Create a free starter account, or log in.

Get access to four free articles per month, as well as our Decisive Edge Newsletters and Daily News Bulletin.

Email Address

Password

Forgot your password? Reset by clicking here

Create a Password

[[ req.met ? '✓' : '•' ]] [[ req.text ]]

Re-enter Password

Passwords do not match

First Name

Last Name

Country

Confirm your account

Please enter the four-digit pin below that has been emailed to you.

Didn't receive the pin yet?

This pin expires in 20 minutes.

[[ error ]]

By creating an account, you agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Stay informed with Shephard's award-winning journalism. Unlock unlimited access and in-depth analysis with a corporate or individual subscription.

Explore your options here

I/ITSEC 2021: Unintended consequences (Opinion)

24th November 2021 - 17:17 GMT | by Trevor Nash in Holsworthy

RSS

The 49th Wing at Holloman AFB trains the USAF’s F-16 pilots and will be the prime user of the expanded Talon Military Operations Area. (Photo: US DoD)

The increasing complexity of emerging technologies is placing pressure on the optimisation of military training. In particular, air force training comes at a premium, so the right balance of tools and techniques is crucial for cost-effectiveness.

Over the years, training coverage in Shephard has reflected the debate frequently aired in the military and industry concerning the live-virtual balance. In other words, how much live training needs to be completed compared to time spent in the simulator? With air domain training accounting for around 65% of all spending on training and simulation, this conversation usually focuses on flight simulation.

At present, the consensus is that the balance should be 50% live and 50% virtual. It is unclear how this figure was arrived at, but its adoption by some of the world’s most established and mature air

Already have an account? Log in