Examining the Effectiveness of LVC Training: Are We Meeting the Mark?
Joseph Lomangino
Gov Civilian, USMC (Ret) | Live, Virtual, & Constructive Training Environment (LVC-TE) Expert | Project Manager | Modernizing training modules to elevate the efficacy, adaptability, and efficiency of the US Marine Corps
In recent years, Live, Virtual, and Constructive (LVC) training has become a cornerstone of military preparation. Integrating physical training (live), simulated environments (virtual), and computer-based entities (constructive) promises a seamless, comprehensive approach to readying our forces. However, amid this innovation, it is prudent to ask: Is LVC training as effective as intended, or does it fall short of expectations?
One fundamental question concerns realism. While virtual and constructive simulations offer safe and scalable alternatives to live training, they often lack the physical stressors, unpredictability, and tactile elements that real-world operations demand. For example, simulated environments cannot fully replicate the disorienting effects of inclement weather, chaotic battlefield sounds, or the physical strain on equipment and personnel. Are we adequately preparing troops if the simulation doesn’t completely mirror reality?
There are also concerns about interoperability and adaptability. LVC systems rely heavily on complex, interoperable technologies, which can be challenging to maintain across platforms. This dependency raises the risk of disruptions due to technical malfunctions, outdated software, and network instability. In combat, there are no guarantees for smooth digital interfaces. Thus, relying on these technologies might foster overconfidence in systems that may not always be operationally viable.
Moreover, resource constraints are a significant factor. LVC training requires extensive logistical and financial support, often leading to a trade-off between cost and coverage. Smaller units and allied partners may not have access to the same advanced LVC capabilities, potentially creating disparities in training quality.
Lastly, LVC training must align closely with current doctrine and operational needs. In a rapidly evolving conflict landscape, there is concern that simulations may not stay current, risking obsolescence.
While LVC training offers a valuable toolset, questioning its effectiveness pushes us to refine and balance the approach.
What tangible, repeatable examples of LVC training have you observed that bridge the gap between simulated and real-world operational readiness? Please leave your comments. Actively looking for practical examples with specifics.
Executive Director | Human Performance Optimization, Training Design, Immersive Technology
3 个月Depends on what trying to accomplish. Has measurement been defined? Let's chat more at I/IITSEC
CEO, Peabody Science & Technology Services
3 个月Questions I wrestle with include: Do our MC M&S capabilities now or planned enable us to train the right stuff? Many of our current M&S capabilities have a history whereby they made sense at the time; but do they still make sense? M&S software systems are expensive to evolve; has this time/dollar expense caused a drift where we may be partially missing target? To a large extent, we all know what the most dangerous next fight is all about. A thought exercise involving a consideration of the full team involved in the next fight: 1. What 12 things might cause us (the full team) to fail in the first six months of the next fight? What 12 things might cause us (the full team) to fail in months 7-60 of the next fight? And how would I rate our current/planned LVC training against this list of 24 items? We know we do a lot of things well today; I'm more interested in training the things we don't do well. I know we know a lot about how we will fight and adapt where necessary; I'm more interested in the areas where we are not sure how we will fight, or how we will adapt. These are my thoughts on how we should evaluate our current/planned vectors on LVC training. Once we've got into the next fight, it's too late to think this way.
Joint Fires Synthetic Training Warrant Officer, British Army. Actor and Voice Artist.
4 个月An interesting article and a valid discussion. Personally I feel the LVC training has become essential to ensuring that our armed forces are better prepared before undertaking 'Fully Live' training. Get the sets and reps done in a safe to fail environment where mistakes are identifiable and learning can take place. The challenge I think you pinpoint here is, how do we prepare troops and equipment to the rigours of warfare. For me, that's the focus of effort.
Technical Director at Cervus.ai
4 个月Exactly this being imaginatively exercised and tested by Koninklijke Landmacht on Exercise BOLD QUEST 24 ????. Sander Cruiming