Introduction
Training regimens for Command and Control Air Battle Management (C2ABM) crews tend to follow a pattern of linear growth, mirroring a deployment cycle such as the current US Air Force Force Generation (AFFORGEN) model of Reset, Prepare, Ready, and Available to Commit. The 24-month force generation model is a convenient planning tool, like its formal and informal predecessors. However, fully aligning C2ABM unit- or individual-level training to this—or any—cycle turns crewmember training into what Simon Sinek might call a “finite game,” where efforts progress logically and linearly toward a defined end state. This limits C2ABM crewmember growth and proficiency, which, of course, should not simply end after any given 24-month period and instead should continue throughout each crewmember’s career as a form of “infinite game.” C2ABM units should implement training regimens that facilitate infinite growth to maximize the benefits of C2ABM crewmember experience over multiple AFFORGEN cycles.
Creating this new training regimen does not require the reinvention of any wheels; rather, it simply requires reapplying and refining existing training formats that have been developed and improved over the past years and decades of C2ABM training. An infinite-growth training regimen should consist of C2ABM-centric part-task trainers (PTTs), integration PTTs with supported and supporting forces, and combat-representative integration training events with supported and supporting forces against a realistic threat.
C2-Centric Part Task Training
C2ABM crews will naturally need to become adept in their specialties before they can reasonably expect to integrate with other supported or supporting forces. Once sufficiently skilled in these core duties, crewmembers must continue to practice these skills to maintain proficiency and achieve ever-greater mastery of their craft. To this end, C2ABM-centric PTTs should be a consistent part of a C2ABM crewmember’s professional life. The purpose of these PTTs is to build “muscle memory” so that the basics of airborne C2 execution become second nature to C2 crewmembers. This is best accomplished by narrowly scoping each PTT to focus on no more than one or two core skills and ensuring that each skill is practiced repeatedly throughout the PTT. Maintaining a narrow scope requires that these basic PTTs include a large number of repetitions. This focused repetition encourages the growth of myelin sheathing around relevant neurological pathways, which enables the brain to execute trained tasks quickly and accurately—a phenomenon commonly referred to as “muscle memory.” Skills that could become the sole focus of a C2ABM-centric PTT include approving airspace and transit requests, making air refueling plan changes, detecting and communicating fades, detecting and communicating pop-ups, detecting and communicating threats, providing targeting communication, taking specific Link-16 actions, and making specific manipulations to radar sectors, among others. The objective is not to create a realistic scenario; it is simply to build muscle memory for individual key skills.
The effectiveness of C2-centric PTTs can be further enhanced if crews are trained in the PTT, then debriefed by a competent instructor and allowed to immediately re-attempt the PTT while applying the instructional feedback – effectively adapting the familiar brief, execute, debrief (often called BED) model into a more effective brief, execute, debrief, execute (perhaps to be called BEDE) model. This new model would enable C2ABM crewmembers to immediately apply instructional feedback, which has been proven to improve skill retention and performance.
Because C2ABM-centric PTTs focus on narrow skillsets and feature significant repetition, these events are best conducted in a simulation environment without any external participants or at a live training range –such as an emitter or electronic warfare site– with no additional training participants. Due to the narrow scope of each PTT, some simulations may even be accomplished using a non-representative simulator, such as a standalone laptop with the relevant battle management software installed. Once key skills become second nature to crewmembers, it becomes possible to combine them into larger PTTs, with or without supported units.
Integrated Part Task Training
In addition to C2ABM-centric PTTs, crewmembers should regularly train basic integration tasks with supported and supporting units, including fighters, bombers, electronic warfare (EW) assets, and intelligence, surveillance, & reconnaissance (ISR) platforms. Wherever possible, these external participants should be “real,” training together with C2 crews either in a live-fly training airspace or via a distributed mission operations (DMO)-type simulation environment. This is strongly preferable to training using artificial external entities controlled by “sim drivers,” as real participants are far more reliable debrief partners that can provide feedback on what was helpful or unhelpful to them – not simply what other C2 crewmembers acting as sim drivers believe such external entities would have found helpful or unhelpful.
These basic integration PTTs should be crafted in collaboration with supported and supporting units to ensure mutual benefit. These scenarios should enable C2ABM crew members to apply skills honed during C2-centric PTTs in a larger scenario, while also informing them of the skills that are most beneficial to practice in C2-centric PTTs. Further, care should be taken to avoid over-complicating these basic integration PTTs, either through the addition of multiple mission sets or the introduction of an overly complex threat environment. The focus should be on individual crewmembers or small teams of crewmembers (e.g., a single battle management team [BMT]) practicing multiple basic C2ABM tasks as appropriate during a small scenario. Maintaining a relatively narrow scope enables crewmembers and teams to gain more repetitions of practice on small-team skill sets and small-scale integration with a limited array of supported or supporting assets, further enabling a focused debrief designed to improve future performance in these areas. It is important that C2ABM crewmembers plan, brief, and debrief with the assets with whom they integrate, as this interaction will enable all parties to learn how to better integrate with one another – a learned skill that will be important during larger training or contingency missions. These basic integration PTTs and C2-centric PTTs should represent the majority of a crewmembers’ regular training regimen, though these alone are insufficient to prepare crews for combat. As such, combat-representative integration training events should also be a common occurrence for all airborne C2 crewmembers.
Combat-Representative Integration
C2ABM crewmembers who are competent in their individual, small-team, and basic integration skills should also occasionally train in high-intensity combat-representative integration training. These training scenarios should require a complete crew to accomplish and should include integration with multiple supported and supporting assets. The primary objective of combat-representative training is not to enhance individual or small-team skills; rather, it is to apply these already-honed skills and practice employing them in or with support of external warfighting partners as a form of scenario-based training. As such, it is critical that combat-representative training be accomplished with “real” external participants, either in a DMO environment or during a live-fly exercise, to ensure that the trained integration is realistic and is not simply what a sim driver believed another entity would have done, if the sim driver even had the capacity to adequately focus on each entity in the first place. Inaccurate or overwhelmed sim driver inputs may result in negative training or the drawing of improper lessons during debrief, both of which should be determinedly avoided. Having described how not to accomplish such events, little is needed to describe how this training should be accomplished: it is well demonstrated during Red Flags, Weapons School Integration Phase training (WSINT), and other high-end exercises. Similar, well-established DMO-type simulated training events also exist, and no major refinements are required to their format.
Conclusion
In general, airborne C2ABM crewmembers should endeavor to accomplish no more than one combat-representative training event per week, unless attending a major exercise. Otherwise, the daily training focus should remain on smaller C2-centric and basic integration training events. It is essential to view C2ABM training as an infinite game, in which growth and improvement are continually pursued, rather than as a linear process where crew members start at a marginally competent level and progress into fully prepared crewmembers over the course of a training cycle. Certainly, that process must play out early in a crewmember’s career, after which point continued growth must be sustained, else any supposed benefit of “experience” is wasted. Taking this infinite approach means that even experienced crewmembers should spend significant time perfecting basic skillsets – ideally becoming so skilled that many training events are considered “boring” applications of muscle memory. Such a state of competence in C2 skills should translate into calm and steady competence during combat-representative training, or, if required, actual combat.
Lt Col Douglas “Opie” Foulk, USAF, is a Senior Air Battle Manager, currently on staff as a Legislative Affairs Officer at the United Stated Indo-Pacific Command. He previously served in various positions across multiple E-3G AWACS squadrons.
The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Air Force, Department of Defense, or U.S. government.
Photo by AfroRomanzo on Pexels
Leave a Reply