Real time, theater wide, military grade tactical battle simulator has been available to the public s

Back in 1995 a friend of mine shared his excitement over a little known PC flight sim developed by Russian Eagle Dynamics team called Su-27 Flanker.

After evaluating the software I was just as impressed as he was. Programming sophistication levels created a simulation engine efficiency levels of which were though to be unattainable from a consumer 486 based PC system.

As I predicted, the nature of that project evolved into a very sophisticated military training program.

Currently the sim is in its third generation, and while various consumer releases are available to the general public (Flanker2, LockOn, Flaming Cliffs, Black Shark, etc) a military grade training sim has been officially released.

PRESS RELEASE

The Fighter Collection to Demo Simulation & Training Modules
at ITEC 2006

DUXFORD, UK, May 1, 2006 – The Fighter Collection will demonstrate “The Battle Simulator”, a synthetic environment encompassing air, sea and land operations on Stand 666 at ITEC 2006, which will be held between Tuesday May 16 and Thursday May 18 in London’s ExCel Centre.

It's called "The battle simulator" and is based on the Fighter Collection Simulation Engine (TFCSE)

www.thebattlesim.com...

Specifically, a training course for Forward Air Controllers has been developed on the bases of Forward Air Controller
Simulation Engine (FACSE)

PC based system for training Forward Air Controllers based on The Fighter Collection Simulation Engine (TFCSE).

www.thebattlesim.com...

Naturally sim allows for in deapth training on various rotary and fixed wing aircraft.

A good example is a 15 minute start up procedure of the KA-50 attack helicopter.

Video here;

www.thebattlesim.com...

Other available models are A-10A Warthog, F-15C Eagle, Su-27 Flanker B, MiG-29 Fulcrum A, MiG-29 Fulcrum C, Su-25 Frogfoot, Su-25T, Su-33 Flanker D, with F-16, F/A-18 currently under development.

Here's an interesting part;

Flight Modeling

TFCSE offers a variety of different flight models that can be adjusted by the end user through the use of editable tables and input schemes to suit classified requirements.

TFCSE engine also allows for classified data to be entered into Artificial Intelligence Modeling, Physics Modeling, custom Weapons Effects, etc.

Custom Data Capability

TFCSE will accommodate the ability for the client to enter specific parameters and performance variables permitting input of classified and sensitive data in a controlled environment. The LUA code base is exceptionally adaptable and flexible for optimum customisation.

www.thebattlesim.com...

Further more, Mission Recording-Replay allows for mission recording/exporting.

TFCSE engine also incorporates Data Export Capability based on Lua scripting language.

Data Export Capability

The engine uses the Lua scripting language (www.lua.org) which offers excellent data export and integration characteristics. HLA compliancy is being integrated.

Here's the heart of the sim.

Mission Creation and Editing

TFCSE offers a powerful and flexible mission editor designed to permit any type of planning requirements. A real time command module for runtime mission modification is under development. An assets management module for integration to the mission editor is also under development.


Battle environment, mission planning

* Any type of FAC mission can be created by the Instructor.
* Indirect fire can be introduced during mission planning.
* For scaled complexity, adjustable skill levels and missile effectiveness for AI aircraft, vehicles and defense systems is available.

Now to the commercially available titles.

The most interesting part is that a basic version of the very same engine can be purchased for about 25 bucks in your local computer store.

Land, air and Naval units are governed by an extremely sophisticated artificial intelligence engine.

I have been scripting various mission for some time now, and limitless possibilities of such virtual reality never ceases to amaze me.

While consumer sim capabilities are limited in comparison to the current mil grade "Battle Simulator" release, the engine core is essentially identical to the publicly available game titles.

LockOn, Flaming Cliffs and Black Shark all include an in depth mission scripting engine. The scope of mission building is limited only by the processing power of the computer.

A campaign mode allows for a very sophisticated and in depth causality based mission scripting.

Even now, given a database of any given countries military capacity, (let's say Iran/Syria), when politicians on the payroll of the private sector attempt to instigate war, it is currently possible to play out limited simulated scenarios of various military attack/defense strategies, and their resulting loss of life.

Considering the incredibly sophistication of the already available sim, further development of this incredible project will evolve into an incredibly robust mil grade simulator available to general public.

At that point even before a conflict begins, a private citizen will be able to see for him/her self how any given military conflict might actually play out, amount of resources it will consume, amount of material loss and loss of life involved parties will suffer, and given the ability to integrate asset/cost data along with economics engine, it would even be possible to estimate various monetary costs of such endeavors.

Image the political fall out of such technology when it becomes as wide spread as let's say google earth, weather prediction, and economic trend prediction.

The price of war right on your desk top.

Personally, I can't wait for that day.

I remember when the original Sim came out in the mid 1990s, at first site the gif looking graphics looked not so good but the level of detail and realism in the SAM system modelling REALLY impressed me. I don't play computer games much if at all so this passes me by, but of all the games out there this is really impressive from an accuracy standpoint.

I remember watching a show about ODS and the predictions/battle simulations done then. The US military was not expecting the ground war to be so quick and successful, all the simulations and predictions it had done gave MUCH higher casualty and time results. Now one of the planners involved in these simulations was asked what percentage of Iraqi's surrender in his battle simulations? And he said none, in our simulations they all fought until the last man, of course we all know that's not what happened in ODS. So while any future sim might be fun and exiting to fool around with they cannot accurately predict how any given war will turn out. So I don't think future policy makes will rely on what they would consider a "video game" for decision making.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I remember watching a show about ODS and the predictions/battle simulations done then. The US military was not expecting the ground war to be so quick and successful, all the simulations and predictions it had done gave MUCH higher casualty and time results. Now one of the planners involved in these simulations was asked what percentage of Iraqi's surrender in his battle simulations? And he said none, in our simulations they all fought until the last man, of course we all know that's not what happened in ODS. So while any future sim might be fun and exiting to fool around with they cannot accurately predict how any given war will turn out. So I don't think future policy makes will rely on what they would consider a "video game" for decision making.

That's a fair point but I don't think that's how these simulations are used. I might be wrong on this but common sense might be to play the scenario through thousands of times with various variables and distill distinct statistal rationalisations from it. Trying to answer questions like "how many squadrons of Eagles should I deploy to nulify 33 Su-30s which are supported by "x""? Like all things, it's just another tool in the box and in this case, a relatively cheap one. A smart addition would also factor in deployment/support/consequentual costings. And maybe be better able to simulate counter-insurgency warfare.

[edit on 5-9-2006 by planeman]

You are absolutely correct planeman. I've been running such scenarios. A standard carrier group with AWACS support against robust SAM networks and so forth. Do to difficult terrain, time and time again Stinger/Igla SAMs proved invaluable in defense against CAS flights.

I used SAM coords i Crimea that planeman shared with me to set up both standard peace time deployment and full alert status sites.

Interesting results. SAM network was able to effectively repel multiple waves of cruise missile attacks time and time again.

The only way I managed to penetrate the defenses was by setting up very risky anti-radar missions along with massive B-52 cruise missile strikes.

The losses were always very high even when using multi-directional terrain masking attacks from both fixed wing and rotary aircraft.


Naturally there are limitations. For example, even though Bereg is featured, the commercially available engine does not include static and mobile coastal defense systems, but even with out them, given sufficient air cover, just the firepower of Tarantul III class seriously jeopardizes the carrier group.

Air launched cruse and anti-ship missiles are absolute nigh mare.

The result are definite, at least on the bases of the sim. When facing a formidable opponent, the defense of the carrier group requires full commitment of so much resources that it simply does not leave much for offensive operations.

Unfortunately active submarines are also not featured in public releases.

I remember watching a show about ODS and the predictions/battle simulations done then. The US military was not expecting the ground war to be so quick and successful, all the simulations and predictions it had done gave MUCH higher casualty and time results. Now one of the planners involved in these simulations was asked what percentage of Iraqi's surrender in his battle simulations? And he said none, in our simulations they all fought until the last man, of course we all know that's not what happened in ODS.

This is where good old intel comes in. Knowing the morale level, training level, and available assets is simply essential. Such variables are easily translatable and can be integrated into the simulation.

So I don't think future policy makes will rely on what they would consider a "video game" for decision making.

It's far from being a "video game". Such scenarios have been ran on supercomputer since the 60s, just with out all the pretty pictures, and it exactly what policy makers have been relying on. Advances in technology simply allowed to bring such capability to the desktops of curios guys like us.

Originally posted by iskander
It's far from being a "video game". Such scenarios have been ran on supercomputer since the 60s, just with out all the pretty pictures, and it exactly what policy makers have been relying on. Advances in technology simply allowed to bring such capability to the desktops of curios guys like us.

Advanced battle sims making policy? Plug and play boys lets give them what they want to hear. Or worse, we might have people like McNamara with modern day stupid IBM cards trying to run a war by statistically generated results. Yeah sure boss we're wining because you and the "Wiz kids" say we're killing x amount of people for x amount of ammo spent. Sorry iskander but I'm not convinced. Helpful? yes. Fun? yes. Should it dictate policy and decision making? NO

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Advanced battle sims making policy? Plug and play boys lets give them what they want to hear. Or worse, we might have people like McNamara with modern day stupid IBM cards trying to run a war by statistically generated results. Yeah sure boss we're wining because you and the "Wiz kids" say we're killing x amount of people for x amount of ammo spent. Sorry iskander but I'm not convinced. Helpful? yes. Fun? yes. Should it dictate policy and decision making? NO

I hear your points, food for thought. But personally I hope that simulations are a key (though not exclusive) factor in deciding military policy/procurement/training etc. Modern technology is advancing at an incredible rate - the computer proccessng power that designed the F-22 is probably less than most modern office's IT resources. Provided the simulations are sensibly designed and employed, I think that they should be levereaged.


The human brain, or maybe ego, is the most fallible of all deductive reasoning tools. The amount of military blunders that with hindsight seem inexcusible that are down to human vices like egos, stubboness, focusing on things that interest the person etc etc. The US' not warning it's troopsat Pearl Harbour of the impending attack even though it KNEW it was coming that morning, the Israeli's appaulling reading of intelligence in 1973, Syria's stupendous defeat in 1982,Allied commanders preocupation with Predator intel in Kosovo etc.

The human brain also provides the opportunity to seize and exploit situations that computers can't anticipate. This has led to some improbable military victories. So the brain swings both ways.

Having worked in military planning, including campaign planning for certain operations, simulation and modelling is used extensively, but primarily in specific engagement scenarios. Red Teams provide the bulk of the cognitive inputs at the strategic and operational levels. Once the actual operation commences, simulation is used to assist mission planning, rehearsal, targeting and weapon effects estimation, and collateral damage prediction (ie these things are much more useful at the tactical level). I haven't seen an operation yet where the commander has signed off on a plan because a simulation or model said so. It still comes down to people having to go with what they feel is "right". As Westy said, fun and useful, but not a policy shaper. Will this change in time? Maybe. In fact probably. But the current tools simply don't provide the measure of confidence required.

Originally posted by planeman
I hear your points, food for thought. But personally I hope that simulations are a key (though not exclusive) factor in deciding military policy/procurement/training etc. Modern technology is advancing at an incredible rate - the computer proccessng power that designed the F-22 is probably less than most modern office's IT resources. Provided the simulations are sensibly designed and employed, I think that they should be levereaged.

I agree but the way in which iskander wants to use them I'm not so comfortable with. Yes they can be a helpful tool but its not the end all be all, should we have stayed out of ODS because our battle Sims were telling us that we would suffer high casualties? That's my concern you shouldn't follow these results religiously, but they can be a "guide", so to speak.


[edit on 5-9-2006 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Advanced battle sims making policy? Plug and play boys lets give them what they want to hear. Or worse, we might have people like McNamara with modern day stupid IBM cards trying to run a war by statistically generated results. Yeah sure boss we're wining because you and the "Wiz kids" say we're killing x amount of people for x amount of ammo spent. Sorry iskander but I'm not convinced. Helpful? yes. Fun? yes. Should it dictate policy and decision making? NO

Calm down kid. Iksander never proposed such a simulation be used to dictate national policy, he simply raised many speculative uses and capabilities of such incredible technology. He was doing something called "keepig an open mind." Give it a try and stop putting words in other's mouths. Its getting really old.

I remember watching a show about ODS and the predictions/battle simulations done then. The US military was not expecting the ground war to be so quick and successful, all the simulations and predictions it had done gave MUCH higher casualty and time results. Now one of the planners involved in these simulations was asked what percentage of Iraqi's surrender in his battle simulations? And he said none, in our simulations they all fought until the last man, of course we all know that's not what happened in ODS. So while any future sim might be fun and exiting to fool around with they cannot accurately predict how any given war will turn out. So I don't think future policy makes will rely on what they would consider a "video game" for decision making.

A bit of "revisionist history," well, not really. For the lack of a better term. Simulations conducted by the RAND Corporation (I'm not exactly sure) shortly before DESERT STORM commenced actually showed everything that would end up happening in the actual DESERT STORM. One thing this organization's simulation took into account that the other simulations didn't was the concept of morale and mindset of the Iraqi troops. When that factored in, the end result ended up demonstrating exactly what would actually end up happening by the end of February, 1991.

So yes, at least in retrospect, all things considered, computer simulations do offer perspectives that can otherwise be seen only by actually conducting the war. In anticipation of your usual tactics, I am in no way advocating the usage of these simulations as an active doctrine of national policy. I'm saying they need to be taken advantage of.

On the subject of the simulation, I own one of the original copies of SSI's Su-27 and it was and still is one of the best air warfare simulations and simulations of a single fighter aircraft. Its amazing that an engine that was developed 11 years ago is still very much alive and being used in other, more meaningful ways. Bravo, bravo. I've gotta start playing Su-27 again and find out how to actually pull off the Pucachev Cobra.

I will definitely check this out. Great find, iskander.

[edit on 5-9-2006 by sweatmonicaIdo]