o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
All radars have been adjusted to create the new electronic battlefield. Changes also include creation of different types of RWR for different airplanes, and different visual envelope. ECM now works with Sylvain Gagnons EXE hex patch. There are also coverage zones and dead zones now. Internal jammers are implemented for some aircraft where appropriate. Rate of fire adjusted for all ground units. All the visual, radar, and RWR sensors on all aircraft have been separated out to facilitate individualization of sensors for each aircraft. New flight models included. New hit bubble changes that reflect accurate hit areas. SAMs fire properly at airbases and do not shoot into the ground. AAA and SAMs are no longer invulnerable when placed at airfields. The vehicle graphics have been fixed for the AA-11 and a new 3D model is included for AA12. Many 3rd party EXE patches have been tested and included, such as the external fuel patch, AI patches, and ECM patch. The modeling of active radar guided missiles such as AIM-120, AA-12 and AIM-54 has been revised. The launch of these missiles no longer triggers the RWR launch warning. AAA and flak effectiveness has been revised and depends on slant range and airspeed. Revised radar cross sections for airplanes, and all airplanes have unique visual and IR signature. A new AI wingman/element command, known as Attack Target, has been added. Two new air-to-air missiles, the PL-7 and the PL-8, have been created, and may be carried by the PRC J-7/MiG-21. Loadouts have been corrected on more aircraft, such as F-15, F-14, and F-5, MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-29, Su-27, F-18, and F-4. The B-1 loadout changes from F4Alliance is now included. New flight models for the A-10, B-52, B-1B, C-130, F-14B, F-15C, F-15E, F-16C, F-18C, F18D, F-4E, F-4G, F-117, MiG-29, and Il-28 are now included.
IBETA REALISM PATCH VERSION 3.0
Release Date: July 20, 2000 o The AAA has been readjusted. The blast radius values are still based on realistic numbers, and include references to warhead size, warhead type (flak vs. contact), cyclic rate of fire, and guidance. The new values diminish the power of the large-caliber flak guns, while still keeping the deadly nature of the smaller caliber tracer-type guns. Although the new blast values should make it easier to penetrate enemy airspace, there is still no substitute for good planning and combat tactics. Read the section of AAA Briefing in this document for additional intel on how to defeat the AAA threat. The ground and air-based radars have been improved to allow for more realistic detection performance. The roles of various aircraft have been adjusted to allow the aircraft to be tasked with more correct mission types. No longer will the A-10 be tasked to fly OCA missions against airbases! The sizes of the ground and air units have been adjusted to account for the difference in OPFOR vs. US/ROK size/strength. Separated out all of the flight model data for the aircraft this was done to facilitate future modifications for each individual aircraft.

deaggregated. However, if it is used from higher up and the player uses it to get as far away as possible from the battalion as quickly as possible, it is likely that the battalion will aggregate. This is similar to (c) above. It is clear why many of us were missing with bombs in the past, and indeed why it is that our wingmen were very variable in scoring with cluster bombs/napalm. Their success was VERY dependent on what YOU were doing - i.e. if you had deaggregated the battalion by flying close to it, using the AG radar cursor or the Maverick screen. With the old "bubble setting" of 4nm., it was common to miss these conditions. RECOMMENDED SETTINGS FOR UDDS AND ODDS The first thing to say here is that CAT-3 will NEVER be a problem with the new settings when bombing OBJECTIVES such as factories, bridges, etc. - the ODD for these entities are 30 miles, the same as for aircraft, which eliminates completely this problem since BOTH aircraft and objectives are deaggregated. Secondly, bombing fixed SAM sites, such as the SA-2 again should never be a problem as the UDDs for these battalions are set at the range of the SAM plus 10%. This was to ensure correct operation of the missiles, but has the added effect of essentially removing CAT-3 combat for the player, and making it much more unlikely for the wingmen - even using HARMs. A "realistic ideal" for the ground unit UDD is 7.5 miles as, except in very extreme conditions, this would have eliminated CAT-3 for the player. But considerations regarding frame-rates and the use of an unhacked exe dictated a lower setting. However, the setting of 6 miles for the ground UDD is still a huge improvement. Let's take the situations above. a) CCIP bombing from a shallow dive, release about 8000 feet Even less of a problem! It should be possible to bomb from 12,000 feet in a 25 degree dive at 500 knots and still keep the units deaggregated until the bombs strike, whatever you do after the bombs have gone. In a dive-bombing profile, the bombs are in the air for a shorter time and the release point is closer to the target so there is less time to get out of the bubble. b) CCRP level bombing from 12,000 feet at 450 KIAS Except when the player makes EXTREME efforts to get as far as possible from the battalion as quickly as possible, this should be OK. The only exception we can think of is when launched against by a SA8 just after the bombs are released. Dumping stores with a deep slice away from the battalion on full AB with a 30 degree dive to pick up speed will aggregate the battalion just before the bombs strike, but any other situation is OK. We suggest the following: Drop the bombs and then turn to beam the battalion dropping chaff (just in case) and then orbit the battalion, keeping it within 6 miles from you. Turn away from the battalion and, as soon as it is on your six, reverse the turn to beam it just in case of a SA-8 launch. Keep flying towards the battalion for about 2 seconds. Then do what you like!

Aircraft F-4 F-5 F-14 F-15 F-16 F-18 F-22 MiG-19 / J-6 MiG-21 MiG-23 MiG-25 MiG-29 MiG-31 Su-27 Su-30 J-5 J-7
IR WVR Missiles AIM-9 AIM-9 AIM-9 AIM-9 AIM-9 AIM-9 AIM-9 AA-2 AA-2 AA-8 AA-8 AA-8, AA-11 AA-8 AA-8, AA-11 AA-8, AA-11 AA-2 PL-7, PL-8

Semi-Active Radar WVR

IR BVR Missiles
Semi-Active Radar BVR AIM-7 AIM-7 AIM-7 AIM-7

Active Radar BVR

AIM-54 AIM-120 AIM-120 AIM-120 AIM-120
AA-2 AA-2 AA-7 AA-6, AA-7 AA-6 AA-10 AA-10 AA-7 AA-6, AA-7 AA-10 AA-9 AA-10 AA-10

AA-12 AA-12

Table 1 : Air-to-Air Missile Capabilities of Fighters in Falcon 4 (Korean Theatre) You should read the intelligence reports on what kind of threats are present in the target area, and familiarize yourselves with their capabilities. We will discuss more about weapon capabilities in the later sections of this users manual, how best to employ them, and how best to counter them. For a start, knowing what kind of threats you will be facing will allow you to prepare yourself mentally. For example, you will only need to defeat the hostile aircrafts radar in order to foil a semi-active radar homing (SARH) missile shot, but you will need to contend with both the hostile aircrafts radar as well as the missiles onboard radar when defending against an active radar guided missile. You will also need to be aware that some BVR missiles are guided by infra-red radiation, and you will not be warned of a missile launch. More on weapon capabilities later. You should also review the self defense ability of the aircraft that you will face, and whether they are equipped with countermeasure dispensing systems (CMDS) or internal/external jammers. You can find the details in the F4_RP_Sensor_Properties.XLS Excel spreadsheet included with the distribution of this users manual, under the sheet labeled Jammer and CMDS. ANALYZING THE GROUND BASED THREAT The next concern that you should pay attention to is the threat of enemy ground based air defenses. This is less complicated than planning against airborne interceptors, as the ground based air defenses are not as mobile, if not static. The analysis will again make extensive use of the data presented in the Excel spreadsheet the F4_RP_Sensor_Properties.XLS included with this users manual. Avoiding SAM engagements Surface-to-Air guided missile radars have tremendous detection ranges. They will usually detect your presence from distances way beyond their effective firing range. You may find that it may not be possible at all to plan your flight route around the SAM sites to avoid detection. What you will need to do is to avoid getting shot at. This will also help you decide if you should carry a jammer, in the event that you are unable to plan a flight route to avoid an engagement, as well as how you should approach the SAM site if you are tasked with a SEAD mission.

HELL, FIRE AND BRIMSTONE FROM ABOVE
Air-to-Ground Weapon Selection By Hoola The sole purpose of airpower is to deliver ordnance onto enemy targets. Weapon selection plays an important role in ensuring that assigned targets are destroyed. An inappropriately selected weapon may not have the appropriate fire power to destroy the targets that you are tasked against. This section will discuss the characteristics of the air-to-ground weapons available to you in the Realism Patch. We will save the discussion on air-to-air missiles for the next chapter. UNGUIDED BOMBS Mk-82, Mk-84, FAB-250 and FAB-1000 Low Drag General Purpose High Explosive Bombs There should be plenty of these ordnance in your squadron stores. These bombs are effective against a large variety of targets such as buildings, bridges, fortifications and soft skinned targets. They can create considerable damage to most targets if they manage to hit the target. The problem is with the delivery mode, which is usually CCIP/DTOS/CCRP. These delivery modes do not provide sufficient precision. The damage that will result from these bombs is mainly blast and shock, and the bombs do not have a lot of armor penetration power. When used against armored targets, these bombs will usually only destroy targets in the vicinity of the impact, as the armored targets are better protected against the blast and shock wave. Do not expect to destroy many armored vehicles (usually only vehicles at most) even with the 2,000lb. Mk-84 and FAB-1000 bomb. An impact point of 25 feet or more from the armored vehicle will usually only result in damage, especially for smaller bombs such as the Mk-82 and FAB-250, though larger bombs will destroy armored vehicles up to about 50 feet away from the impact point. When used against troops in the open or soft skinned vehicles, these bombs can be surprisingly effective with the capability of destroying targets within 100 feet (for Mk-82 and FAB-250) to 200 feet (for Mk-84 and FAB-1000). A large bomb such as Figure 6: Mk-82LDGP bombs awaiting to be the Mk-84 will also destroy a building if a direct hit is loaded on B-52 bomber. (Picture credit of USAF) scored. You are advised not to use these bombs if you require precision strike capabilities, such as when you are targeting bridges and small bunkers. These bombs are not penetrator type of weapons, and will be less effective at destroying runways as they explode on impact and do not result in the heaving of the runway surfaces. This makes runway repair easier compared to dedicated runway cratering ordnance such as the BLU-107 Durandal or the JP233. Do not use these bombs if you intend to deliver them low level, as you may not be able to escape the frag pattern during detonation. The Mk-82 and FAB-250 bombs weight 500lb. each, and the FAB-1000 and Mk-84 bombs weights 2,000lb. each.
Figure 7: Russian FAB-500 bombs loaded on Su-24

altitudes make it a lot more difficult to put an unguided bomb onto the target accurately, though this may be less of a problem for area weapons such as CBUs. The down side of low altitude bombing is the exposure of your strike aircraft to the enemys SHORAD systems. You will be taking greater risks of being hit by enemy AAA fire, or IR SAMs. For some ordnance such as the BLU-107, you do not have much choice other than to use low altitude bombing profile. While you can increase the bombing accuracy by using precision bombs such as LGBs, these bombs are more expensive, and you will not have many of them. You will need to weigh the increased accuracy of low altitude bombing against the threats, and strike a balance that will allow you to achieve your mission objectives. Pop-Up Planning The planning procedures for a pop-up attack are as follows. Unless otherwise stated, the measurement unit for speed is in knots (nautical miles per hour); the measurement unit for length (range, and altitude) is in feet; and the measurement unit for angular displacement is in degrees. 1. 2. Select the delivery profile to use (LALD, LAHD, HADB, etc). Determine the following bombing parameters: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. 3. Axis of attack Dive angle Release altitude Bomb range Aim-off distance Track point altitude Tracking distance Approach altitude
Determine the Minimum Attack Perimeter (MAP): Minimum Attack Perimeter = Bomb Range + Horizontal Tracking Distance
Select the roll-in g, i.e. the load factor that you will want to attain during the roll-in to the target. Determine the turn radius: Turn Radius = (True Airspeed 1.69)2 / (32.2 Aircraft g)
where aircraft g is the g that you will see in the cockpit during the roll-in to the attack heading. You can also estimate the turn radius using Figure 42. 6. Select the climb angle: Climb Angle = Dive Angle + 5 (for 5 through 15 deliveries) Dive Angle + 10 (for 20 and higher angle deliveries) 7. Determine angle-off: Angle-Off = Climb Angle 2 8. Determine apex altitude: Apex Altitude = Track Point Altitude + (Dive Angle 50)
Determine pull-down altitude: Pull-Down Altitude = Apex Altitude (Climb Angle 50) for a 3 to 3.5g roll-in = Apex Altitude (Climb Angle 37.5) for a 4.5 to 5g roll-in
Determine Pop-to-Pull-Down Distance: Pop-to-Pull-Down Distance = (Apex Altitude 60) / Climb Angle
Determine roll-in point (horizontal range to target, in feet), by constructing a scaled drawing of the various parameters, as shown in Figure 41. You can measure the range between the rollin point to the target from the scaled drawing. Determine the range between the pull-up point and the target, by constructing a scaled drawing of the various parameters, as shown in Figure 41. You can measure the range between the pop-up point to the target from the scaled drawing.

EGRESS AND ABORT PLAN Once you have delivered your weapons, it is time to get away from the target and its air defenses. The egress plan must be a simple as possible, and the priorities for egress are as follows: 1. 2. 3. Leave the target area Get away from threats Regain formation mutual support
The egress route should be planned such that it is relatively free of enemy defenses. It is possible for the formation to split up during the attack, due to the need to de-conflict the various flight members, and possibly due to threat reactions. As such, there is a possibility of flight members losing mutual support and needing to provide their own threat lookout. Selecting an egress route that is relatively free of threats will minimize the possibility of any unsupported flight member being shot down. This will also give an opportunity to initiate a re-attack, if necessary. If the attack involves lofting of weapons, you will need to make sure that you de-conflict your flight path with that of the lofted weapons, as collision with your own weapons will not do you any good. For two-ship egress, you should ideally egress in line abreast formation, to provide mutual support. Four ship egress should maintain at least element integrity, with visual mutual support. If the egress route is over mountainous terrain, then the terrain provides for ample opportunity to mask your flight from enemy defenses, and a trail formation egress may be more suitable. You should also consider an abort plan for the attack. In the event that the target is too heavily defended, or the weather is too poor, it may be more prudent to conserve your forces and attack it another day, when the conditions are more favorable. The possible reasons for aborting an attack are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Poor weather, such that the pre-planned delivery profile (and any alternate delivery profiles) cannot be executed properly without undue risks. Target acquisition problems. Unacceptable target defenses. Low fuel. Battle damage
THREAT REACTION You will need to pre-plan and brief the reactions to any expected threats that may become active during ingress and egress to the target area. When you are on an air-to-ground mission, even if you detect any enemy aircraft, you should exercise discipline to stay on your mission and not chase after the enemy, unless they are a threat to you. This applies whether you are ingressing to the target, or egressing after delivering your weapons. Getting yourself shot down due to your eagerness to get some air-to-air kills will be a bad way to start and end a bombing mission. In general, you should draw up a listing of criteria, under which you will consider engaging the enemy airplanes: 1. 2. 3. 4. Any enemy airplane faster than 300 KCAS and at high aspect inside of 40nm. from you. Any low aspect target between 10 to 20nm. out within 30 of your nose. Any low aspect target inside 10nm. Any enemy airplane called by AWACS or visually spotted inside 5nm.

In summary, do not mess with any enemy fighter who is not messing with you while you are on an airto-ground mission. Concentrate on the mission, and you will stay out of trouble if you do not go looking for trouble.

THUNDER AND LIGHTNING

Waging the Air Campaign in the Realism Patch By Hoola INTRODUCTION We have been discussing tactical matters so far. While it is important that you survive your combat missions, and get home alive, you need to understand a little about the air war at the strategic level. Many battles can be won, but a war can still be lost anyway. The Air Tasking Order (ATO) engine in Falcon 4 is not very smart, and you will need to assist it in the selection of targets, so that the air war is also taken care of at the strategic level. This section is written to give a brief introduction of planning an air campaign, and is tailored to the Falcon 4 environment. I do not claim to know the tenets of an air war: that is best left to professionals. One of the best books available on the art of waging an air campaign is The Air Campaign, authored by John A Warden III (revised edition published in 1998, ISBN 1583481001). This section is also useful for TE designers who design complex tactical engagements. You can systematically plan your air campaign to destroy piece-by-piece the enemys air defenses. DISMANTLING THE INTEGRATED AIR DEFENSE SYSTEM One of the key features in the Falcon 4 Realism Patch is the presence of an integrated air defense system (IADS) and network. With such a network, the enemy is capable of detecting the presence of your forces, and vector interceptors or command SAM batteries to engage them. From a force protection point of view, it is important for you to reduce the enemys integrated air defense network into various isolated components. You will need to divide your enemy so that you can rule over him. You should make sure that you understand how the IADS environment function in the Realism Patch. A detailed description of the IADS implementation in the Realism Patch can be found in the section titled Ground Control Intercept, Integrated Air Defense System, And AWACS in Falcon 4 in the Designers Notes. The Opening Move The functional state of the enemy IADS will determine the tactics that you can use. At the beginning of the campaign, the enemy air defenses will be largely intact. Your strike aircraft will be forced to run the gauntlet of enemy interceptors and SAM/AAA batteries. Since the enemys GCI/EW radar network is functional, you may want to consider using low level NOE (Nap of the Earth) tactics during the opening moments of the air war. Such tactics allow your strike packages to enter the enemys airspace, while minimizing the chances of the enemy detecting them. However, this will expose your strike packages to a considerable amount of low level SHORAD threats. You should target the enemys EW/GCI radar network early in the air campaign, so that you can create gaps in the enemys radar coverage. While your ground forces may be in need of air support, you need to bear in mind that the presence of enemy interceptors and combat air patrols will seriously disrupt your ability to conduct BAI/CAS missions effectively. You should plan to destroy the enemys GCI ability early in the campaign, as well as destroy enemy airbases and disrupt his ability to conduct air operations against you. The emphasis in the early part of an air campaign should be to establish air dominance over the battlefield. This means that you should actively seek out and destroy airbases and EW/GCI radars. You should also actively sweep the skies for enemy interceptors and combat air patrols, as these will present problems when you need to shift the emphasis of the air war towards ground support. Destruction of airbases will ground the enemys interceptors, and the two pronged approach of destroying enemy fighters that are flying, while preventing others from taking off, is the most effective way of ensuring that your own strike packages remain unmolested by enemy fighters.

changes the RWR gain for the low altitude threats. For example, you may be able to fly within 1nm. of a low altitude AAA gun with 3nm. range by flying above 15,000 feet, and not have the RWR symbol breach the inner ring, as the AAA gun cannot engage you. However, with the LOW function enabled, the RWR symbol will breach the inner ring at 3nm., to warn you of its ability to engage you when you are low in the weeds. The HANDOFF function will step the RWR diamond through all the emitters detected by the RWR, in increasing order of threat priority. The RWR will automatically re-select the highest priority contact 12 seconds after you have last depressed the HANDOFF button. The RWR prioritises its contacts as follows: 1. The contact is inside the inner RWR ring, and has achieved radar lock-on. 2. The contact is outside the inner RWR ring, and has achieved radar lock-on. 3. The contact is inside the inner RWR ring, but has not achieved radar lock-on and is in search mode. 4. The contact is outside the inner RWR ring, but has not achieved radar lock-on and is in search mode. The MODE function will also reduce the overall RWR activity to manageable levels. You should make full use of these to display only the most critical threats. The deluge of RWR information can easily task saturate you, and makes it easier to miss the critical warning or audio tone. The RWR will also maintain track files of the emitters that it detects. Each time a new emitter is detected, the RWR will open a track file after identifying it. As long as the emitter continues to paint the RWR, the track file will remain active, and the symbol will continue to display on the RWR display. The emitters audio tone will also be heard each time that the emitter paints the RWR. However, the RWR will not retain the track file indefinitely, and will purge it from its memory if the emitter fails to paint the RWR at least once every 6 seconds. For example, if a bandit goes head-on at you, you should see its RWR symbol and hear the audio tone as you remain in its radar coverage. Once the bandit flies pass you and you exit its radar coverage, the audio tone will cease, but you will continue to see its RWR symbology for up to 6 seconds, and the symbol will then disappear, unless the points its radar at you again within this time interval. RWR Symbol Assignment With the expansion of the RWR symbology library in the Realism Patch, the symbologies have been totally revised. The symbologies used are given in Table 13. You need to bear in mind that the RWR distinguishes radars and not aircraft types. As with all systems, there are inherent inaccuracies, especially in a dense electromagnetic environment. The characteristics of some radars are also very similar to one another (such as the radar on the MiG-29 and the Su-27/30), so it may not be possible for the RWR to distinguish between the different aircraft. Such uncertainties are modeled in the Realism Patch. You will notice that some radars have been assigned with generic RWR symbols (typically for attack aircraft and bombers). These airplanes are typically not a threat to most fighters, and precise identification is often not required from a threat assessment point of view.

U Ship Inverted V with a 4 below Inverted V with a 5 below Inverted V with a 14 below Inverted V with a 15 below Inverted V with a 16 below Inverted V with a 18 below Inverted V with a 21 below Inverted V with a 23 below Inverted V with a 25 below Inverted V with a 29 below Inverted V with a 31 below Inverted V with an A below
RWR Symbol Inverted V with a B below Inverted V with a P below Inverted V with a PD below Inverted V with a S below
Radar Type Generic symbol assigned to fire control radars equipping bombers Unidentified airborne pulse radar Unidentified airborne pulse doppler radar Generic symbol assigned to radars with characteristics typical of airborne search radars
Threat Type Bombers assigned with generic RWR symbol, such as B-1 and B-52 fire control radars. Unidentified aircraft equipped with pulse radar Unidentified aircraft equipped with pulse doppler radar Airborne search radars, typically AWACS
Table 13: Realism Patch Radar Warning Receiver Symbology Assignment RWR Audio Interpretation and Launch Warning The RWR is programmed to issue a missile launch warning to the pilot, by sounding a launch warning audio tone as well as lighting up the launch warning light on the left canopy brow. To understand how this works, we need to discuss how the radar and missiles work. For a radar in RWS, VS and TWS modes, the radar sweeps the sky in a regular fashion. The radar antenna is not focussed exclusively on any particular target. As far as the target RWR is concerned, it will only sound the regular chirps whenever the radar energy paints it. When the radar transits to STT mode, its antenna is focussed at the target and the refresh and repaint rates intensifies. This results in the RWR tone for the emitter transiting from a regular periodic chirp to a constant chirp. When this happens, this is an indication that somebody now takes a very serious interest in your well being. Normal radar transmission is in discrete pulses. This is the case for pulse and pulse doppler radars, regardless of radar modes (RWS, TWS, VS, or STT). When a missile is launched, depending on the type of missile launched, the radar may need to switch modes to support the missile in flight. A semi-active radar homing (SARH) missile (such as the AIM-7 and AA-10) relies on the parent aircraft to provide the required target illumination, and homes onto the reflected energy from the target. The missile requires the radar to transmit in a particular waveform, known as continuous wave (CW), in order to guide. Instead of discrete pulses, the radar will have to transmit a waveform resembling a sine wave series. When the RWR detects the changing of the hostile radar transmission pulse-form to this CW pulse-form, this is an indication to it that a SARH missile has been launched at you. The RWR will then light up the launch warning light and sound the launch warning tone. For an IR guided missile, the radar does not need to provide any support to guide the missile, except in the initial target cueing prior to launch. As such, the RWR will not be able to detect the missile launch. However, due to the short range, the enemy will usually lock you up in STT, and you will be able to detect from the change in the RWR chirp that you have been locked onto. As for active radar homing (ARH) missiles such as AIM-120 and AA-12, this gets hairy. ARH missiles are guided in inertial mode throughout most of its flight. During this phase, the launch aircraft only needs to provide periodic update of the target location through a datalink to the missile. As such, ARH missiles can be fired even in RWS, TWS, or STT mode, as long as the target is bugged. You will not be able to decipher through the RWR tone if the enemy has fired or not, since the missile can well be fired in RWS bugged target mode. Because there is no change in the radar pulse-form and transmission characteristics, the RWR cannot detect the launch, and will not sound out a launch warning even when the missile is fired. Once the ARH missile arrives over the target area, it will turn on its onboard radar and begin to search for the target. The active missile onboard radar are usually in the I/J band, with transmission characteristics similar to that of a typical fighter pulse doppler radar. As such, the RWR tone will sound exactly like a fighter will (of course with its own distinctive chirp). While it is searching, you will only

The Russian Rabid Dog AA-12 (R-77) Adder The AA-12 is the Russian answer to the AIM-120 missile. Also known as the RVV-AE and R-77, this missile is equipped with a larger rocket motor compared to the AMRAAM, but the cruciform lattice control fins results in a slightly higher drag. The seeker range is between 8 9nm., depending on target RCS. The initial acceleration and fly-out speed of the missile is higher compared to the AIM-120, and the maneuverability is better, but the missile loses energy slightly more rapidly compared to the AIM-120 when made to sustain high g maneuvers. In terms of range, the AA-12 has a slight advantage of about 5% over the AIM-120B, solely Figure 76: AA-12 (R-77) Adder loaded on MiG- due to the larger rocket motor. However, the 29M demonstrator shorter seeker range means that the launch aircraft must support the missile longer than the AIM-120 shooter, which somewhat negates the range advantage. This will allow the AIM-120 shooter to take evasive action slightly earlier than the AA-12 shooter. The tactics to counter the AA-12 are similar to that of AIM-54 and AIM-120 (this will be discussed in the sub-section to follow). AERIAL GUNS When all else fails, you have the last resort, i.e. the onboard gun. We have moved on from the days of fighter pilots shooting at one another with pistols. The common American aerial gun is the 20 mm M61 Vulcan cannon, with a firing rate of 6,000 rounds per minute. If you are flying the A-10, you have the slower firing but harder hitting GAU-mm cannon, firing uranium core shells. The Russians have the Gsh-23 and Gsh-301 cannons. In actual aerial combat, achieving gun hits on enemy aircraft is a difficult task. The high speed and wild maneuvering means that guns are ineffective beyond 4,000 feet of slant range. Real life gunfights often close in to less than 3,000 feet, and even 1,500 feet, before the guns become effective. You will need to close in much more during a gun fight in Realism Patch, often within 3,000 feet, or else you will be wasting the ammunition. You will also need to position your pipper accurately to obtain the kill. It is extremely difficult to score a hit against a head-on target, due to the small frontal profile of most fighters. As such, resort to guns only if you are out of missiles, or if the target is totally defenseless. Do not hang around if you are out of missiles, as the enemy can easily overwhelm you. However, if you are caught in a phone booth fight with nowhere else to go, the gun may be your only hope of getting out of the fight, so learn to use it properly. MISSILE EVASION Generating LOS Problems All missiles have LOS tracking rate limits. The LOS rate is at its highest in a front quarter close range engagement, or in the beam, and reduces towards the rear quarter due to the lower closure rates. You

being engaged at all by flying at altitudes above 15,000 feet. This makes medium level CCRP bombing tactics useful against targets defended by S-60 guns, as long as you dont go below 15,000 feet altitude. This gun is also manufactured in the PRC as the Type 59 AA gun, and shares the same ordnance as the self propelled ZSU-57-2. The S-60 AA gun is still in reserve service with the Russian forces, and is in use with the PRC forces. The DPRK air defense forces is reported to be equipped with up to 600 of these guns. Mmm Automatic Anti-Aircraft Gun The M1939 towed 37 mm automatic AA gun first entered service with the Russian Army before the start of the Second World War, and was based on the Swedish Bofors 40 mm design used by the US and the UK during the same time period. The gun was designed by L A Loktev and M N Loginov collaboratively at Kalinigrad, near Moscow. It was also manufactured in the PRC as the Type 55 AA gun. The M1939 gun system is a clear weather only AA gun, with no ability for radar guidance. The towed carriage is raised off the ground and supported by four screw jacks in the firing position. The gun Figure 157: Captured Iraqi Mmm AA consist of a single barrel, firing the OR-167/OR- gun during Operation Desert Storm 167N rounds fitted with time and proximity fuses. The muzzle velocity is 2,850 feet/sec, and the gun is directed entirely by the optical reflex sights mounted at the gunners position. Ammunition is fed to the gun via five round clips, and the gun may be elevated up to 85. Practical firing rate of the gun is about 80 rounds per minute, though the cyclic rate is at 160 to 180 rounds per minute. The M1939 guns will normally engage at a horizontal range of up to 2nm., and target altitudes of up to 12,000 feet. A typical DPRK AAA battery will consist of six of these guns. The optically laid nature of the gun limits its effectiveness against modern aircraft, and thus the threat posed by the gun can be easily mitigated either by flying above its effective engagement altitude, or flying at higher airspeeds. However, this gun equips all the HART sites as well as AAA battalions, and the effect created by large number of these guns firing at the same time can be quite disconcerting to a pilot. ZU-23 Twin 23 mm Automatic Anti-Aircraft Gun The towed ZU-23 twin automatic AA gun was introduced into the Russian Army in the 1960s as a replacement of the 14.5 mm ZPU-2 and ZPU-4 AA guns. These towed guns have since been replaced in the Russian airborne divisions by the SA-9 Gaskin SAM system. The gun is normally towed by the ZIL-135 truck. When in the firing position, the ZU-23 carriage is raised off the ground and supported on its triangular platform, which has three screw jacks. The quick change barrels have flash suppressors, and the guns are the same as those used in the self propelled ZSU-23-4 Shilka. The water-cooled guns are capable of a cyclic firing rate of 800

Some people might get confused as to why a 2000lb bomb has less "blast" than a Maverick. Answer: 2000lbs of C4 is different than 1000mm of High Explosive Anti-Tank. (a shaped charge weapon). The Maverick G is a "penetrator" much like the BLUs. It is a HE round encased in more steel to allow it to get deeper into concrete bunkers and dug in emplacements, but it is not a "shaped charge" explosive. Blast areas for shaped charges are much smaller due to the fact that the explosion is manipulated to cause overpressures in the millions of pounds per square inch. This provides the energy to punch a 20-30mm hole through up to 4 feet of steel and not to disperse it's energy over a wide area like an HE round. The shaped charge also needs enough BAE (behind armor effects) to cause damage to equipment and crew. Punching a hole is meaningless unless it can ruin a crew's day. It is also very likely that MPS used its blast radius more for the F-16. There are minimum safe altitudes to drop ordnance. These altitudes are based on less than a 1-10% chance of doing any damage to your aircraft. Those tables are easily found. In the Falcon world, this is translated into weapons that equally distribute their damage over an area and (this causes large weapons to have large damage values) destroy or disable formations of vehicles where in reality they would need a direct hit to destroy the vehicle. Although this is a speculative assumption, I am guessing that minimum safe altitude is lower now. EFFECTS OF NAPALM AND THE REDUCTION OF ITS DAMAGE VALUE The effects of napalm were toned down based on extensive research on its true effects. The following passages, re-printed from USAF Intelligence targeting guide AIR FORCE PAMPHLET 14-210 Intelligence 1 FEBRUARY 1998, illustrates: A6.1.5. Flame and Incendiary Effects. Firebombs can be highly effective in close air support. Their short, well-defined range of effects can interrupt enemy operations without endangering friendly forces. They are also effective against supplies stored in light wooden structures or wooden containers. A6.1.5.1. Flame and incendiary weapons, however, are often misleading as to the actual physical damage they inflict. Even a relatively small firebomb can provide a spectacular display but often does less damage than might be expected. When a large firebomb splashes burning gel over an area the size of a football field, it may boil flames a hundred feet into the air. This effect is impressive to the untrained observer, and experienced troops have broken off attacks and fled when exposed to napalm attack. However, soldiers can be trained against this tendency to panic. They can be taught to take cover, put out the fires, and even to brush burning material off their own clothing. A6.1.5.2. Near misses with firebombs seldom cause damage to vehicles, and the number of troops actually incapacitated by the attacks is usually rather small. Incendiaries of the type that started great fires in Japanese and German cities in World War II projected nonmetallic fragments. They had little penetrating capability. Today's newer munitions have full fragmentation and penetrating capabilities, as well as incendiary devices. However, both types can penetrate and start fires and are highly effective against fuel storage tanks or stacked drums of flammable material of any sort.

As every plane in F4 has its own vision envelope peculiar to it, AI pilots will lose sight in a dogfight if you enter its blind visual cone. With the default AI behavior in F4, the AI will immediately lose its awareness of your presence if it does not have any other onboard sensor that has acquired you. This can potentially lead to the AI transiting to RTB mode and becoming totally defenseless. To overcome this potential shortcoming, the AI have been mechanized with a limited amount of memory. The AI will retain its knowledge of where you were for a specific amount of time related to its skill level. For a recruit, this time will be 24 seconds, while for an Ace, this timing will be about 32 seconds. This confers the AI some degree of ability to keep fighting and reacquire the target visually. The way the AI employs its weapons is also skill level related. In F4, the lower skilled pilots will wait a little longer before launching their weapons compared to higher skilled pilots. This results in the lower skilled pilots actually launching missiles within a firing envelope of higher Pk than the higher skilled pilots. This effect was due to the AI firing routine being run less frequently (it is tied to the AIs sensor routine) and hence the AI being closer to the target when they satisfy the shoot conditions. In RP, this is modified such that the lower skilled pilots will shoot earlier (i.e. shoot at a range where the missile Pk is lower, i.e. closer to Rmax1), while the higher skilled pilots will wait a little longer before shooting (i.e. shoot at a range closer to Rmax2). This is mechanized by reducing internally within the AI the Rmax perceived by it, thus constraining the higher skilled AI to shoot closer.
For the RP AIs use of radar guided BVR missiles, skills will also affect missile evasion capabilities and how long the AI pilot will support its own missile in flight. If the AI already has a missile in flight towards the target, and the target retaliates by shooting at the AI, lower skilled pilots are more likely to commence evasive maneuvers immediately and forego supporting their missile in flight. Higher skilled pilots will wait a little longer before commencing the evasive maneuvers, thus giving their missile a higher chance of getting near the target or shooting down the target. This is mechanized as described below. Recruits random duration, ranging from 1 second to how long ago it launched its missile Cadets random duration, ranging from 2 seconds to how long ago it launched its missile Rookies random duration, ranging from 3 seconds to how long ago it launched its missile Veterans random duration, ranging from 4 seconds to how long ago it launched its missile Aces random duration, ranging from 5 seconds to how long ago it launched its missile This gives the higher skilled pilots better Pk for a missile that is already in-flight for considerable duration. It will however evade sooner and increase its survival chances if the missile time of flight is still short. BVR and WVR Behavior One of the biggest changes made to F4 is the BVR engagement behavior. In fact, the AI changes originated from the aim of changing the AI BVR behavior. F4 does not distinguish between BVR and WVR combat, and employs basically the weapon with the greatest range. This makes modeling decent BVR fights impossible other than the AI taking long range shots at you while driving inbound. BVR intercept tactics such as pince and single side offsets are not possible due to this anemic representation. Also, Sylvain discovered that the AI wingman will only employ its visual sensor to check for other targets, while its radar will only scan for the target that the lead has locked onto. The RP AI changes makes a distinction between BVR and WVR combat, with WVR combat defined as inside 10nm. For BVR combat, once the AI sees the target, it will begin a pince or single side offset maneuver instead of driving straight at the target. For an element, the flight lead will take one side of the maneuver, and the wingman the opposing side. For the pince and single side offset, it is executed with a 4nm. separation between the lead and the wingman. The wingman will also use its radar to scan for all possible targets during the intercept, in addition to the one that the lead has locked onto. BVR combat is set to commence at 30nm., or the WEZ of the longest range weapon loaded on the AI, whichever is higher, provided the AI has detected you. The BVR engagement range is also related to the mission type. For example, flights tasked with air-to-ground missions will not commit as far out as flights tasked with sweep or OCA. As this is tied to the onboard weapon WEZ, it allows for better armed AI pilots to initiate the BVR fight from further out (such as AA-10C, or AIM-54 armed airplanes), and lesser armed AI pilots to initiate from closer distances (such as AA-7 or AIM-7 armed airplanes). This prevents inadequately armed AI pilots from initiating the BVR fight from too far out. The 30nm. range was chosen as typical range for initiating BVR engagements. In addition, both flight lead and wingman will now employ their onboard sensors throughout the maneuver, with each being able to take a shot whenever their respective shoot conditions are satisfied. Weapon selection in F4 was also a simple case of the AI selecting the weapon with the Rmax closest to the target range. In a situation where the AI sensor is prevented from acquiring the target early (such as due to ECM), it will lead to cascading effect with the AI switching to WVR weapon when closing in from BVR (especially if WVR weapons have forward quarter WEZ beyond 10nm.). It will also sometimes lead to the AI not firing its missiles in a dogfight, preferring to employ guns instead.

Digital Game-Based Learning by Marc Prensky 2001 Marc Prensky ______________________________________________________________________________________
From Digital Game-Based Learning (McGraw-Hill, 2001) by Marc Prensky

Chapter 10

True Believers: Digital Game-Based Learning in The Military
We KNOW the technology works, weve proven it over and over again, and we just want to get on with using it. -Don Johnson, the Pentagon Adopt the role of Joint Force Commander and tackle ten realistic scenarios to hone your knowledge of doctrine. Adjust friendly and enemy forces in four selectable scenarios to test varying military possibilities. -JFE Training Game Box Boy, cant you see Im flying here? Go away -an Air Force General in a simulator to a trainer (Quoted in Training Magazine)
Business people are slowly getting it. Schools get it here and there. But the U.S. Military gets it big time. The Military has embraced Digital Game-Based Learning with all the fervor of true believers. Why? Because it works for them. And trust me, the guys in charge of training at the Pentagon are a very sharp group. They have seen and evaluated everything. Were a few standard deviations ahead of most, including those in industry, yet most people dont know who we are says Michael Parmentier, head of the Readiness and Training unit of the Department of Defense at the Pentagon. 1 The militarys training mission is a daunting one. It has to train 2.4 million men and women in the four services (army, navy, air force, marines) plus almost another million civilian employees 2 to work as individuals, as teams, as units, and in combination to meet all sorts of unforeseen and difficult objectives around the world under very highpressure conditions. It has to train its officers to lead, manage and command. It has
educate military dependants. Turnover is huge enough to make any corporate executive shudder and among those who stay, job change rapid, particularly at the officer level. Strategy, tactics and equipment are all continually evolving at a rapid pace. Extremely sophisticated technology is playing a greater and greater role. And the training has to be fast. No time for lollygaging around this the Army! (or the Navy! Or the Air Force! Or the Marines!) Weve got missions to perform and theyd better be done correctly! Not only are the branches extremely complex organizations themselves, they need to be coordinated to work together in most mission situations. The services have a combined incoming cohort of a quarter of a million enlistees 3 to train each year in military training basics and then in over 150 military occupational areas and literally thousands of specialties and sub-specialties. They need to train for war, yet increasingly they need to train for peacekeeping missions, as Americas role in the world changes. Finally, their incoming recruits are not seasoned adults, with work experience and habits on their resumes, but typically high school graduates and non-graduates, most of whom have never worked before. Molding these people into a well-trained force is a staggering job, and the military approaches it with the purpose, and budget of a major mission. The combined training budgets of the armed services are about $18 billion, including $6 billion institutional training, $12 billion operational (unit) training, and excluding trainees salaries. 4 It is precisely because of this mission that the US Military is the worlds largest spender on and user of Digital Game-Based Learning. The military uses games to train soldiers, sailors, pilots and tank drivers to master their expensive and sensitive equipment. It uses games to train command teams to communicate effectively in battle. It uses games to teach mid-level officers (local Commanders-in-Chief or CINCs and their staffs) how to employ joint force military doctrine in battle and other situations. It uses games to teach senior officers the art of strategy. It uses games for teamwork and team training of squads, fire teams and other units; games for simulating responses to weapons of mass destruction, terrorist incidents and threats; games for mastering the complex process of military logistics; and it even uses games for teaching how not to fight when helping maintain peace. In fact, there seems precious little that the military doesnt use some form of game to train. Lets start with an example.

Joint Force Employment (JFE) The day I arrived at the Pentagon for a meeting with the Training and Readiness Unit of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, the guys in the shop were eager to show me the first copies of a brand new game prepared by the Joint Chiefs of Staff for mid-level officers Captains, Majors, Lt. Commanders and such that had just been completed two weeks ago. The game has the rather prosaic but highly descriptive title Joint Force Employment (JFE), but it is anything but prosaic. Its purpose is to ensure that officers from each of the military Services have the opportunity to prepare themselves for Joint Task Force operations, which is the integration of military personnel from different services Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines into a cohesive interoperable military
organization. The Joint Staff has established Joint Doctrine, (doctrine is the militarys term for the way it should be done) a set of standard guidelines and rules of engagement associates with specific joint operational tasks and functions. JFE is, essentially how to field training for these officers. According to its official description, it is designed exclusively for todays U.S. Military to convey the concept that Joint Warfare is Team Warfare and to enhance knowledge of Joint Doctrine within the US Military. 5 How much of a real game is JFE? Well, for starters it comes in a game-sized shrinkwrapped box printed with fancy graphics and screen shots, looking for the entire world like it should sit on the store shelf right next to Quake III, Age of Empires II, or EverQuest. Even the (real) official Joint Chiefs of Staff logo on the front of box looks to those of us unfamiliar with it like an artists conception right from a commercial game. In fact the only thing on the box that gives away that this isnt a commercial game are the words This Product is the property of the United States Government, in the lower right hand corner. So right from the beginning, rather than hide the fact that is a game behind the corporatespeak of training challenge or competition, the military instead flaunts the products gameness. Just listen to the box copy: Select from computer assisted walk through mode or player controlled mode to create and control large combinations of forces and compete against state of the art computer artificial intelligence (AI). Adopt the role of Joint Force Commander and tackle ten realistic scenarios to hone your knowledge of doctrine. Adjust friendly and enemy forces in four selectable scenarios to test varying military possibilities. Spectacular photo-realistic terrain maps that range from the frigid arctic to the vast desert. 3D military units pulled directly from the U.S. Military arsenal. Dazzling high-resolution and high-detailed graphics. Dynamic 3D battle effects including flying debris and smoking buildings.

So JFE definitely looks like a game. But, much more importantly, JFE also feels and plays like a game. In fact, its two games. The first is a pretty traditional quiz game played after a fairly CBTish, tell-test intro to Joint Force Doctrine, but the quiz is spiced up with Jack-like graphics and sounds. Its the second game, however, thats the real game, the meat of the program. That game is a heart-pounding war simulation in which you set your forces rolling and shooting, take out bridges and enemy planes, have air cover flying overhead (if you request it), all in the same dynamic 21/2 D top
down view as up-to-the-minute games like Warcraft II and Command and Conquer, Tiberian Sun. In fact the sub-contractors of the JFE game, Semi-Logic Entertainments, are the makers of the games Real War, Stunt Track Driver and Legacy of Kain: Blood Omen. Were talking state-of-the-art gaming here the U.S. Military trains is training the staff of the commanders-in-chief (CINCs) with a high-end videogame version of Digital Game-Based Learning. This kind of gaming technology fills a particular niche training the top of the war fighting command structure. Although the number of personnel in a Joint Task Force (JTF)s staff is relatively limited, the ability to rapidly integrate military personnel into JTFs and prepare for unanticipated missions on the fly justifies the use of online digital games. 6
A Bit of Military History The relationship between computer games and the U.S. Military is a relatively long and complex one. The flight simulator, which some think of as coming from the military, was originally designed by Edwin Link in 1930 as an entertainment device. His "Blue Box" was sold to amusement parks until 1934, when Link, a pilot himself, met with the Army Air Corps to sell the Corps on the concept of pilot training with his device. 7 But eventually, as the military devoted more and more money to research, things began to go the other way. By the 80s and early 90s the military had billions of dollars that they spent a year on research and on training, creating very complex, sophisticated types of simulations. All the way up through the early 90s the military was the technology leader, inventor, and financier, and the games companies were the beneficiaries. To a surprising extent the technology in todays commercial games was invented and created in these military-sponsored projects, paid for by DARPA (Defense Advanced Research and Production Agency), STRICOM, The Armys Simulation Training and Instrumentation Command, and others. The entertainment industry now rests on a technological foundation laid by large amounts of government-funded research and infrastructure, including advanced computing systems, computer graphics, and the Internet. In the area of computer graphics, for example, early DOD funding resulted in development of the geometry engine, about 1979. This technology has since been incorporated into a number of game devices, such as the new Nintendo 64 machine. Similarly, early advances in networking in the late 1950s and 1960s laid the groundwork for the ARPANET, which grew into today's Internet and has become the foundation of today's growing networked games industry. In the 70s they developed aircraft, tank and submarine simulators and in the mid 80s SIMNET pods, networked tank simulators that trained the troops up though and including the Gulf War. They have invested more than $1 billion in JSIM, their current high-end simulation technology. The military-sponsored and funded display, simulation and networking technologies in these projects have made their way into almost all commercial computer and games, and of course, into military sim games such as Apache and Harpoon. By the time of the Gulf War, commercial computer games were so close to military reality that as J.C. Herz wryly points out in her wonderful computer games history Joystick Nation General Schwartzkopf felt the need to explicitly state in a war briefing that This is not a computer game. 8

But towards the end of the decade, as the militarys budget got crunched, and as cheaper, smaller, more powerful computing power became available commercially, the tide began to turn again. Today, the computer games industry has eclipsed the Department of Defense in terms of what it can do and how fast it can do it, and industry is again leading the technology. Todays military borrows or buys its game technology from the best commercial games. In fact, todays commercial military games have gotten so sophisticated, having used a battalion of ex-majors, colonels and generals to create super-realistic versions of everything from submarine to tank to the latest fighter and attack helicopter simulations that they are now being used for training inside the military. (This actually began around 1978, when Atari adapted its Battlezone game for ARPA, DARPAs predecessor.) Today the Air National Guard is working with Spectrum HoloByte Inc. to modify the Falcon 4.0 flight simulator game for military training to compensate for decreased flight training time. 9 The Navy and the Airforce are is negotiating with the makers of consumer flight simulation games to create military versions. The U.S. Marine Corps continuously evaluates commercial war games software for use in training, and the Marine Corps commandant has authorized commanders to permit certain games including (in 1996) Harpoon2, Tigers on the Prowl, Operation Crusader, Patriot, and DOOM to be loaded onto government computers and to allow Marines to play them during duty hours. 10 And its not just equipment simulators. Other kinds of commercial games and interactive movies, created by companies that put consumer games out on the shelves, are being adapted for military team training, antiterrorism and weapons of mass destruction training, and other projects too secret for them to tell me about (since I didnt want them to have to kill me). Today, when the military has an idea for a training game like Joint Force Employment, it farms it out to commercial game houses such as Semi-logic, OCI, Visual Purple, and others rather than building it in-house. All this, and, yes, the military uses Jeopardy for training as well! 11
Why has the military embraced Digital Game-Based Learning so completely? The first reason, says Don Johnson 12, is cost. We did it because the other forms of training are so expensive. Even virtual simulation can cost millions to build and millions to and maintain. This doesnt cost you anything to operate once youve built it. The second reason is motivation. Johnsons group is part of the office of the Secretary of Defense for Personnel and for Readiness, whose job it is to worry about things like recruiting and retention, quality of life, and quality of education and training. They are very mindful that the people that theyre trying to bring into the military the 18 year olds are probably the first generation that grew up with computers, who get bored real easy with traditional classroom instruction. They keep this in mind when designing all their recruiting strategies and training programs, as do the military Services, who turn the young people into soldiers, sailors airmen and marines. And so the Military is beginning to use the web and developing games as a way of recruiting and retaining kids. I do think the point about being motivational is really a very, very relevant one, says Johnson.

players per day (plus room, high speed connections and maintenance.) Other capital costs, including game engine software licenses at $200K, digital video editing hardware upgrades $100K, and miscellaneous hardware/software for development, come to around $500K/year. And thats just the start. Longer-term costs include $2.1 million per year for years 2 to 4 and possibly beyond. Thats what doing consumer-level games costs these days. What does the Army get for its money? Attractiveness to its recruits on the one hand, and lots of data on the other. In terms of attractiveness, Zydas proposal explains that games hold their audience because they are attractive on the outside (what the player sees and hears while playing) and gripping on the inside (what the player thinks and feels while playing). Sound, music, image, and animation all play their part in satisfying the ears and eyes. Inside a computer game identifiable character and dramatic story both play key roles. In addition, because one PLAYS the computer game, a smooth, uninterrupted sequence (or loop) of actions and decisions must be present. When a game works well, the player may execute this inner loop for hundreds of cycles. If it is smooth enough, the effect is compelling. In terms of data, both the Action Game and Career Game are instrumented to provide an understanding of the players interests and aptitude, the latter through a link to their AFQT Armed Forces Qualifying Test score. Players can link to a variety of career, job, and school information from inside the Career Game. What they choose, how long they spend on the information, and downloads or printouts is noted, summarized and output. Both games collect information about the players approach to problem solving and dealing with frustration. The Career game collects AFQT (Armed Forces Qualifying Test) information from a player, and correlates it with other standardized tests such as the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB). While the Career Game provides an indicator of aptitude, the Action Game, says Zyda, provides an indication of leadership potential. He plans to instrument the Action Game to understand the player's ability for team focus. By combining the information from both games, he expects to get a complete picture of the potential recruit. The Navy Like all the branches, the U.S. Navy simulates as much as it can. There are high-fidelity simulations of everything from landing on an aircraft carrier to putting out fires on a submarine. One Navy project, the Submarine Skills-training Network (SubSkillsNet) puts simulations onto laptops which can be used on-board the subs. SubSkillsNet includes simulations of a surfaced bridge view, radar, sonar displays, fire control functions, and a periscope, all linkable together, so they can train whole teams as well as individuals, and change the training scenarios on the fly. While these simulations have the necessary degree of fidelity, one issue the Navy experiences is that with this type of instructor-less learning the students have to take the

initiative to start and persist until they have obtained the necessary level of knowledge and skill. So increasing motivation becomes a key goal. What you want to do is motivate people to spend more time on the training voluntarily, says Rosemary Garris, of the Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division. 18 Using any kind of training product on-board a submarine is largely based on the initiative of the individual student, so you have to entice them. Youre not going to do it by telling them to read the technical publications. Says Garris, and a lot of our CBT is very, very dry. The more Garris and the group of psychologists, computer scientists and engineers in the Science and Technology Division thought about who these learners actually were 19year-old American males, not well known for lightness of touch or finesse, according to CDR Adrian McElwee, director of the Navys Submarine Onboard Training System (SOBT) at the Naval Submarine base in New London CT the more they began to think seriously about using games for motivation as many of their users had already suggested. We wanted to hook submariners. Theyre all young guys, and theyre jazzed by Quake and a variety of other games, says Garris. Not rushing in lightly, the Submarine Team led by psychologist Dr Robert Ahlers began a three-year project on training games that is just ending in 2000. We did a thorough literature review of the educational and psychological literature on games to find the defining characteristics of games and to find out where everyone who has done research in this are was coming from and where they ended up, Garris says. The team decided, based on their research, to turn one of their own simulations into a game and evaluate its training effectiveness. The task they chose was Periscope Observation for Surface Contact Management. What submariners are supposed to do after identifying a contact is call its angle on the bow which is how much its aiming at or away from your ship and also count divisions, which are tick marks in the reticle of the periscope that help determine range. Calling the angle is one of the most difficult periscope skills. In the standard simulation trainees looked, counted, entered estimates of angle and divisions, got corrective feedback, and looked, counted and entered again. Not too interesting. What was missing in terms of the engagement that would get this stuff learned quickly? Ask any gamer: If the target gets too close, you want to blow it out of the water! And so, using what they had learned about game characteristics, Garris group built the game they call Bottom Gun. As in the conventional trainer the player makes estimates of angle and counts the divisions. What makes the game different and fun is that any ship determined to be a threat to ownership safety defined as any contact that will have a closest point of approach within 4,000 yards can be destroyed by firing a missile at it. The missiles firing solution is determined by the angle and division calls the trainee made, so that a hit is dependent upon the players accuracy. Its totally unrealistic, says Garris. In real life or with a conventional simulation you dont shoot collision threats out of the water, you dont get a score, and you dont get credit for maintaining

weapons stores until the end of the game. There is a lot of fantasy and drama built in that arent in the conventional trainer. Why? Years of videogames, which quite likely included commercial sub simulations, have trained these 19-year-olds to expect this kind of real-time, exciting action and feedback. With the game theres a reason to know how to tell the range if the enemy comes too close you can cream the sucker! And you cant fall asleep either. Let them get too close and they start shooting missiles at you! Hey, I can do this, say the trainees. And scores go way up, training time way down. Or thats what the Navy expects, anyway. They are collecting pilot data at a local university where theyre going to be running up to 120 subjects to do this side-by-side comparison. And because they designed and developed both sets of software it is a very clean comparisonthe graphics are exactly the same, the simulation running the applications is exactly the same between conventional and game-oriented training approaches. Data from the first 16 subjects indicates a desirable learning curve. If the rest of the data does not arrive before publication stay tuned for the second printing. But where would you like to place your bet? Who designs and builds these games for the Navy? Why, kids from the Games Generations college students who are gamers themselves and contemporaries of the trainees. Garriss group is located near the University of Central Florida, and they employed most of the programmers on the Universitys programming team. Theyre basically college students who are big time game players. They also participate a lot in the design. The initial design of Bottom Gun we started out with a radar game, just seemed boring to Garris So she went to the kids and I said What do you think would be more fun? They roughed out something together that was very consistent with the guidance provided by the academic literature. Garris feels its very important to include game players on the design team to make sure the fun element doesnt get left out. This is the future in training design trainee contemporaries, redesigning the old training in their new style, with experienced guidance. Creation by players is the way it has always worked in the games world. Its the way it will have to work to create effective learning for the Games Generations. Garris and Ahlers three-year training game study includes not only a review of the literature, but also an exploration of game-playing motivation. They are evaluating the value of Victor Vrooms V.I.E. (Valence, Instrumentality, Expectancy) Theory 19 in helping understand why these games are so popular. Expectancy Theory deals with how much control over an activity or its outcome a person feels is possible, how effective they believe they would be in that activity, and the degree that they find the outcome of the activity attractive. If we can determine what people find so attractive about playing games, we hope we can create training products that meet these same goals while imparting useful knowledge and skills, says Garris. The Submarine Team is pleased enough with their initial results to begin a new game, based on a virtual walkthrough of a submarine, designed to speed up the transition of

most high fidelity simulators in use today are not deployable to the field., the most important (and perishable) skills, Bonnini thinks, can be honed by very-low-cost simulators. He cites the computer game Falcon 4.0 is an example of a commercial product that is shattering the fidelity threshold and providing a model for very-low-cost simulation. Key components of Falcon 4.0 that allow this type of breakthrough include "SIMNET-like" networking protocols that create a large man-in-the-loop environment. They plan to enhance this capability with commercial head-mounted displays and voice recognition systems. In a different area target identification consultant David Twitchell and Instructional Design Professor David Merrill of Utah State University created a quick recognition game, called JVID and Finflash (VI is visual identification and finflash is the markings on an aircrafts tail) for the Air Force after pilots accidentally shot down two friendly Armys Blackhawk helicopters over Iraq in April 1994. 24 The game, which is a kind of reflex game discussed in Chapter 6, has three levels. In Level 1, the player starts off seeing the plane on the runway from above, not moving, and does basic WEFT (wing engine, fuselage, tail) identification. In Level 2 you see the plane from 200 yards in a single view. In Level 3 you are in the cockpit, the plane is coming at you, and you have only 3 or 4 seconds to identify it, just like in real life. Players can choose from many backgrounds, such as sunny sky, cloudy sky, jungle or desert, that may affect identification.(Before the game they used photos, and often remembered the clouds in the pictures rather than the plane markings.) Names and scores are posted, and like with any good videogame, the pilots come back to improve their scores. One of Twitchell and Merlins objectives in the game was to push pilots to the point where it was impossible to identify the aircraft, and to get them to recognize and admit that sometimes it couldnt be done an admission that top gun jet jockeys have a hard time making. The Marines In addition to allowing its officers and men to play certain military-related commercial computer games on base computers 25, the Marines have also been busy creating some training games of their own. Using a version of the commercial game Doom adapted with the help of Lt. Scott Barnett, Marine fire teams have been training at computer labs in Virginia, Georgia and North Carolina learning battlefield tactics and decision-making. 26 Interestingly the skills Barnett was attempting to teach with this action shoot-em-up were not shooting and killing, but rather teamwork, communication and concepts of command and control. What he certainly got was engagement. Its funny, because at the end of the day I had to kick my Marines out of there and send them home, he says. The Marines know theyre learning, but theyre also having fun. I think thats critically important to get them to want to learn. Marine Doom is played as a networked game. Four member fire teams are given four separate computers in the same room. Their goal is to coordinate their movements to eliminate an enemy bunker. In the lab, we crank the sound up just to add to the confusion and the chaos. Each Marine can shout to his comrades, the fire team leader

shouts commands and they advance on the enemy using what they know about strategy and tactics, says Barnett. Dooms sequel Quake, can network up to 16 players, which can accommodate an entire Marine squad. I think in the future were going to see multi-player gaming on a grand scale, Barnett says. Well see squads going on squads in a on-line environment. MaK Technologies, a consumer game developer, has already designed a 16-player Marine squad simulator, called Battle Site Zero. The National Guard and Reserves According to Lt. General Paul Glazer 27, the National Guard uses games to do constructive level (war-gaming) training, leadership training, and battle training. There is a large National Guard Battle Lab at Fort Leavenworth Kansas, and smaller labs in other places as well. One game General Glazer describes has soldiers engaging computer-generated enemies with air-powered M16s and mortars. Like the games in arcades the soldiers see the immediate results of their actions the enemy goes down or he doesnt. But unlike the consumer games, the Military ones carefully track where each bullet goes, so soldiers can learn through replays that the reason they missed, for example was not leading a moving target. When ordering a survival training CD from IBM Learning, the Army Reserves specifically requested that Digital Game-Based Learning be included as part of the design. They wanted an adventure game that trainees could play to dramatically illustrate the value of bringing along all the necessary objects for survival as well as the problems one could encounter if something was forgotten. Interestingly, the game that the IBM developers started with as their model or paradigm of how this should work was the Freddi Fish series of childrens adventure games. 28 Does this mean our pre-schoolers are learning valuable military skills as they play?
Military Trainings Other Missions Schools and Standards
Despite the enormity of their primary mission to train and prepare the military the folks in the joint staff training office are thinking bigger still. They do this in at least two ways, both of which are relevant to Digital Game-Based Learning. The first is to extend what they do to other settings outside the military. One instance of this is what they refer to as interagency training. In an instance of domestic terrorism, or weapons of mass destruction referred to in the trade by the much more pleasant-sounding acronym WMD many groups will have to be coordinated. If you think a coalition is hard, says Mark Oehlert 29, try putting together different units within this own country. If something happens in DC there are 12 different law enforcement agencies that have potential jurisdiction, not to mention the DOD. How can we train the FBI, local fire and police, DOD, National Guard, Army reserve to all operate in the most effective manner when were facing a crisis?

It turns out there is a serious lack of common doctrine and procedures regarding the roles and responsibilities across local, state and federal organizations. Johnson would like to see these tasks better defined, and training implemented in an interagency game similar to JFE, which would train members of the various agencies to work as a team. We are just beginning to understand the power and necessity of digital team training, says Johnson. The second other mission, of the military trainers is creating common standards for reuse and interoperability of training technologies, a mission which grew out of the governments need for cost savings. In the past, training platforms would change every few years, e.g. from a one inch tape to a 3/4 inch tape to a half inch tape to interactive video disk to a CD-ROM to a DVD, all of it proprietary. Each time the platform changed the trainers would have to adapt the training content to the new media format. Because of this they could never implement learning technology on as large a scale as they would have liked. In the early 90s, realizing that they werent able to have one flight simulator talk to another one, they decided to set standards. They created something called DIS (distributed interactive simulation protocol) which morphed into HLA (high level architecture) common standards that allowed interoperability between simulators for team training and reuse of simulation objects, such as tanks, ships, planes and projectiles. So they saved quite a bit of money by not constantly rebuilding the same objects and reinventing the wheel. Once they had solved that problem in the simulation area, they began looking into how such common technology standards might be used across the broader education and training areas. The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), led them to conclude that using learning technology on a very large scale could save a billion dollars a year. 30 To be able to use technology without having to reinvent it every five years, they realized they needed a common standard so that content could be built once and reused over and over again. If the same standard cut across the public and private sectors and academia, it would allow the development of shared learning objects which would seriously drive down investment costs. The result was the development of ADL ( Advanced Distributed Learning) which provides a framework for a distributed learning environment, allowing distribution of high quality content to any device, anywhere, any time. A new ADL specification, the Sharable Courseware Object Reference Model (SCORM), extends the common standards to digital games. Developed in conjunction with Microsoft, Oracle, IBM, Macromedia and standards groups it enables games to be played on any kind of platform and to share and reuse objets. As a result, the development of Digital Game-Based Learning will be made several orders of magnitude more efficient and effective, says Johnson, who is one of the projects team members. 30

Linking Entertainment and Defense The Conference
Military training has a complex organizational structure, with responsibilities divided between the Joint Command and the Services. One thing that the military appears to do
reasonably well compared to industry is to communicate, share its experiences, and create joint approaches and standards among its members. This may be because there are only four companies, and they are all owned by the same parent. In principle their goals and objectives are roughly the same, and except for any pride of ownership, there is no reason not to share. This does not extend, however, to sharing with industries outside the military. The military may have been doing the same things and trying to solve the same problems as many business trainers, but for a host of reasons until relatively recently only a handful of business people if any knew about it, despite the considerable work the Military has done and successes it has had. A similar situation obtained with the entertainment industries. The two groups, military and entertainment, were working on almost exactly the same set of difficult problems simulation and modeling but, since the two groups differ widely in their motivations, objectives, and cultures, they were not only not talking to each other, but were often without a clue as to what the other was doing. In 1996, the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD)'s Defense Modeling and Simulation Office (DMSO) asked the National Research Council to convene a multidisciplinary committee to evaluate the extent to which the entertainment industry and DOD might be able to better leverage each other's capabilities in modeling and simulation technology and to identify potential areas for greater collaboration. A two-day workshop, titled Modeling and Simulation: Linking Entertainment and Defense was held in Irvine, California in October 1996 for members of the entertainment and defense industries to discuss research interests in modeling and simulation. The workshop was unique in that it brought together two communities that traditionally shared little information and transferred little technology between them. 31 At the workshop more than 50 representatives of the entertainment and defense research communities discussed technical challenges, obstacles to successful sharing of technology and joint research, and mechanisms for facilitating greater collaboration. Participants came from the film, video game, location-based entertainment, and theme park industries; DOD; defense contractors; and universities. Through presentations on topics such as electronic storytelling, strategy and war gaming, experiential computing and virtual reality, networked simulation, and low-cost simulation hardware, the committee tried to encourage dialogue and stimulate discussion of research areas of interest to both the entertainment and defense industries. Because the workshop represented one of the first formal attempts to bridge the gap between the entertainment and defense communities, the committee also hoped to encourage personal contacts between members of the two communities as a means of facilitating future collaboration. Eric Haseltine, of Walt Disney Imagineering, remarked at the workshop that "the thing that the entertainment industry can get the most from DOD is just knowing what's been done, so they don't have to reinvent the wheel." 32 This type of military-civilian conference was a really interesting thing to do, and something the training community might well consider. Given the militarys experience and predilections, haring

information between the military and corporate trainers might result in a lot more Digital Game-Based Learning in companies!

Conclusion

The real problem for the military, as Danny Hillis 33 observed at the workshop, is not to simulate a tank or airplane, but to train the person's mind so that when they get into a real tank in a battlefield, they do the right thing. This is why military training has relevance to all training. But the question is always how do we do this? Michael Parmentier 34 is clear that 18-year old recruits expect to be hooked up electronically to the world because thats the way they do things. If we dont do things that way, theyre not going to want to be in our environment. As Don Johnson says: We KNOW the technology works. We just want to get on with using it. In the next section of the book I will show you how to do this. I will illustrate how you can introduce starting tomorrow Digital Game-Based Learning into your organization, no matter what its size, budget, or learning persuasion.
Marc Prensky is an internationally acclaimed thought leader, speaker, writer, consultant, and game designer in the critical areas of education and learning. He is the author of Digital Game-Based Learning (McGraw-Hill, 2001), founder and CEO of Games2train, a game-based learning company, and founder of The Digital Multiplier, an organization dedicated to eliminating the digital divide in learning worldwide. He is also the creator of the sites <www.SocialImpactGames.com>, <www.DoDGameCommunity.com> and <www.GamesParentsTeachers.com>. Marc holds an MBA from Harvard and a Masters in Teaching from Yale. More of his writings can be found at <www.marcprensky.com/writing/default.asp>. Contact Marc at marc@games2train.com.
Notes 1. The Readiness and Training Unit reports to the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Readiness, who reports to the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. 2. The militarys training mission includes approximately eight hundred thousand civilian employees and all military dependents 3. Department of Defense, Office of Readiness and Training. 4. Ibid. 5. This is printed on thegame box. 6. Personal interview with Don Johnson and colleagues 7. There is a sign on an airplane simulator invented by Edwin Link in 1930 at the U.S. Air Force Armament Museum in Pensacola, Florida, that states that it was originally designed as an entertainment device. This "Blue Box" was sold to amusement parks