Q&A: Captain Larry S. McCracken

Naval Training Commander
Supporting the Navy Warfighter with Superior Training Systems



Captain Larry S. McCracken
Commanding Officer
NAVAIR Orlando Training
Systems Division

Navy Captain Larry S. McCracken is a 1978 United States Naval Academy graduate with a Bachelor of Science degree in engineering. He was designated a naval aviator in June 1980 and reported to VS-41 for S-3A fleet replacement pilot training. Upon completion of training, he reported to VS-22 Checkmates at Cecil Field, Fla. During his tour, VS-22 deployed in USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67) to the North Atlantic, Mediterranean and Indian oceans.
 
In November 1984, McCracken reported to commander Air Anti-Submarine Wing ONE where he served as the wing safety/ NATOPS officer and East Coast pilot NATOPS flight evaluator. In May 1987, McCracken reported to the staff of commander, Carrier Group FOUR/SACLANT Carrier Striking Force, as assistant air operations officer and staff tactical action officer. He was responsible for Carrier Battle Group training, airspace coordination/ management, and battle group air logistics.

In November 1989, McCracken reported to VS-27 for S-3B refresher training before reporting to VS-24 Scouts in April 1990. He served as the administration and operations officer, completing a deployment that included Arabian Gulf operations in operations Desert Storm and Provide Comfort support in the Mediterranean.

McCracken then attended the Naval War College, earning his master’s in national security and strategic studies in November 1992. He then served as S-3/ES-3 deputy class desk, Naval Air Systems Command, Washington, D.C., where he was selected for operational command.

In April 1994, he returned to VS-41 for S-3B refresher training before reporting to the deployed VS-35 Blue Wolves as the executive officer in July 1994. He assumed command of the Blue Wolves in October 1995 and deployed in USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) in May 1996. In January 1997, McCracken reported aboard USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) as navigator, completing a yard period, workups and RIMPAC before deploying in November 1998. McCracken reported to Naval Air Systems Command Propulsion and Power Engineering as the military deputy and member of the Propulsion Management Board (PMB) in December 1998. In September 2000, McCracken reported to program manager, Navy Aerial Targets and Decoys, as deputy.

In June 2002, McCracken reported to NAVAIR Orlando Training Systems Division as the executive officer.

McCracken has more than 4,000 flight hours and 700 arrested landings. His personal awards include the Meritorious Service Medal (two awards), Strike/Flight Air Medal, Navy Commendation Medal (four awards and combat “V”), Navy Achievement Medal and various campaign, unit and service awards.

Captain McCracken was interviewed by Jordan Fuhr.

Q: Captain, thank you for taking the time to speak with MT2 and share your thoughts with our readers. Could you please start by discussing how you, as the commanding officer, ensure that NAVAIR Orlando meets its mission objective as the principal Navy center for research, development, test and evaluation, acquisition and product support of training systems?

A: What we have here in Orlando is a complete set of professionals who are capable of meeting all the requirements when it comes to providing training products to the fleet and to our other customers. On the system side, it involves program management, contracting, logistics support, engineering, research psychologists and training specialists who have a wide variety of technical skills. On the “house” side, we have corporate operations, which covers a wide range of services, including human resource management, legal, comptroller and information-technology support. So we have all of the entities here in Orlando that we need to support the fleet with training systems. That includes requirements analysis, research and development, procurement support, training systems operation and support, and updates and modifications to current systems. In addition, we also provide those services to our Army, Marine Corps, Air Force and Coast Guard counterparts.

Q: How many people are assigned to your organization?

A: We have about 950 civilian employees, about 50 military personnel and about 200 contractors. Some of those personnel work at 45 other sites spread around the country providing support for deployed training systems. About 75 percent of the workforce has at least a bachelor’s degree; about 250 also have a master’s. We have about 40 specialists who have a doctorate degree, with about 15 or 20 more currently working on their doctorate thesis. So, it’s a fairly educated workforce, with most employees working in their specialty field. That’s pretty high synergy as we continue to hone our educational skills while delivering services to the fleet.

Q: How important is your co-location with the University of Central Florida, which is literally right next door to you, to your efforts in recruiting personnel in the simulation and modeling field and keeping tapped into the educational system?

A: We have a good working relationship with the university. We have student intern programs where we actually have students come in and work on projects with us. We also have many employees working on higher degrees and specialty studies needed in their jobs who attend resident programs right on the UCF campus. So our proximity to the university has a very positive and mutually beneficial effect on both of us. Some of the research being done by the university also supports our development programs as well. UCF has a very good modeling and simulation program, and they’re one of the few schools in the country who offer a comprehensive program leading to a doctorate degree in that field. Now, if you’re looking for schools offering studies in computer games curriculum, there are a lot of those. While UCF also has a game track, the modeling and simulation emphasis that we see through UCF is more in line with what we are looking at when developing training devices for the military. Having said that, we are also looking at expanding our use of games in our development programs.

Q: Another part of your mission is to provide interservice coordination and training systems support for the Army and Air Force. What sort of work have you accomplished in this area?

A: Just from a generic standpoint, the Army has been with us under a standing memorandum of agreement since about 1950—and where we’ve moved, they’ve moved with us. All of the technologies that we use are transferable between the services, so there’s a great sharing of knowledge and skill. One of the most recent examples of this coordination is the Distributive Mission Training for the F-18. We took the technology that the Air Force had developed and adapted it for use with the Navy’s F-18. Now we envision that that’s going to start playing in joint roles very shortly. So we’ll have multi-aircraft missions between Air Force and Navy aircraft. We’re also looking at further expanding that technology to other platforms. By having folks collocated with you, the ability to do that interface is much easier to do. You start seeing different technologies that could potentially solve an issue you may be working on. So you’re able to draw on that. Too, you may have something that someone else is looking for. Our virtual radio that we’ve developed for training systems is now being looked at not only for the joint training arena but is also being used in homeland security exercises and disaster preparedness programs as well. So there are a lot of different things that speak to the desirability of close interservice cooperation.

Q: What other training technologies is NAVAIR looking at to enable, not only interservice interoperability, but coalition training interoperability?

A: The Joint Forces Command has developed the Joint National Training Capability, so everybody’s geared to having training systems that plug into that. And that is becoming a driver in establishing the protocols necessary for all of the training systems we’re deploying to be able to operate either independently with a particular service or in a joint service exercise. In addition, our coalition partners, NATO, and so on, are also beginning to look at where their technologies would be able to plug in and start running multi-national exercises in a training environment.

Q: Do you see interoperability as being one of NAVAIR’s biggest challenges?

A: The biggest challenge I see right now in being able to work interoperably is to have all of the services operating with a common understanding and common framework and being able to share information freely across boundaries. Right now, with the current processes, and the way we are stovepiped in a budget environment, doesn’t preclude us from doing that interchange. But it does hinder the free flow of information because the parameters of any particular program are usually very specific. And trying to share those dollars and technology across the board can be a real challenge.

Q: Talking about joint operations, there has been emphasis recently on changing the mindset about that term. In other words, in today’s threat environment, “joint” needs to mean not only operations between the military services but must also include national agencies like the FBI and CIA, along with other law enforcement agencies. Could you speak a little about that?

A: As we go into future operations, they are going to be more and more multi-agency, not just a Department of Defense function. Along those lines, one of the things that the training world has brought to the table, for example, is the virtual radio. To have the ability to sit there and have various communications systems, including military tactical radios, talk to each other is a tremendous training asset. We can employ communications training not only from a site to an individual in the field using traditional radio waves, but we can also use, for instance, voice-over interactive protocols. Such a system allows us to tie in federal agencies, and even state and local agencies, into our training operations. So that’s an example of the kind of system that allows us to blur the lines between what is just a training exercise and what is operational. And as you go to live, virtual-constructive training, you may wind up with an operational mission that has elements of training thrown on top of it.

Q: How has the Department of Defense Training Transformation affected the way NAVAIR Orlando looks at training?

A: We’ve been an implementation group on training transformation. We are implementing the technology that allows the training transformation vision to take place, using interoperability and all the other elements that make up the program. We have not been on the board of directors or in the meetings, but we are implementing the policies and practices that they have put out.

Q: What is the Navy’s Aviation Simulation Master Plan, and how does it affect current and future simulators?

A: The Aviation Simulation Master Plan is allowing the Navy to use its simulators more effectively. We are taking readiness events that used to be flown in the aircraft, and by upgrading visuals and flight dynamics within the trainers, we’re able to take those things that used to be done only in the aircraft and getting credit—or partial credit—for doing them in a simulation mode. That, of course, is not a substitute for flying the actual mission, but it’s a very real way of getting more value from the training systems we have. Whether it’s getting someone used to a particular terrain or certain technology or technique—like dropping a bomb or employing a new weapons system—you’re able to do that in a simulation environment. Then, when you go out and actually fly the mission, that mission is much more valuable to you. It also allows us to budget for those technology upgrades and gives us the chance to have a development plan that, in the past, used to be very stovepiped and not an integrated effort in terms of budgeting.

Q: Is there any master plan like this for training surface or underwater assets?

A: Those plans are in the process of being developed. Training systems are being driven more from the school houses, but we’re seeing much more of a coordination effort in determining what needs to be upgraded and when.

Q: In terms of surface assets, are there any specific types of training technologies the Navy is looking at for the Littoral Combat Ships or the DD(X) program?

A: In general, from a training standpoint, we’re looking at blended solutions to try and come up with the best possible media for training, be it distance learning and using the stuff we get from the ADL co-labs or hardware training, or it could be 3-D graphics from a lot of unbelievably good companies that can take and render things in three dimensions for folks to be able to look at. All of us learn differently, and being able to put together a blended solution that will hit 95 to 99 percent of the population and get the message across is where we are going to go.

LCS is going to be an interesting challenge because of the size of the ship. Folks are going to have to be multidisciplinary in what they do, so a lot of cross-training, a lot of knowledge in different areas. It’s going to be interesting. So, how do we convey that or give that to the sailor that is now going to have to implement whatever skills he’s got or she’s got to carry out the task. That may be just-in-time training; it may be job-performance training they step through as they are going through something. It’s really wide open. It may be a game-based technology—a fun learning environment, but one that allows you to make mistakes and be penalized or rewarded for the way you do things.

So, when you look at those particular platforms, that blended solution is really what we’re looking for. It won’t be any one technology. It will be coddling together a lot of different things. Something as simple as being able to project a 3-D image using standard projectors and being able to manipulate that off of a standard PC and combine that with other capabilities.

Q: What role do you see Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) playing in the Navy’s immediate future?

A: The Navy has several programs coming in. One is Navy Knowledge Online, which is putting a lot more of our training, both technical and personal, in an environment where most sailors are able to get to it. We also have an integrated learning environment, where we’re working on the architecture for delivering that training, to include electronic classrooms, and how we’re going to be linking programs together. ADL is the standardization process that we’re going through to make sure all of those training elements can be delivered efficiently and effectively.

Q: How do you see gaming technology playing in your future?

A: Military games have been around for a long time. I remember when I was flying and our aircraft had just gotten the capability to deliver the Harpoon. And there was a Harpoon missile game that they used to help teach us targeting. And that was about twenty years ago. So gaming is here to stay. Games are going to become much more prevalent in military simulation programs. The technology has gotten better, the visuals have gotten better, and the computing speeds have gotten much better. Twenty years ago, we would not have believed the extent to which computer games are used today in military training. Some games can be easily customized to meet your particular needs. For instance, teaching soldiers which terrain route will support tank movement, or accurately portraying line-of-sight radio communication problems in hilly terrain. Those are the kinds of things we’re seeing on the gaming side, and we’re seeing more and more acceptance of the programs in the field. The younger generation of the military ranks are used to the technology. So they have adapted very, very quickly. And we need to make sure we continue to develop that type of training.

Q: Sir, what are your parting thoughts as you get ready to complete your tour of command?

A: This has probably been the most interesting, challenging and fun two-and-a-half years that I ever could have imagined. I’ve been privileged to have the opportunity to see some great technologies, work with some great people and to see where we have the potential to unlock a tremendous capability within the military in a variety of different arenas.
 
From humanitarian efforts to full combat—and all done in a virtual or training environment. We have more and more people working on programs and systems that can effectively teach a wide variety of missions, from multi-service efforts like protecting cities from terrorist attacks to seemingly simple tasks, like teaching a young soldier how to drive a truck in the snow. We have the technology, which is getting newer and faster and better every single day, and we’re applying it to our ultimate mission—supporting the warfighter. ♦

Back_To_Top