For another, the U.S. Navy just recently released a fleet training strategy which incorporated simulation in a big way.
Training on simulators can acclimate young officers in advance of their first ship handling experiences.
“Officers can show up to their first command seamanship skill under their belt,” said Bill Schmidt, chief executive officer of Angle Inc. “They can step onto the bridge and know how the team functions and function as member of that team in a productive manner.”
“Simulations are a viable alternative for a good part of maritime training,” said Peter van Schothorst, Vstep’s chief technology officer. “Forty percent of maritime training can now be done on simulators. It used to be only 5 or 10 percent.”
The Navy’s Fleet Training Continuum Instruction, released on March 31, 2011, noted that a sound training strategy “dictates that an innovative and cost effective fleet-wide strategy for procurement and utilization of training simulators be adopted. This strategy must ensure training readiness levels are effectively maintained while capitalizing on technical advances in modeling and simulation.”
The document also noted that “a multitude of variables influence the ratio of live versus synthetic training for a specific training function” and that “each training requirement needs to be evaluated individually.” The instruction set forth a series of guiding principles to provide a framework for decision making. Two of the guiding principles represent an unambiguous endorsement of the use of simulation training where appropriate:
- “Training simulators should be used to replace live training to the maximum extent possible where training effectiveness and operational readiness are not compromised.”
- “If a skill/talent can be developed/refined or proficiency can effectively and efficiently be maintained in a simulator, do it in a simulator.”
“Simulators are used by many of the world’s major navies,” noted Clayton Burry, the area sales manager in Canada and Latin America for the Norway-based Kongsberg Maritime Simulation. The demand for maritime simulators “continues to grow as shipboard technologies advance, crew size diminishes, and turnover rates require a rapid ramp up in training new personnel.”
Navies are interested in high-performance simulation that supports special shipboard operations and maneuvers as well as mission-specific training, according to Burry. “Navies require training systems that are robust, reliable, easy to operate and support, and provide close to 100 percent availability to support the very demanding ship and crew training schedules,” he added. “Naval vessels are in port for very short times and the simulator systems must be available at all scheduled times.”
“The expectation of our customers is that a simulator is as good as real life,” said Ted Morley, chief operations officer at Maritime Professional Training in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. “To fulfill that expectation we need to provide simulators with real equipment such as controls and radios and less generic equipment. We have to provide the simulator with data so that it performs like a real ship. Today’s simulators achieve a level of realism that you didn’t see five or 10 years ago, much less 20.”
“The U.S. Navy has a saying, ‘Train in port and validate at sea,’” said Woolley, in an interview with Military Training Technology. “It makes a lot of sense not to spend all that money at sea doing basic training. Simulation helps navies train in port.”
Maritime simulators available today run the gamut from the generic to the very specific, noted Stephen Cross, the chairman of the International Marine Simulator Forum (IMSF), an organization of manufacturers and users who meet to exchange ideas. “The choice usually depends on the budget,” he said. “Bigger navies with a certain number of ships of a specific class could have a specific ship simulator developed. In the case of more generic simulators, the hardware might not be identical to real life but the vessel will be behaving in the same general way.”
Simulator systems are often modular, Cross noted, so that customers can build on levels of sophistication and realism depending on their requirements and budgets. “It is like a Lego type of configuration with a base kit that can be built on,” he said. “Instrumentation can be emulated or simulated depending on the budget. Radars can appear on a screen or they can have the real radar form the ship. Ship handling and bridge operations can be specific to a ship or off-the-shelf. Off-the-shelf products bring down the price and some navies nowadays are feeling some economic limitations.”
There are a number of international classification societies which have developed standards for maritime simulators, most notably Det Norske Vertitas (DNV), a private organization based in Novik, Norway. DNV issues specifications for maritime simulators in a series of classifications, designated A through F, with Class A being the most sophisticated, realistic and specific, and Class F being more desktopbased and generic.
“The specifications laid down by DNV for simulator design and performance help guide Kongsberg’s R&D program,” said Burry. “All Kongsberg simulators also have DNV certification.”
“The DNV classification is useful,” added van Schothorst, “so that customers know what to expect from each class of simulator.”
Simulators can teach teamwork, as exemplified by a system developed by TRANSAS USA that simulates responses to piracy and other threats and is used by the Canadian Coast Guard as well as law enforcement organizations in the U.S. The system uses commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) personal computers to simulate vessel controls on the desktop but can also be adapted to use actual vessel controls.
“Four computers are set up in a pod with three students and an instructor,” said Timothy Park, the company’s sales manager for marine technologies. “The instructor mimics the threat and the students act as force protection boats. They maneuver against the perceived threat and drive the boat away from a high-value target. All of the boat models are hydrodynamically correct so that when one boat moves against the other it will push the other one out of the way.”
Angle’s simulation system, WaveLore, which was developed for the Navy ROTC unit at Ohio State University, also emphasizes team skills. “It was not designed to for a single person to practice ship handling skills in an isolated environment,” said Schmidt.
WaveLore is based on commercial PC and off-the-shelf graphics card technology and employs large LCD and LED screens to emulate the bridge environment with a 180-degree view. Separate smaller screens allow trainees to practice compass, radar, and other skills. The system also interfaces with voyage management systems and digital charts.
There is also a separate screen which allows the instructor to set up various scenarios, such as conducting the exercise at certain places, at different times of day, and with different weather and current conditions, as well as with different other vessels in the area.
“The instructor can also record and playback the exercise for purposes of critique,” said Schmidt. “If the students placed themselves in a position of no recovery, he can rewind and redirect them so they don’t do things quite so poorly the second time. The exercise can also set be up as one of several ships. There is a networking capability so that three or four of these simulations can be run all at same time locally over a local area network or across the web so that it can be a very wide-area network.”
MPT operates a Class A facility as certified by DNV, which includes three full mission bridge simulators—with a fourth to be added later this year—as well as others that train on radars and other controls and operations. “The bridge simulators allow for unrestricted service for any vessel size or type,” said Morley. “They can be switched out and used for anything from single engine tanker to a twin engine tugboat. We do a lot of integrative bridge system trainings on navy models, coast guard models, and merchant models.”
The simulations for the main bridges are projected directly to a curvilinear screen measuring 120 feet long by 14 feet tall. For smaller bridges LED panels are used for projections. MPT simulators range from 110-foot Coast Guard cutters to the Arleigh Burke class of naval destroyers. MPT’s customers include the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard, the Army Corps of Engineers, as well as other Western Hemisphere navies and coast guards.
Vstep offers the NAUTIS range of maritime training simulators, which is used to polish skills such as basic ship handling and maneuvering, fleet maneuvering, and mission rehearsals for vessels ranging from small RHIBS to larger frigates. “Vstep offers a full range of simulators, from desktop trainer to full mission bridge simulator,” said van Schothorst.
Maritime simulation training often takes a crawl-walk-run type of approach, in Woolley’s experience.
“In a ship handling exercise, the first step might be to get the ship away from the pier in perfect weather,” he explained. “The next would be to move the ship away with the weather pushing the ship back onto the pier. Next might be a scenario where the weather is pulling the ship away from the pier. In a channel navigation exercise, the training might start with navigating a channel without much traffic, then a smaller channel with more traffic, and later nighttime maneuvering with lots of traffic.”
Nautic has been used to train for refueling at sea, Woolley said. “Two ships must come within a few feet of each other and hook up fueling hoses while maintaining a steady course,” he said. “The nice thing about it is that it can be done on a PC or full-scale land-based simulator. Often, a new officer will sit with a seasoned officer and practice two or three times before having to do it at sea.”
Kongsberg has a full range of simulators with various applications, related Burry. Ship handling simulators range from desktop versions to full mission bridge simulators and applications range from basic navigation and blind pilotage to radar training, naval officer training, and search and rescue, emergency response, and anti-terror operations.
“On the hardware side, all simulators are PC-based, operating on a range of Windows-based software platforms,” said Burry. “Our main simulation software products are Polaris, for the ship’s bridge simulator, and Neptune, for engine room and cargo handling operations. These are proprietary programs that have evolved over several generations since our first simulator delivery in the early 1970s.”
On the visual side, Kongsberg uses COTS plasma and LCD monitors, in addition to a range of projection technologies. “We are moving increasingly to software applications with touch-screen technology interfaces which offer incredible flexibility and space-saving benefits,” said Burry.
While Kongsberg has standard hardware and software available, “every system is a custom solution,” Burry emphasized. “Whether we are responding to a tender specification or meeting with a customer to listen to their needs,” said Burry, “we work with customers to understand their requirements and to build a tailored solution that meets the functional requirements and desired training outcome from the ground up. Once a customer’s requirements are determined, we take a look at the customer’s facilities and often work in new or renovated spaces to custom-fit our simulators in the available footprint.” Kongsberg’s simulators are modular in design, meaning that customers can add, enhance and connect new functionality at any time. “On the bridge side, the same software used to run a Polaris desktop simulator is also used to run a full mission simulator,” said Burry. “Kongsberg has also adapted its Polaris and Neptune simulators to interface to and work with learning management systems to deliver simulator-based training customized to stated learning objectives and performance criteria.”
Kongsberg has developed the eCoach electronic mentoring exercises for rules of the road and other course topics for instructorless simulator exercises that track, guide, correct and assess the student’s performance in pre-programmed exercises that can be run in a classroom setting, aboard ship, or remotely via an intranet or internet connection.
The future of maritime simulation will likely involve greater levels of integrative training among different aspects of vessel operations as well as coordination between naval and other aspects of military operations. “Practicing team skills will always be in demand,” said Schmidt.
“The bridge and engine have to work together to make the ship run as effectively as possible,” said Park. “An integration of engine and bridge training capabilities would foster cooperation between the two departments which traditionally have been separate. There is growing interest in bringing different types of simulations in one exercise.”
Along the same lines, van Schothorst sees the possibility of joint simulated training exercises between land and naval forces. “We are involved in a combined project with the makers of Virtual Battle Space,” or VBS, a leading simulation for ground troops, “to practice landing operations. The troops would be controlled by VBS and our simulation would control the naval forces.”