FATS

[Jarnhamar]

Talking to a teckie at CFB Kingston while coaching with the FATS and he said the army would like, int he future, all the systems to be interlinked. The end result being regiments from ontario could train, on the system, with regiments from BC at the same time and give us more practice fighting at a larger level.

 

[rdschultz]

Originally posted by Bratok:
[qb] Actually If you lok closely, the weapons are replicas. There‘s a neat picture of a cobra instead of the diemaco emblem [/qb]

I think the bushmaster logo is a cobra. So if it is a bushmaster XM-15, the cobra would make sense.

 

[scotty884]

The trainer also has the ability to have 81mm mortars on it too. We use it once in awhile here saves on money and ammo.

 

[MPIKE]

I was wondering if anyone had any recent news of use of CFSATS for current training in their unit?  Has anyone updated their unit's system scenarios to something that reflects our current theatre of operations?  I believe that we only have the some basic FATS scenarios involving some Peacekeeping checkpoints etc and most of its use was towards range training .  Unfortunately, our use of this system has been abandoned for other training requirements needs for now but I would like to change that, now that most of our conversion training (cougar to recce) has come to an end.  I would be interested in hearing in some ideas of others who are still incorperating this into their training.  Or has it become like its brother the cougar simulator outdated?

Thanks

 

[vonGarvin]

The beauty of the SAT is that that IFT/IFACT, IFFT, LAV CGT etc are all made by the same company.  There is a force underway now to "mesh" the systems.  In other words, you sit in a standalone LAV CGT and around you are other soldiers, all fighting the same fight.  Or, think bigger, and the combat team is spread across Gagetown, or wherever, all linked up with say the JCATS running one big virtual battle. 
Of course, Simulators don't replace field training: it enhances it.  Think of it as one more step prior to "going live".
As for the weapons, FATS is implementing Blue-tooth technology so that you aren't "slaved" to the cable: they even have it for pistols.  Basically, the magazine houses the CO2 required to cause the bolt to go back, etc.  So, you can "stack" outside a room, and then enter a "virtual" CGI room.
Also, they showed us some branching video of "shoot/don't shoot" scenarios.  They also have climate controlled rooms, where in one case the scenario was "two man OP".  The room temperature was dropped to just above freezing (the operator was warm in his hole with coffee, internet, etc).  For the first 15 minutes, the soldiers were wide awake, alert, etc.  Nothing happened.  Their instructor reminded them that their shift was 2 hours.  Well, about 1.5 hours into it, some CGI soldiers approached and got very close before being detected by the now-shivering and cold soldiers.  So, it can do more than marksmanship.
They also have this paintball-gun-type-thing that fires paintball-projectile sized foam balls AT YOU, sort of punishment for failing to adopt correct firing positions, etc.

The only restriction to SATS is the human mind and imagination.

 

[ZipperHead]

The only restriction to SATS is the human mind and imagination.

You forgot one restriction: money!!!! We have caviar tastes and a Kraft Dinner budget, so the thought of getting these "Gucci" simulators, while enticing, is unlikely, due to the money being better spent elsewhere. Don't get me wrong: I am all about using simulators to augment training (to make sure soldiers are at a higher level than just through field training and theoretical work alone). It's just that some of the extra's can be done without in the interest of getting more of the basics. If we won the International Lottery, I would be all over getting the Cadillac version if we can afford it, but we are likely to get the Honda Civic version: thoroughly capable of getting the job done, but not having all the fancy bells and whistles that aren't really needed, and can be achieved via different (read as: through field training) means.

I have seen (and played with) a goodly number of these simulators, and they certainly have a high WOW!! factor, but they also come with a WOW!! factor price tag: in excess of $100,000 per "lane" (which is how they refer to each shooting position). That would keep them limited to only one place (Gagetown), and consequently out of the reach of the soldier's that would need to use them constantly: the field force soldiers. In a perfect world, every major formation would get them, but there are many costs associated with these big, high-end bohemoths, and if Lance Wiebe wants to weigh in, I'll let him (he's the FATS Canada rep here in Gagetown) as he would know far more than I do.

There are other more cost-effective alternatives (desktop simulation, off the shelf systems) that do less, but they can be employed in greater numbers (hence more kit out to the troops).

One "goodie" that you didn't mention (that you may not know about) that I saw that works as an aversion therapy type of device is a belt that is worn around the waist that has a Taser device (with two leads coming out of it) attached to it, and if you don't take good enough cover when being shot at virtually (i.e standing when a prone position is better) the operator can "zap" the offending soldier with a varying length of electricity to "teach" them to adopt a better position. I have a short video clip of a Capt from CTC being shocked with it that is relatively amusing, as he drops to the ground and squeals like a little girl (he received a .75 second burst - it can go up to 5 seconds). I received a .25 second burst, and I was sore for 2 days (muscles contracting rapidly due to the shock). Anyway, there are many "cool" things that can be accomplished, but like anything, there is a cost associated with them, and trying to justify that to the people who control the chequebook is easier said than done: there has to be a concrete reason that something is needed, no LCF factors allowed  .

No lecture intended vG, as you know these things better than I do, but I'd hate to have all the pers reading this run to their CO asking to buy these fancy riggin's, not realizing these are major projects, and take a lot of work to procure. I love what FATS puts out (and they certainly know how to throw a good party, with lots of goodies given away to try to get you to buy their stuff  8) ), but some of it is definitely for those with unlimited budgets (look south, young man.....), not tire-kickers like the CF.

Al

 

[MPIKE]

Thanks for your input Gents,

I think I should have prefaced a little more that I'm not looking to do virtual reality field training replacement or even start requesting the procurement of the mega sims that they have at Fort Knox.  I just have the humble idea of using what we have with a greater emphasis. 

When I started in policing there was quite a bit of emphasis in the FATS system but most forces (bigger ones) have moved back towards Simunition Training which is about as realistic as you can get.  But when we did use the system, I think it had the benefits with just getting people to think out of the box.  I would like to propose an increased use of the sim at my unit for some judgmental type training.  Something that I don't think we are doing a good job of showing to new soldiers.  I really have a hate on for Blank Warfare and people endlessly running around with no real use or I should say concept of cover & concealment. (although that Tazer system would cure that)  In perfect world we all would have access to WATC and their Miles gear but that not possible from Oshawa.

For starters I have to my homework on the exact capabilties of our reserve unit size FATS-in-a-Box that we have and corner the Smea and see what we can do with it.  I thought I could also pick some minds here to see what others are doing with that system.  We have a dedicated room built for it with a theatre sound system and screen so it is just limited to the imagination.

So in my context I'm not looking at re-inventing the wheel, just using the tools that have been sent out to us in the satellite armouries.  I would rather make the training applicable now rather than wait til a soldier goes to pre-op. And anything to avoid death by powerpoint.

Thanks Al I would appreciate hearing more from Lance or yourself in this area.

 

[Snaketnk]

I realize this thread is over a year old, but I don't think such a minor question merits its own thread.

I was wondering what kind of distribution FATS recieves among the Regular Forces? I know that many Reserve units have 4- or 8-lane set-ups in their local armoury, but what about Regular Forces? Are there FATS set-ups on the major bases? Are they just the Small Arms trainers or do they have the LAV III systems as well? How restricted are their use? I've spent time with nearly all of their products, and I'm just curious as to Regular Force use.

 

[George Wallace]

Yes they do.  (Same answer for all your questions.)

 

[bily052]

I was on the one in Kingston last week.  Had a blast and didn't have to lay in the mud.  (Air Force guy here) LOL

 

[MG34]

FATS is pretty much a useless training tool,as it trains the soldiers to shoot an unnatural shot, what I mean is the sim (if you actually follow it's feedback) forces shooters to adopt the position that IT likes, not the most natural position forthe shooter to be in.  I have seen scores drop when inexperienced shooters apply the firing postion feedback that the sim tells them to do.
Other than that it's a neat distraction that kills some time, and not much else. The money spent on purchasing, upgrading and maintaining the systems would be better spent on ammunition and real range time.

 

[KevinB]

FATS is pretty much a useless training tool,as it trains the soldiers to shoot an unnatural shot, what I mean is the sim (if you actually follow it's feedback) forces shooters to adopt the position that IT likes, not the most natural position forthe shooter to be in.  I have seen scores drop when inexperienced shooters apply the firing postion feedback that the sim tells them to do.
Other than that it's a neat distraction that kills some time, and not much else. The money spent on purchasing, upgrading and maintaining the systems would be better spent on ammunition and real range time.

I agree fully.  The only thing I find it useful (and not as good as sims) is shoot/don't shoot stuff from the video's.

 

[medaid]

The other thing a FATS is good for is PAF events like the PNE

There was one brought out this year, and it was a huge attraction. I have to admit it was fun for even those of us who were there. I mean it was really neat to just shoot off rounds and practice some basic marksmanship principles. I know my pistol shooting actually improved after that.  ;D

 

[c_canuk]

it is by no means even close to useful for improving your marksmanship, it does however help with shoot don't shoot as mentioned before and is useful for practicing M72 and M203 drills before going to the grenade or rocket range. I also think that it would be just as useful for the Arty types who at my armouries have a scaled down 105 hooked up to it.

I don't think is completely useless as it can vastly improve drills without spending very expensive ammo, but you can't beat real bullets down range when working on marksmanship.

That said I don't like the automated ranges in Gagetown... it works great about half the time, the other half you might as well just save your ammo and start again next serial cause once someone else sets off one of your sensors or shoots at your target, it's all out of wack and your not going to get anyinformation that is worthwhile.

EDIT: oh and it's good for practicing calling GRITs and GETMs

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Obviously, the SAT's are not being used as designed.

The feedback is primarily there for the coach to assist you in correcting fundamental mistakes.  They are not there for the shooter to try and get the perfect butt pressure and so on.  The wearing of vests, helmets etc or not wearing them , all affect how you shoot.  If a soldier is having problems grouping, a good coach can use the feedback to improve your shooting.

As was pointed out, they also make you do your drills, which most of us can use practice in.

Using the SAT, especially for those "once a year" shooters, is a great training aid, and has improved the shooting of most of those who have used it.....provided coaches are used!

The SAT does save on ammunition, wear and tear on service weapons and so on.  It is not meant to replace ranges, it is meant to supplement them.

Methinks that some coaches are required in some places.

 

[Snaketnk]

All of the times I've been on FATS, there has been a Reservist Coach there (he's an employee of FATS Canada) And on my second session with the C7, I was able to get a 12cm group of 5 rounds at 100 yards. I'd say that isn't bad for someone who, prior to that, had only ever fired paintball guns. I think that as a training tool; that is, getting recruits to understand the basic principals of C7 handling and firing in perfect safety, and without wasting ammunition. I don't think it would work well for familiarization when it comes to shooting, as they're not live rounds.

My first impression was that the FATS system's niche was training soldiers (and refreshing their training) on systems that are too expensive to frequently use. The Eryx and the M72 for example: I've probably fired more of those two systems than the majority of Reg Force soldiers(albeit simulated).

I'm only a Civvie with several days of FATS experience, so take my words with a grain of salt.

 

[TN2IC]

When teaching a BMQ course, SATS can be good, before the range day. Gets all the jitters out of the troops. And gives them an idea what is going to happen during the PWT.


Regards,
TN2IC

 

[geo]

FATS is a training tool.  As such it does not replace the real thing.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

FATS is a training tool.  As such it does not replace the real thing.

Sorry to nitpick, but FATS is a company.  The SAT and the IFT are the training tools.....

 

[J.J]

I wouldn't trust FATS as an marksmanship benchmark or exposure. It is inaccurate and can teach bad habits. It can be beneficial in handling skills. It was designed as judgement tool and should be used as such. It is an excellent and affordable shoot or no shoot scenario based training aid. I shudder every time I hear a bean counter suggest it be used instead of range time (not directed at anyone out here).