/ / Q&A: Colonel John T. Janiszewski
A+ A A-

In This Issue

Q&A: Colonel John T. Janiszewski



Simulation Integrator:
Ensuring that Commanders Have the Right LVCG Training Enablers

Colonel John T. Janiszewski
National Simulation Center


Colonel Janiszewski is a native of Milwaukee, Wis. He graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater in 1987 with a Bachelor of Business Administration in management computer systems and was commissioned as a lieutenant in the Military Intelligence Corps.

After completion of the Military Intelligence Office Basic Course, Janiszewski was assigned to the Republic of Korea as a collection and jamming platoon leader, Company B, 532nd Military Intelligence Battalion. In 1990, Janiszewski was assigned to the 25th Infantry Division, where he served as an intelligence and electronic warfare support officer to 1st Infantry Brigade and S2, 5-14 Infantry Battalion. After graduating from the Military Intelligence Officer Advanced course in 1994, Janiszewski served in the 743rd Military Intelligence Battalion as a signals intelligence officer with assignment at the National Reconnaissance Office and commander, C Company, 743rd MI Battalion.

Following company command, Janiszewski attended the University of Central Florida, where he graduated in 1999 with a Master of Science degree in interactive simulation and training systems. He was then designated as a simulation operations officer, Functional Area 57 and assigned to I Corps in Fort Lewis, Wash. There he served as a corps simulations officer, simulations branch chief, and chief of the Mission Support Training Facility.

Following graduation from the Command and General Staff College in Fort Leavenworth, Kan., in 2002, Janiszewski was assigned to the 7th Army Training Command in Grafenwoehr, Germany, and served as the operations branch chief, operations officer and executive officer for the Directorate of Simulations.

Janiszewski was then assigned to the Unit of Action Maneuver Battle Lab at Fort Knox in 2005, where he was assigned as the chief of experimentation. In 2007 he was assigned to the United States Joint Forces Command’s J7 as the chief of the Training Development and Innovation Branch, where he was responsible for developing training systems, training support systems and simulations for combatant commands. In July 2010, Janiszewski was assigned to Carlisle Barracks, Pa., to attend the U.S. Army War College. He graduated and received a master’s degree in strategic studies in June 2011. He then deployed to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and served as the director, J7, U.S. Forces – Afghanistan.

Janiszewski is a joint qualified officer and earned the Ranger tab, and Airborne and Air Assault badges.

Q: What are the roles and responsibilities of the National Simulation Center (NSC)?

A: The National Simulation Center is a part of the Training and Doctrine Command’s (TRADOC) Combined Arms Center. We are the Army’s advocate for ensuring that commanders have the right live, virtual, constructive and gaming (LVCG) training enablers to train versatile units, and develop agile and adaptive leaders.

We support both the operational Army (war fighting commands) and institutional Army (TRADOC centers of excellence and schools). The NSC is made up of a team of professional trainers and technicians who develop requirements for LVCG training capabilities and champion the development and sustainment of an integrated training environment (ITE). The ITE replicates the difficulties and complications of the operational environment, enabling leaders and units to gain the experience, confidence and skills required to execute decisive action.

Additional NSC responsibilities include:

Defining the requirements for the computer software and protocols that allow the ITE’s live, virtual and constructive training enablers to work with each other seamlessly and stimulate Mission Command Systems with realistic information.

Defining requirements for the synthetic terrain used by training systems.

Assisting TRADOC centers of excellence and schools by ensuring they have the right LVCG training enablers to meet their educational requirements.

Serving as the Army’s Mission Command Training Support Program lead within the Training System Support Enterprise.

Providing simulation for division and higher home station exercises within the continental United States (CONUS) from the Regional Simulation Center CONUS at Fort Leavenworth, Kan.

Providing simulation in support of the Mission Command Training Program’s mission to execute collective training of Army units as directed by the Chief of Staff of the Army.

Q: How do you foresee the military’s use of simulation changing over the next three years?

A: I believe that over the next three years the military’s use of simulation will dramatically increase to offset the reduction of resources available for training. Today within the Army we already use constructive simulation as the primary training enabler for large scale (division and above) collective training exercises.

However, with the current fiscal realities I expect that there will be less funding available to support live training. As a result, commanders will look toward maximizing their live training opportunities as well as relying on lower-cost opportunities to achieve readiness. Training soldiers in simulations, as a precursor to live training, enables soldiers to enter live training at a much higher proficiency. This ensures that units in live training focus on critical tasks that can only be accomplished on ranges or training areas. For example, virtual simulators such as the combined arms tactical trainer allow tank crews to repetitively practice gunnery to increase their proficiency before live firing on the range.

Simulations such as our Games for Training Tools, Virtual Battlespace 2 and soon-to-be-released Virtual Battlespace 3 provide engaging, effective, low-cost individual and collective training for soldiers and leaders. Simulations will be used to maintain readiness to enhance live training as well as an alternative to live training.

Q: How has the current austere budget environment impacted the NSC?

A: The NSC is one member of the Training System Support Enterprise that is impacted by the current austere budget environment. The Training System Support Enterprise provides the networked, integrated and interoperable training support products, facilities and services to replicate the complexities of the operational environment in training and education. From an enterprise perspective we’ve had to look hard at how we develop and sustain our training capabilities. The strategy the enterprise has taken involves six basic imperatives:

Enable home station training at medium fidelity replication of the operational environment

Enable combat training center (CTC) training at high fidelity replication of the operational environment

Enable commanders and commandants to train as we fight

Focus on high-payoff capabilities

Focus on the right quality and quantity improvements to meet minimum threshold requirements

Mitigate the reduction of operational tempo resources to the operational force.

Following those imperatives will allow the enterprise to make informed decisions about which capabilities and programs to develop, field and sustain in the coming years.

The NSC, like most Army organizations, has been impacted by the austere environment. We’ve lost personnel through normal attrition who we’ve not been able to replace. As a result, we’ve had to prioritize our workload and in some cases extend the time it takes to execute lower-priority tasks. We’ve also been much more reliant on communicating via teleconference or video-teleconference instead of conducting face-to-face meetings. I look at the current situation as an opportunity to reinvent the way we conduct routine business in the organization. The environment will force us to adapt and change our processes. In the end, I believe that we will become more efficient in how we execute our mission.

Q: What are the top three challenges the NSC will face in 2014?

A: Our top challenge has to be what I just talked about—adjusting our behavior, as well as the behavior of the Training Support System Enterprise, based upon the conditions of the austere budget environment. Regardless of the budget environment, the NSC will need to maintain the same level of support that we provide to our stakeholders. Commanders will continue to demand high-quality training enablers, and we will have to be creative in developing more cost-effective solutions to meet those demands.

Our second challenge is to continue to look toward the future and how training concepts and technologies evolve to support the Army of 2025 and beyond. When faced with limited resources, organizations have a tendency to focus on the immediate challenges and mortgage the future. At the NSC, we must be able to continue to apply appropriate resources toward researching technologies and developing training requirements to support future operational concepts.

Finally, our third challenge deals with educating the force regarding how to maximize the training capabilities that are available to them. Over the past 11 years of persistent conflict, the Army has primarily delivered the required training to commanders and reduced the responsibility of commanders to plan, prepare, execute and assess training.

We’ve found that many units don’t realize the training capabilities that are available on their installation or how to use those capabilities. We are putting together a mobile training team that will go to various installations and help educate units about how the specific training enablers at that installation can be applied to support a commander’s training objectives. Our end state is for leaders to have a better understanding on implementing the operations process for LVCG systems and capabilities in an ITE.

Q: What are the NSC’s goals in developing an ITE and how do you plan on meeting those goals?

A: As we transition in Afghanistan, Army senior leaders realize that an Army at peacetime becomes an Army of preparation, and must focus on training and leader development. The Army is reinvigorating home station training capabilities as the foundation for unit and leader readiness. Now commanders will take primary responsibility for managing unit training and developing their subordinate leaders. The Army is developing an ITE in order to meet its current training challenges and to develop adaptive, flexible and versatile leaders and units to operate in a complex operational environment.

The ITE is a system of systems that by design connects or integrates training enablers in a persistent and consistent manner to stimulate mission command information systems to meet the commander’s training objectives within the appropriate operational environment. It is being designed as a brigade and below home station capability.

The ITE is an asset that gives commanders the opportunity to execute concurrent, multi-echelon leader and collective training. Through the use of virtual simulators and gaming tools, crews and squads can be trained while constructive simulations are training battalion and brigade staffs, all in the same exercise using the same scenario.

The ITE allows the commanders to train in the operational environment using both live training ranges and virtual training space. By combining the live and synthetic environment, the ITE gives the commander the option to expand the operational environment. In essence, the ITE combines real dirt with virtual dirt.

At times it is difficult to coordinate training with combat enablers that are external to a brigade combat team. The ITE gives commanders the ability to employ the full range of enablers that commanders would typically have during a combat operation.

Another benefit of the ITE is that it provides commanders the ability to take risks that they typically wouldn’t take in live training. This gives commanders increased opportunities to take innovative approaches to solving complex challenges without fear of losing personnel or equipment.

Our number one goal is to field the live, virtual, constructive–integrating architecture (LVC-IA) to all installations worldwide where brigade combat teams are located. We’ve developed a fielding plan out to FY17 that will accomplish this goal. Currently, we’ve fielded the ITE at Fort Hood, Texas; Fort Drum, N.Y.; Fort Campbell, Ky.; Fort Bliss, Texas; and Fort Stewart, Ga.

Our second goal is to enhance the existing capabilities of the ITE. We will field version 2 of the LVC-IA beginning in FY15. Version 2 has several critical enhancements including:

Accreditation that allows units use on their tactical SIPRNET

Expanded capability to train divisions

Improved database development tools to reduce exercise design time

Incorporation of Games for Training (Virtual Battlespace 3)

The ability to link to more than one post.

Q: How is the NSC trying to provide a global simulation capability network in CONUS?

A: The Global Simulation Capability Network (GSC Net) is a key component of the Integrated Training Environment. It is a persistent training network that allows units at home stations to access training enablers that are not available at their post. The GSC Net allows the NSC to distribute constructive simulations from Fort Leavenworth to home station training locations in support of division and corps training events. It also allows units that are at disparate installations to train together.

The beauty of the GSC Net is that it uses the existing Defense Information Systems Agency operational network and can be used for both classified and unclassified training. The NSC has partnered with the 7th Signal Command to implement the GSC Net to all CONUS installations by FY15. To date, Fort Leavenworth, Fort Riley, Fort Stewart, Fort Hood, Fort Bliss, Fort Lee, Fort Campbell and Fort Bragg have the ability to access the GSC Net. Over the next year, we will add an additional 17 installations. Future phases include establishing the GSC Net in Europe and Pacific theaters, and connecting with reserve component and joint exercise networks.

Q: How does the NSC provide capability development for LVCG enablers that set the conditions for Army training?

A: The NSC has multiple TRADOC capability managers (TCMs). They are charted by the commander of the Training and Doctrine Command to serve as the Army’s centralized planner, manager and integrator for all capability development and user activities associated with specific LVCG training enablers. The TCMs assess doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership, education, personnel and facilities requirements associated with the development of LVCG capabilities. Assisted by appropriate TRADOC proponents, schools and centers, and working with select project/program managers, the TCMs ensure associated deliverables are developed to meet Army milestones.

Capability development is a continuous process and I’ll highlight some of the key areas of that process. The Army’s three high strategies, Army Leader Development Strategy, Army Mission Command Strategy and Army Training Strategy, set the training conditions that drive the TCMs’ efforts.

The job of a TCM is to aggressively pursue the needs of their stakeholders or proponents within the operational and institutional Army and leverage the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System to document requirements to meet their stakeholders’ training needs.

The requirements are documented and approved by decision makers such as Army Staff and Army Requirements Oversight Council. To obtain resources for the requirement, the TCMs work very closely with the materiel developer Program Manager teammates from the Army G-3 and the Army Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training, and Instrumentation.

Once resourses are obtained, the materiel developer acquires a materiel solution that goes through an extensive validation, verification and accreditation process to ensure that the solution meets the original requirement. Once accredited, the materiel solution is fielded to the Army for use in training. Stakeholders providing continuous feedback to the TCMs outlining any areas requiring improvement or additional enhancements required for a given training enabler.

While that is a simplification of the process, I believe it accurately describes some of the major activities that NSC performs when executing our capability development mission.

Q: How is the NSC involved with offering simulation support for Mission Command Training Program exercises?

A: The Mission Command Training Program (MCTP) is one of our teammates at Fort Leavenworth. MCTP is the Army’s primary CTC for mission command training using constructive simulations. MCTP supports the Army force generation (ARFORGEN) training and mission preparation progression and other Army requirements. MCTP conducts or supports combined arms training that simulate unified land operations in the operational environment at worldwide locations.

The MCTP provides training events for BCTs, multifunctional support brigades, functional support brigades, divisions, corps, Army Service Component Commands, Joint Force Land Component Commands and Joint Task Forces in accordance with the ARFORGEN readiness model. The National Simulation Center provides the Warfighter Simulation (WARSIM), WARSIM Intelligence Model, and Joint Deployment Logistics Model (JDLM) in support of MCTP training events, which are typically conducted at the training audience’s home station.

The NSC runs the simulations at Fort Leavenworth and distributes them via a dedicated network to the home station Mission Training Complex. This is a much more cost-effective method of providing simulation support and one of the prime benefits of constructive simulation—its ability to be distributed worldwide. It also enables MCTP to focus more of its resources on training the unit.

Q: Can you tell me how the NSC is establishing an Integrated Training Environment Governance by publishing the ITE Implementation Master Plan?

A: There are numerous stakeholders that have an interest in the development and fielding of ITE. The ITE Implementation Master Plan essentially defines the governance process or business rules for how ITE stakeholders provide input into the development, fielding and sustainment of the ITE.

The I2MP describes how the Army will establish the blueprint for incremental ITE operational and supporting system capabilities and align requirements, funding and solutions to create these incremental ITE capabilities.

Probably the three most important events within the I2MP process are the Requirements Control Board (RCB), Configuration Control Board, and Training General Officer Steering Committee (TGOSC) endorsement.

The RCB establishes the ITE capability objectives and translates them into requirements. The RCB also establishes the ITE Operational Architecture. It is the forum where stakeholders present their needs or specific ITE capabilities required to support home station training. The end state of the RCB is a comprehensive list of requirements that are prioritized by the ITE stakeholders. Those requirements are then presented to our materiel developer partner, Program Executive Office for Simulation Training and Instrumentation (PEO-STRI).

The CCB, led by PEO-STRI, evaluates the ITE requirements provided by the RCB for cost, schedule and feasibility and provides courses of action, including supporting recommended requirements allocation and solutions, to the ITE Executive Steering Group.

The ITE Executive Steering Group identifies requirements that will move forward for solution development by the materiel developer and presents those to the TGOSC. The TGOSC endorsement enables the Training System Support Enterprise to compete for the necessary funding required to implement the materiel solution.

Q: How does the NSC offer combat training center and home station exercise support?

A: A combat training center rotation is the premier training event for a brigade combat team (BCT) and is part of the program that generates ready units and agile leaders. Last summer we worked with Forces Command to develop and execute a proof of principle that enabled a unit at its home station to leverage the training environment from a combat training center rotation. For the proof of principle we leveraged the 3rd IBCT, 10th Mountain Division rotation at the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC), Fort Polk, La., with a command post exercise being executed by the 10th Sustainment Brigade (SB) from Fort Drum.

In the proof of principle, the CTC operational environment was exported to the 10th SB via a one-way feed of the common operating picture via the command post of the future mission command information system. With the tactical context being provided by the 3/10 IBCT at JRTC, the 10th SB simultaneously executed a sustainment exercise out of the Fort Drum Mission Training Complex, leveraging the JDLM simulation.

The end result of the proof of principle was that we proved that a unit at home station could take advantage of the operational environment being provided by a CTC rotation to achieve specific training objectives. The proof of principle was so successful that Combined Arms Support Command is looking to institutionalize the concept for sustainment training across the Army. ♦

Last modified onMonday, 07 April 2014 16:51

Additional Info

  • Issue: 1
  • Volume: 19
back to top