Fidelity Requirements for Effective Live-Virtual-Constructive Training of Navy F/A-18 Pilots

Abstract

The Office of Naval Research (ONR) Live-Virtual-Constructive (LVC) training program seeks to safely integrate virtual tracks (display symbols that represent aircraft flown by pilots in simulators) and constructive tracks (symbols that represent computer-generated aircraft) into live F/A-18 E/F/G radar and cockpit sensor system displays to reduce resource demands and support new capability requirements in air combat training. In a preceding effort, the researchers identified a number of aircrew concerns about the design of LVC training technology and its potential effects on air combat training quality and realism. Based on these findings, the researchers conducted an exploratory survey to better establish and gauge LVC fidelity requirements. Thirty air combat training professionals completed the survey. The survey results, presented herein, will be used to guide LVC engineering decision-making and design trade-offs.

LVC Allocator: Aligning training value with scenario design for envisioned LVC training of fast-jet pilots

“…However, not knowing if a representation on the radar is a L-, V-, or C-entity could pose a threat and cause confusion (see also Sherwood et al). 20 However, given consideration and careful planning of LVC training scenarios, and the allocation of L-, V- and C-entities and their tasks, L aircraft could train with or combat adversary V aircraft without risking collision.…”

“…In training of fast-jet pilots, arguments that have been put forth in favor of LVC as a training concept are, e.g., environmental (less real aircraft in the air in training and exercises means less emissions) and cost benefits (flying real aircraft is expensive). 20 Training and exercises may be carried out at a lower cost and with less negative impact on the environment using LVC. More recent arguments have been presented that to a larger extent focus on training benefits, e.g., ''enhancing the training outcomes obtained from live flying''.…”

“…An interview study was conducted with aviators in the US Navy to explore the potential of LVC training. 19 The outcome was a number of typical cases describing different scenarios that are particularly suitable for LVC training. Based on the results from the interview study, another study was conducted in which flight instructors were asked to fill out a questionnaire about how they felt that realism and flight efficiency were affected by the introduction of LVC technology.…”

A Multi-Year Assessment of the Safety of Introducing Computer- Generated Aircraft into Live Air Combat Training

“…Safety concerns were grouped into five categories: human-computer interaction (HCI), which concerns the cockpit HCI design challenges that must be resolved before LVC can be safely implemented; exercise management, which concerns the increase in workload and complexity of exercise management caused by the addition of VC aircraft to training exercises; technologybased protection, which concerns the potential of the LVC architecture to create a security weakness in network or onboard systems, and potential safety concerns associated with the LVC architecture that depend on its level of integration with the F/A-18 Operational Flight Program (OFP); within visual range (WVR) operations, which concerns whether future air combat training rules should permit VC aircraft to merge with live aircraft; and training environment fidelity, which includes fidelity concerns about VC aircraft and their in-cockpit representation. These fidelity concerns include: the disparate speeds of simulated, state-of-theart adversaries and live F-5 adversaries; the potential for VC tracks to be fed into cockpit displays in ways that do not realistically simulate sensor system noise, ambiguity, and inaccuracy; and imperfect correlation of VC behavior across sensor system displays or displays that are out of sync with a pilot's offensive and defensive actions against a VC adversary (e.g., failure to accurately portray broken radar lock); and unexpected VC track behavior (Sherwood et al, 2015).…”

“…The present paper will describe the portion of that assessment work that focused on identifying and mitigating potential safety issues that might arise when the LVC paradigm is implemented. Earlier versions of this effort have been described in previous publications (Sherwood et al, 2013;Sherwood et al, 2015). However, consistent with the iterative concept development strategy being employed, the work is being performed over the course of multiple years, and recent progress has resulted in new findings and revised interpretations to report.…”