Q&A: Captain Stephen Burris

NAVAIR Warrior
Performance-Based Results in the Area of Cost-Wise Readiness



Captain Stephen Burris
Commanding Officer
The Naval Air Warfare Center,
Training Systems Division

Captain Stephen A. Burris graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1982 with a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering. He completed flight training with VT-7 located at NAS Meridian and was designated a Naval Aviator on July 6, 1984. Burris first served with the Sun Downers of VF-111 based at NAS Miramar. He deployed aboard the USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) flying the F- 14A with CVW-15 during the Iran-Iraq conflict. In 1989, he next served as an Air Combat Training Instructor with the Blackbirds of VF-45 located aboard NAS Key West. There he enjoyed flying the A-4E, F-5E and F-16N while serving as the unit’s section tactics instructor. Selected for entry into the Aerospace Engineering Duty Officer (AEDO) program in 1992, Burris reported to the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif. He completed his M.S. degree in aeronautical engineering in the spring of 1994. Following graduation he reported to VFA-125 for transition to the F/A-18 with follow-on orders as the High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) project officer assigned to the weapons division of the Naval Air Warfare Center located at China Lake, Calif. In 1997, he attended the Naval Test Pilot School at NAS Patuxent River, graduating with distinction as a member of Class 111. He returned to China Lake as a “Plank Owner” of the newly formed Naval Weapons Test Squadron, assigned as the senior military officer within the F/A-18 Advanced Weapons Laboratory supporting system integration and validation testing of the Super Hornet. He next served as the Joint Strike Fight X-35 Class desk officer during concept demonstration of the X-25A, B and C model aircraft. He was recognized as a 2001 Collier Award winner for his service on the JSF LiftFan STOVL demonstration team. He then reported to Air Test and Evaluation Squadron THREE ONE (VX-31) as the chief test pilot. Burris assumed command on Oct. 18, 2002, and successfully served as CO until April 2, 2004. During his tour, the command won the CNO Safety “S” and the Navy Meritorious Unit Commendation. Burris reported as the executive officer for NAWCTSD/NSA Orlando in June 2004. He volunteered to support Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) as the chief of staff for the Regime Crimes Liaison’s Office established by the president of the United States from October 2005 until April 2006. He assumed command on June 9, 2006, at NAVAIR Orlando, responsible for leading both NAWCTSD and NSA Orlando. Burris has logged over 3,300 pilot hours in 25 different aircraft, having accumulated 313 carrier-arrested landings. His personal awards include the Legion of Merit, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Navy Meritorious Service Medal, Navy Commendation Medal (2nd Gold Star), Joint Service Achievement Medal, and Navy Achievement Medal. Burris was interviewed by MT2 Editor Rodney Pringle.

Q: What is the mission of the Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division and what is your job as commander?

A: The mission of the Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division [NAWCTSD] remains that of providing life cycle support in the research, development, acquisition and sustainment of training systems required in today’s Navy. My job as the Commander of NAWCTSD centers around ensuring our workforce understands the expectations placed upon it by our Naval Air Systems Command [NAVAIR], the Navy and our Joint Force Combatant Commanders. Simply stated, I must communicate the needs of our Navy, translate those needs into strategic guidance for use at the command level, and ensure our personnel have what they need to accomplish their tasks. I also communicate back to leadership when we need outside assistance to meet the expectations of our senior leadership.

Q: What are your goals and objectives for NAWCTSD?

A: My top goal for the personnel of NAWCTSD is to ensure everyone has the opportunity to prepare themselves for the expectations and challenges put before them. In this area I am committed to programs that invite cross-training, early exposure to the demands of the command’s leaders, and workforce mentoring to build a future cadre of highly skilled, motivated and capable experts committed to meeting the future training solution needs of our Navy. I believe it is also vitally important that we never rest in understanding, challenging and reducing our cost of product delivery and product support. Our chief of Naval Operations [CNO] has set clear expectations for our Navy during a time of war and global challenge; to reach those goals requires tremendous focus and performance-based results in the area of cost-wise readiness. My aim is to foster that sense of importance and purpose among everyone serving our Navy within NAWCTSD.

Q: Could you talk about the history of your organization and how it has evolved through the years?

A: Our command was born out of the vision of Rear Admiral Louis de Florez when he established the Special Devices Desk in 1941, which evolved into the present-day NAWCTSD. He realized the importance of training-aid development to support our combat forces. From our earliest beginnings to the present, we have become known as a group of talented and creative personnel who are able to look at a mission requirement and find effective means of supporting the training of our sailors with devices, courses, simulators and experiences that ensure combat effectiveness when called upon to execute the Navy’s mission. Long before the theme park industry immersed their visitors in space rides and 3-D extravaganzas, our scientists and engineers were hard at work designing training solutions that taught an 18-year-old how to fight a fire in the hull of a ship, repair broken water mains at sea or fly a $35 million F-14A jet fighter without the benefit of ever riding in a two-seat trainer airplane. It is that spirit of creativity, mission understanding and commitment to solution delivery that has carried the command through more than six decades of success since its origin.

Q: NAWCTSD is recognized throughout the training community for its all-inclusive training systems technology expertise. Could you elaborate more on this?

A: I appreciate the characterization of NAWCTSD as a community leader in the area of training system technology expertise. I do think it important to note that I also find that expertise present today in many facets of both government and industry. Here in Orlando, I’m surrounded by dedicated professionals also hard at work in meeting the future training requirements of both the Army and Marine Corps. I work closely with the Air Force Training Systems Product Group headquartered in Dayton, Ohio. I am constantly reminded of the talent the industry possesses today with numerous interactions I enjoy throughout the course of the year. That said, I believe the one aspect of our organization that serves the Navy best is the strong interaction of our team and the tremendous range of experience present under one roof. I also greatly appreciate that, as our project teams, scientists and engineers tackle difficult future challenges, they find tremendous support from our in-service engineering offices located in the field. This wide-area network allows real-time questions and answers on system use, employment challenges, fleet feedback and problem capture from our own teammates who offer our in-house teams great support from afar.

Q: What does the term “Front-End Analysis” mean and what role does that play in the command’s training systems program?

A: To me, front-end analysis is requirements capture and definition, analysis and solution planning. It is extremely important because it ultimately sizes a design team, scopes resource allocation, establishes a delivery timetable and identifies the associated programmatic risk that should be expected based upon the acquisition strategy put in place. Equally important is the fact that if performed correctly it captures the fleet’s constraints in its ability to ultimately use a delivered training solution. For example if we deliver a product on the assumption that a trained device operator/ instructor will always support a training event, but then fail to provide that support, the fleet is left with a difficult and often ineffective training system. Similarly, if we develop and field a training course on a modern weapon under the context that four weeks is required to adequately train the operator on the employment of that weapon despite the operator’s career path only allowing four days or even four hours to learn the essentials—we failed to conduct a thorough collection and analysis of all applicable requirements. Getting a system-wide understanding and design right ultimately drives total cost of ownership to the Navy—this is vital to our meeting our future readiness goals without bankrupting our current readiness requirements.

Q: Could you talk about the training technologies at the command, including the High Level Architecture Program, the Simulation Middleware Object Classes and the Virtual Environment Training Technology?

A: All three of the technologies you mentioned were part of our science and technology program at NAWCTSD that have successfully been transitioned to our fleet customers. Our ONR-funded S&T program continues to work on new training technologies.

The High Level Architecture program started as an applied research [6.2 research funding category] effort back in the mid to late 1990s. This project investigated a scalable architecture for distributed interactive simulation [DIS] and a cost-effective transition from DIS to High Level Architecture [HLA] interconnections. The result was an architecture that allowed legacy DIS simulators to easily play in HLA exercises, connecting seamlessly to commercial on-demand networking services.

One of the major products of this research is the Simulation Middleware Object Classes [SMOC] software. A Cooperative Research and Development Agreement [CRADA], executed in 2000, was used to refine the software and widely distribute it for use in industry, as well as all of the services. This research on interconnectivity, coupled with our research on instructional strategies, provides part of the foundation for distributed training systems.

One of our current Advanced Development Research [6.3] projects is focusing on distributed training. The major objectives of Debriefing Distributed Simulation-Based Exercises project are to demonstrate advances in innovative intelligent agent technology that will automate, in part: 1) human performance data collection and team performance pattern analysis, 2) performance diagnosis, and 3) distributed debrief and after-action review.

The ongoing Virtual Technologies and Environments [VIRTE] project involves elements of both Applied Research [6.2] and Advanced Development Research [6.3]. Our investigations of the use of a virtual environment [VE] for training applications began back in the early 1990s with research on head-mounted displays, and the subsequent development and implementation of two training systems that are in use today. One system provided a virtual environment for training submarine navigation [VESUB]; the other, for training ship navigation during replenishment at sea [COVE].

The current VE technologies research builds on the early efforts, developing prototype, low-cost PC-based simulators that incorporate only the minimal degree of fidelity required to produce effective training. One of the recent prototypes was used to develop the specifications for the procurement of the training system for the Landing Craft, Air Cushioned [LCAC] vehicle significantly reducing the cost for the acquisition; and this research effort received the NAWCAD Commanders Innovation Award in 2003.
 
Follow-on VE technology research resulted in a prototype AAV turret trainer desperately needed by the USMC for training gunners deploying to the Mideast. This prototype was demonstrated at the 2004 Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation and Education Conference [I/ITSEC] in Orlando and is now under procurement. This effort brought together VE technologies with expertise in small arms simulation we had gained doing research for the Army and for technology transfer customers from other government agencies.

All of the research projects I have mentioned, which look at different aspects of training, apply—to a greater or lesser extent— advances in modeling and simulation in the areas of low-cost PC simulation, virtual reality and environments, intelligent agent technology and human performance measurement. What we try to do here at NAWCTSD is to bring engineering and cognitive science together to develop and nurture technologies and to build the best training systems that we can.

Q: What have been the biggest challenges to the success of NAWCTSD and how has the command met these challenges?

A: Our biggest challenges within NAWCTSD are much the same as those experienced throughout all of NAVAIR and the Navy within the past few years. Our senior leaders recognized that in order to make real gains in productivity, reducing our cost of ownership, and leveraging our talents as a collection of enterprise activities we would need to introduce new systems, capabilities and business processes at all levels of the Navy. NAVAIR led the Navy in several areas focused on these challenges. As a result we were one of the first organizations in the Navy to introduce the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet, institute the use of the commercial application SAP for enterprise resource planning and accounting, and look for innovative ways to apply Lean/Six-Sigma tools to a wide range of our industrial and business applications. Today, we are well on our way in each of those areas; however, to migrate nearly half a million personnel in the Navy to operate in a new and often complex environment does take its toll on our daily operations. Currently, we face an even more difficult challenge in finding ways to meet a growing product demand while simultaneously reducing our inhouse workforce total staffing levels. To meet aggressive staffing reduction goals, often our managers have found themselves in a difficult position of rapid knowledge capture mandates, or insufficient expertise in a critical area while trying to develop the next generation of experts. I am very proud of our staff in continuing to strive to meet customer performance expectations while reducing our overall end-strength from a high of 1,300-plus personnel a few years ago to our present force level of around 960 personnel, while simultaneously increasing deliverables during that same period by nearly 26 percent.

Q: What are the programs that NAWCTSD oversees?

A: Most of the programs the command delivers in support of the Naval Education and Training Command (NETC) to the Navy’s Learning Centers fall under a direct oversight role. The majority of our work, however, is conducted in support of the Navy’s ACAT-I programs where NAWCTSD serve as a part of the overall product team. We work closely to meet the needs of PMA 205, the aviation training systems program manager. PMA 205 operates at NAVAIR Headquarters and seeks direct project support in meeting the training system needs across Naval aviation drawing from a wide range of program management, contracting, engineering and logistics support specialties within NAWCTSD.

Q: What can industry do to best help NAWCTSD accomplish its mission?

A: Today, we call upon industry for innovative solutions to current and emerging training requirements. We will always look for industry to remain focused on best adhering to contract expectations in the areas of meeting cost, schedule and performance goals. We look for feedback on better ways to communicate our needs to a broad spectrum of potential providers in clear, timely and concise methods. We also succeed whenever we have teaming arrangements that demonstrate clear accountability in the areas of product performance, predictive schedules, and effective earned value management. As we move forward in the areas of Lean/Six- Sigma we will be looking for those companies that embrace the benefits of lean/six-sigma and demonstrate responsive and effective supply chain management on a routine and reliable basis.

Q: What is NAWCTSD’s involvement with the 2006 Interservice/ Industry Training, Simulation and Education Conference [I/ITSEC], and why is this annual conference so vital to the future of training for our services?

A: This year at I/ITSEC the Naval Services serve as co-principals in supporting the event. As such, Colonel Walt Augustin, USMC, and myself will enjoy many opportunities to address individuals and groups on the importance of this event in bringing together industry, academia and government personnel to address challenges facing our 21st century joint force and how best to train that force. For me personally, it hits very close to home, since this time last year I missed I/ITSEC due to my service overseas as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom and my role on the joint force under the command of multi-national force–Iraq. I got to experience firsthand the expectations of our theater combatant commanders and the challenges they face in rapidly bringing together a combined arms team capable of dealing with a constantly changing and very diverse set of mission objectives that are effects based in nature. Given that challenge, I believe that I/ITSEC offers a tremendous opportunity to share insight, recent lessons learned, and build new connections that ultimately yield product solutions to our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines engaged in today’s global war on terrorism.

Q: How does your background as a fighter pilot and test pilot help in your tenure as commander of NAWCTSD?

A: As a fighter pilot, I was privileged to learn from terrific instructors throughout my flying career. I got to watch firsthand people who can make an immediate difference in my own performance through their ability to share experience, and ideas on how to improve. Moving to the test arena I learned the importance of answering the question, “So what?” in terms government- industry teams can understand and respond to. I saw the impacts of having specific performance goals and measures of performance established early on in any program that were both testable and achievable. I observed the effect those benchmarks can have on galvanizing a team if the marks are well understood and often measured to assess a team’s progress. Probably the most important lesson learned was the requirement to seek a second opinion and engage in routine discussions with teammates. I believe these life experiences serve me well today on a daily basis as I strive to share my own lessons learned with those around me, and I try to learn from their individual experiences.

Q: We’ve often heard the term “Naval Aviation Enterprise”. Could you explain this for us, and tell us your role in NAE?

A: The Naval Aviation Enterprise is simply the concept of a wide range of very capable providers assembled across the Naval Air Systems Command and its Warfare Centers, the Navy Supply Command, and the Fleet Readiness Centers all aligned to the concept of delivering aircraft and aircraft carriers ready for tasking. Decisions are brought before the NAE’s Board of Directors headed by the Commander, Naval Air Forces. The board makes informed, cost-wise decisions on where best to place resources to get the right readiness at the right cost in meeting our tasking requirements and ultimately support the combatant commanders. We here in NAWCTSD provide two key inputs to the NAE. First, we deliver the solutions necessary to allow the fleet to deliver what I refer to as operators/maintainers ready for tasking; second we are constantly engaged in identifying and facilitating solutions that can effectively offload fatigue life on our combat weapons systems when and where it makes sense for the NAE on terms they define.

Q: Finally, what is the future of NAWCTSD’s role in the overall NAVAIR and Navy mission?

A: I believe the future of NAWCTSD is filled with the exciting challenge of reducing the time to deliver training systems, while extending their useful life and lowering operating costs and trimming the time and cost required to train our personnel. Our future Navy will demand even more of our sailors in ways we have yet to consider and with fewer total personnel manning a greater number of combatant ships than we have in service today. Our connectivity with the joint force will continue to escalate, our demands for information management and timely decision making will soar. To provide the caliber of 21st [century] leaders essential to successful combat operations, our Navy will need NAWCTSD, our Warfare Centers, our SYSCOMS and our industry team to continue to rise to the challenge of delivering those creative and innovative ideas that are on par with the vision of Admiral Louis de Florez when he first stepped forward and formed the Special Devices Desk. ♦

Back_To_Top