Collective_Training_Simulation_CoN_draft_v1.7.docx

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

COMBINED ARMS COMMAND – TRAINING

FUTURE TRAINING DIRECTORATE

12809 SCIENCE DRIVE

ORLANDO, FL 32826-3276

FCOP-CTH (Draft v1.7) SUBJECT: Training and Simulation Characteristics of Need

FCOP-CTH 01 July 2026

MEMORANDUM THRU Vice Chief of Staff, U.S. Army

FOR Chief of Staff, U.S. Army

SUBJECT: Training and Simulation Characteristics of Need (CoN) (Draft v1.7)

1. Situation. The Army must be prepared to compete and win against peer adversaries in a complex, multi-domain operational environment. The modern character of war and the complex global threat environment are driving a continuous transformation of the U.S. Army across the domains of Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership and Education, Personnel, and Facilities (DOTMLPF). Future conflict will require the Joint Force to dominate in all domains (land, maritime, air, space, and cyberspace) and dimensions (physical, information, and human). To achieve this, the Army must be able to conduct realistic, large-scale combined arms collective training that replicates the challenges of Multi-Domain Operations (MDO) across the entire competition continuum.

2. Problem. The Army's current training infrastructure consists of separate and stove-piped Live, Virtual, and Constructive systems (e.g., I-MILES, CCTT, JLCCTC) that are not organically integrated. These deeply ingrained challenges manifest as software and hardware systems that are costly, resource-intensive to execute, and rigid. This disjointed approach prevents the Army from conducting true all-arms, multi-echelon, combined arms maneuver in a collective training environment. This fragmentation stems from a lack of a unified development approach, poor interoperability, and slow adoption of commercial industry software, gaming, and simulation standards. It creates a critical readiness gap by limiting the ability to conduct cross-community collaboration, update collective training scenarios at the speed of relevance, and train against a peer threat at the scale and complexity required for Multi-Domain Operations. Finally, our inability to capture, access, and leverage training data and lessons learned, and quickly and broadly socialize them across the entirety of the force, induces additional costs and time in attaining training readiness for the Army.

3. Objective. The objective is to realize the Global Training Environment (GTE): a holistic, all-arms collective training and simulation ecosystem built upon a foundation of composable software services. Underpinned by a backbone of common software standards and leveraging modern technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), commercial gaming advances, and cloud computing, the GTE will enable units from Soldier to Army Service Component Command (ASCC) to train seamlessly together across all domains, utilizing an integrated and synchronized LVC construct that captures and shares training data.

This architecture will allow the Army to seamlessly scale exercises from individual Soldier training to complex, collective combined arms maneuver at the point of need. By ensuring all capabilities are connected, we can eliminate the legacy problem of siloed platforms and enable the reuse of simulation and data from initial concept through sustainment.

This CoN establishes the baseline to initiate an iterative dialogue with industry and academia, anticipating future technologies and capabilities and supporting early prototyping, experimentation, and rapid acquisition activities to bridge this readiness gap. This CoN develops the holistic environment and architectural foundation required to conduct seamless, multi-echelon, all-domain collective training—defining the characteristics needed to fuse Live, Virtual, and Constructive (LVC) domains into a single ecosystem. It will not replace foundational live training, dictate specific tactical training scenarios, or prescribe the exact training devices and proprietary simulators the Army will procure. Rather, it establishes the operational and technical characteristics required to ensure all future training solutions can seamlessly integrate, scale at the point of need, and circulate training data across the force.

4. Key Characteristics. The required capabilities, in support of the GTE concept, will be realized through the following key characteristics, which are underpinned by a collaborative and iterative development process among Science & Technology, Capability Developers, Acquisition, Academia, and Industry.

a. On-Platform / Embedded Live Training Integration. The Army must evolve its Live Training Systems (LTS) to fully connect instrumented Soldiers and combat platforms with integrated, high-fidelity sensors at Combat Training Centers (CTCs) and home stations. By integrating continuous data collection across all warfighting functions, the Army seeks modular and interoperable commercial solutions to capture real-world performance metrics. This operational data must produce high-fidelity digital representations, or "digital twins," that accurately replicate the physical and functional capabilities of the platform, enabling vertical and horizontal integration with constructive and virtual environments.

b. Virtual Training Modernization and Immersive Technologies. The Army must transition from legacy, proprietary training systems to modular and open architecture across virtual collective and individual training capabilities. The Army seeks commercial-proven gaming and immersive technologies that provide intuitive, scalable, and persistent simulation experiences. These must support rapid scenario generation and realistic interaction with terrain, leveraging mature commercial technologies to reduce development timelines and training overhead costs, while also lowering total ownership costs.

c. Next-Generation Constructive. The Army needs a future constructive capability to simulate the scale, complexity, and all-domain nature of MDO and leverage Army C2 transport layer to facilitate integration with NGC2. This simulation must provide a semi-autonomous, dynamic, continuously updatable and intelligent friendly force and opposing force (OPFOR) capable of executing peer-level threat doctrine, and multi-domain effects, forcing commanders and staffs to make decisions in a dynamic, contested and complex environment.

d. Threat Replication. The Army seeks realistic, scalable, and continuously updatable threat representation across LVC environments. These capabilities should replicate contemporary and emerging threats doctrine and multi-domain effects to support collective training mission.

e. AI-Enabled Modeling & Automation: The Army seeks AI-enabled tools to accelerate the creation, adaptation, and employment of synthetic environments and threat behaviors. Automation must span the exercise lifecycle to reduce the time, manpower, and technical burden associated with planning, preparation, execution, and assessment. This will enable rapid exercise orchestration, data collection, and timely, data-driven After Action Reviews (AARs) at echelon. Enterprise wide, AI can analyze collective training data outcomes to identify, prioritize, and socialize critical training requirements, ensuring broader training readiness.

f. Mission Partner Interoperability & Universal Accessibility: Capabilities must be universally accessible to authorized users across geographically dispersed networks, maintaining an integrated cybersecurity framework built into the architecture from the outset. The Army seeks commercial standards-based interoperability to enable secure simulation and data exchange with Joint, interagency, interorganizational, and multinational partners at the appropriate classification levels. We must be able to train with the partners that we will fight with in the next conflict.

g. Architectural Framework. The Army seeks to consolidate the simulation and collective training portfolio into a single, integrated LVC capability enabled by a commercial-proven, data-centric architecture. This transitions the Army away from large, monolithic simulation systems toward modular, discoverable software services accessible through defined open Application Programming Interfaces (APIs):

1) Common Services Layer: Powered by modern data and software practices, this layer includes data fusion services, gaming and simulation engines, digital terrain, and modeling technologies. It empowers Soldiers and capability developers to instantiate simulation environments tailored for specific uses (collective training, T&E, wargaming, systems design) using standard simulation protocols and common data reporting standards, including data mesh.

2) Transport Layer: Serves as the communications infrastructure for moving high-fidelity data at speed. It must fully exploit modern Command and Control networks, specifically the Unified Network, to enable globally accessible operations across fixed, mobile, and expeditionary sites. Services should be tailored to spectrum, geography, bandwidth, resilience, and cost.

3) Sensor/Instrumentation Layer: Sensor/Instrumentation Layer: Moving away from single-product solutions, this layer collects data organically from operational platforms, including C2, counter-C2, and aviation systems, with solutions that minimize size, weight, and power (SWaP) while accurately representing live capabilities in the digital space.

5. Example Use Case.

a. Who: An Armored Brigade Combat Team commander and staff, with subordinate battalions.

b. What: Conducts a multi-echelon combined arms live-fire and force-on-force exercise employing MDO environment.

c. When: During a CTC rotation / home-station collective training event.

d. Where: Distributed across home station, a CTC, and virtual/constructive nodes simultaneously and with key outcomes and lessons learned captured and socialized across similar formations across the force.

e. Why: To rehearse and validate MDO readiness against a thinking peer threat at a scale and complexity that no single LVC environment can currently replicate.

6. Amendments. This Characteristics of Need statement is a living document and will be updated as required based on technological observations and lessons learned through experimentation. At a minimum it will be reviewed every 90 days by the Commanding General, U.S. Army Transformation and Training Command.

image1.jpg image10.jpg