FUNDING POLICY FOR TRAINING DEVICES Dr. Davis, a letter written by Congressman Richard White of the House Armed Services Committee to Admiral Holloway has just come to my attention. Its subject bears on our hearing. Let me quote from the letter. It has come to my attention that certain provisions within the Department of Defense instructional system require you to fund first article new procurement training devices with R. & D. funding and require that procurement of follow-on devices be delayed until Government acceptance of the first article is completed. Is this the current procurement policy for new systems? Dr. DAVIS. Senator, I am not familiar with that letter. I have not seen it. As far as I know there has been no change in our procurement R. & D. policy. I would prefer very much to answer that for the record. Senator GOLDWATER. The letter was written April 3 and I will ask that this letter be made available to you and you can answer it. Dr. DAVIS. I would appreciate that. Senator GOLDWATER. The question I asked is: Is this the current procurement policy for new systems? You can answer that after you have read the letter to Admiral Holloway. Dr. DAVIS. Yes, thank you, I will. [The information follows:] FUNDING POLICY FOR TRAINING DEVICES The current DOD policy of funding for training devices is a result of a policy change; change No. 5, 12 August 1977; to the DOD Budget Guidance Manual, Part A Budget Formulation, Section 5-Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Chapter 251. This change states: “Training devices.—Training devices that employ new or off-the-shelf computers and system components, but have training system unique software and interface components, will be developed and procured with RDT&E funds. Typically, these trainnig devices have small quantity requirements and the initial or prototype device is used for operational training. The initial or prototype system and all of its support cost through service acceptance will be funded in RDT&E. RDT&E will not fund beyond the initial system unless more than one full system is required to demonstrate the training device performance." The above policy is directed at the question of appropriation coverage, i.e., what is the proper cut-off between RDT&E and procurement appropriations. The policy was developed pursuant to explicit Congressional direction in Committee reports over the last several years on this subject. The policy does not preclude the timely purchase of follow-on training devices where circumstances warrant. While it is true that OSD normally tries to assure Service satisfaction with the initial item before initiation of follow-on procurement, our policies are sufficiently flexible to permit such initiation where necessary training would otherwise be lost or unnecessary costs would otherwise be incurred. SIMULATORS PRODUCE BETTER PRODUCT Senator GOLDWATER. Your statement mentions that flight simulators produce other benefits in addition to saving fuel and flight hours. However, you do not mention the overall improvement in the quality of the training and the fact that flight simulators, in effect, produce a better product. Would you care to comment on that? Dr. DAVIS. I would certainly comment that based on experience, on testimonies provided to us by the operational commands, and on the controlled experiments we have done to date, that simulators do provide better quality pilots in whatever particular tasks the simulators are intended to be used. Those numbers which we are just beginning to collect and have some confidence in indicate grossly that in many instances pilots trained in simulators do better first in their instruction and, second, do better than pilots trained only in aircraft. Senator GOLDWATER. I would agree with that. I just do not want to see us placing too much emphasis on fuel saving because, while I am a great believer in simulators, I am also a great believer in flying airplanes. I think a balance between the two is a good idea. So, I suggest when you talk of these matters with the higher-ups, you do not let them con you on fuel savings. COST RATIOS Your statement provides a summary of variable operating costs of simulators and aircraft for fiscal years 1975 and 1976. As expected, the summary shows that simulators cost considerably less to operate than aircraft. Is the Department satisfied with these cost ratios? Dr. Davis. The Department is satisfied with the cost ratios. The costs of the technologies that we are using are decreasing and I would anticipate that we may have even more satisfactory costs ratios in the future. As I indicated in my verbal comments, the medium cost ratio is 12 percent; namely, that the simulator costs about 12 percent as much as an aircraft to operate, and I would anticipate that we would improve that ratio. Senator GOLDWATER. Then, you are going to always try to be making them better and not be satisfied. Dr. DAVIS. Yes, and the technology that we are using gives us every reason to believe that will happen. SYSTEM FIDELITY Senator GOLDWATER. Can you give any estimate of the fidelity level of these systems? Dr. DAVIS. The fidelity would vary in terms of the particular sensors that we were describing and in terms of the particular aircraft that will be simulated and the age of the simulators. It also would vary in terms of the particular task that was being performed, whether it was a pilot in air-to-air combat, whether it was simply a pilot attempting landing maneuvers, or a pilot in transition training. We have some studies that address that question, and I would be glad to provide additional information from the IDA study which documented these cost ratios. Senator GOLDWATER. We would like to have it. Thank you. [The information follows:] VARIABLE OPERATING COSTS The IDA study compared variable operating costs per hour in fiscal year 1975 and fiscal year 1976 for 33 simulators and their respective aircraft. The study included six airline simulators and 27 military simulators. The majority of the simulators are not representative of modern simulator technology although this varies widely. Technology ranged from old devices, such as the T-37, T-38 and F-106 simulators, driven by analog computers to modern simulators with motion bases, such as the UH-1 and S-3-A, which are driven by digital computers. Some simulators included in the study, such as the S-3A, B-747, and DC-10, have visual systems. PLATFORM MOTION STUDIES Senator GOLDWATER. Referring now to your platform motion system studies, what further studies are underway, or will be done in order to resolve this particular issue? I know that in helicopter simulators that is a decided problem. Dr. DAVIS. Right. I do have a list which I think it would be better to provide for the record, and in addition I believe some of our witnesses are going to be addressing that specifically. [The information follows:] MOTION EXPERIMENTS We have completed an experiment using the Simulator for Air-to-Air Combat (SAAC) in which we compared pilot performance under conditions of six degrees of freedom motion and no motion on eight basic air-to-air combat maneuvering tasks. The experiment is complete; the data are currently being analyzed and a report written. A motion-vision-"G" seat interaction experiment using the Advanced Simulator for Pilot Training (ASPT) has been completed and the report is in preparation. Experienced pilots were used, and variables such as turbulence, crosswind velocity, ceiling/visibility and field-of-view were investigated. No additional motion-no motion experiements will be conducted on the ASPT until the motion system response time is up-graded at the end of 1978. Then a visual-motion interaction experiment will be conducted which will examine wide and narrow field-of-view and motion-no motion conditions. CONGRESSIONAL PROGRAM CUTS Senator GOLDWATER. You mentioned that your R. & D. program has continued to suffer funding problems in congressional authorization and appropriation actions. I assume this means that some requests have been cut. Could you give me some specific examples? Dr. DAVIS. We will do that for the record. The problem has primarily been a gross cut made by other committees in the entire area last year. What we then had to do was to review the priorities we had set and determine what could be delayed. Thanks to this committee, the cut was much less last year than it would have been otherwise. I will provide for the record a list of not only the differences in the funds but some programs that either had to be delayed or deferred. [The information follows:] PROGRAMS REDUCED IN FISCAL YEAR 1978 The following list of actions took place on flight simulation programs in fiscal year 1978: The primary impact of the reductions is to delay programs in visual simulation. For instance, the Advanced CIG Sensor/Visual Simulation Program (Project 2364 in PE 63227F, whose objective is to provide efficient image generation from common sensor and visual data bases, was delayed one year. Other programs delayed a year or deferred include: demonstration of the use of a helmet-mounted display for training development and evaluation of low cost cockpit procedures trainers, development of a computer model for two on one air combat maneuvering, development of an advanced simulator testing system and determining the instructor pilot role in flight training simulation (to include instructor/operator station development). Senator GOLDWATER. All right, thank you very much, Dr. Davis, and now we can proceed to the next witness. AIR FORCE PRESENTATIONS Dr. DAVIS. The next witness will be Gen. Bill Maxson of the Air Force. STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. WILLIAM B. MAXSON, USAF, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF DEVELOPMENT AND ACQUISITION, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT General MAXSON. Thank you, sir, for the opportunity to represent the Air Force here today and tell you about our simulator programs. I plan to keep my remarks brief and will provide a copy of my full briefing with the charts I will discuss for inclusion at a suitable point in the record. There will be one theme that will come through, I hope. from my briefing, and that is simulators are a great adjunct, a great contribution to mission readiness. (See prepared statement p. 7040). We will talk about our Air Force philosophy and how the R. & D. program and the procurement program that we have support that basic objective of mission readiness. These are some of the things we know simulators can do, to help us in performing our mission better. I point out that actual combat tactics and realistic threat environment is very important in making our crews better ready to go into combat should that ever be necessary. We think that is the great value of simulators, making them ready to go to combat and put firepower on the target. LASER SIMULATION Senator GOLDWATER. Can you simulate laser illumination? General MAXSON. Sir, I am unable to answer that. I defer to Dr. Davis. Dr. DAVIS. We have no programs underway at the moment to simulate laser illumination of targets but it can be done. The brightness of the light and the speed, the set time and the speed at which the light hits the target would require considerable changes in the computer programs and in the light intensity levels. Senator GOLDWATER. It shouldn't be hard to do? Dr. DAVIS. It should not be hard to do. We are not at the moment so doing. Senator GOLDWATER. Thank you. SIMULATOR UNIQUE TASKS General MAXSON. Here I show some of the things that we can do with the simulator and only the simulator. At the top are some things that we would never do in an aircraft. We must do them in simulators if we do them at all. It is unique training for our people. They will never get it any other way. Particularly I want to talk about the actual combat in the threat environment work, surface-to-air missiles actually being fired at you. I will show how the visual systems can portray these things. Also improving training is a task for simulators. These items listed can be done either in aircraft or in a simulator, however, it is preferable to do them in a simulator, improve the training effectiveness of imparting knowledge, and then put the crew in the aircraft. SIMULATOR AIR REFUELING TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS Senator GOLDWATER. Let me ask you, do you find a great improvement in the pilot's ability to hook up with a tanker after he has had simulator training? General MAXSON. Yes, sir, I think we are going to see much improved effectiveness in doing that. I have done refueling myself, without the simulator, and there were a lot of visual cues I could have been made aware of before I got into a B-52 and hooked up with the tanker, that I was not able to simulate on the ground beforehand. There is no way to describe it without a visual system, and when you are in the refueling position, as you know, you are pretty busy trying to hang onto the boom and you find instructors trying to tell you about the visual cues. You are excited, possibly hyperventilating, to the extent that you can't quite concentrate on what the instructor is trying to describe. There are very excellent visual cues that you now can't get except in the aircraft. I think we are going to see a marked improvement in our B-52 pilots accomplishing a hookup with the tanker. I also got in the boom pod at the Wright-Patterson simulator to see how it looks from the tanker side. I don't know if you have seen that vet. They are going to be transferring it out to Castle Air Force Base later this summer, and it should be a great help to the boom operator |