What Are the Challenges of Simulation in Military Training?

1. Why Does Simulation Struggle to Replicate Real-World Combat Conditions?

Simulation is a crucial element of military training, especially within modern aircrew preparation; however, it still cannot fully replicate the complex nature of real-world combat conditions. This is because synthetic environments can never fully match the unpredictable nature of contested operational theatres. 

Modern combat situations involve:

• degraded or denied positioning systems (where GPS and navigation data may be unreliable or unavailable)
• electronic warfare
• information overload
• adversaries adapting new tactics 

These factors introduce layers of unpredictability which most simulators, including those used in flight training, cannot fully replicate. Simulation models must simplify these aspects in order to function, therefore limiting fidelity. Ultimately, a simulation cannot simultaneously model all real-world variables without high cost or unmanageable complexity. 

Another issue is that training systems often struggle to work smoothly together across different platforms and services, and the limited integration between domains makes it harder to deliver realistic joint and coalition aircrew training.

That being said, advances are being made in areas such as high-fidelity synthetic environments, AI-driven scenario generation, and live-virtual-constructive (LVC) integration. These advances are certainly helping to bridge this gap because they create more adaptive and data-rich scenarios that help to approximate contested airspace and operational environments. Investment in this type of technology is essential to help simulations stay realistic and useful with how the military actually fights and trains.  

2. How Can Military Training Simulation Keep Pace with Evolving Threats and Platforms

To keep pace with evolving threats and platforms, militaries can:

1.     Adopt modular and open architectures

Modular Open Systems Architectures (MOSA) are useful because they break monolithic simulation systems into interoperable components with standardised interfaces. This means individual modules (such as sensor suites) can be updates or swapped out without the need to rebuild the entire simulator. As a result, development time is reduced allowing more time for new capabilities to be integrated quickly and efficiently as new aircraft model enter service. 

2.     Spiral development cycles 

Spiral development approaches also help accelerate capability insertion as this process involves making small but regular updates to training systems instead of waiting years for a major overhaul. This way, new capabilities can be added much faster and more often. 

3.     Closer collaboration between operators, training authorities and industry partners

Finally, collaboration between the military, training authorities and industry does well to ensure that any emerging threats, lessons learned during operations or platform upgrades can feed directly into simulation pipelines. This helps to maintain relevance and fidelity. 

3. What Human Factors Limit the Effectiveness of Simulation in Military Training?

Human factors will always play a key role in the effectiveness of simulation training. This is because human factors directly influence how trainees, including pilots, perceive and transfer learning from the synthetic environment into real-world situations. 

Firstly, we have cognitive load – this is a primary constraint because high-fidelity simulations can present complex information. Without careful design, high levels of information will overwhelm working memory and therefore reduce learning efficiency whilst in the cockpit. 

Simulators also struggle to evoke behavioural realism. This includes stress responses, uncertainty and nuanced social interactions which characterise real flight operations, therefore limiting the transfer of skills to live sorties. 

Trust in synthetic systems is another human factor. Scenarios in which trainees or instructors do not trust the simulation’s fidelity or feedback, engagement and training outcomes will suffer as a consequence. 

Moreover, if certain environments have been poorly calibrated, this can lead to negative training whereby habits learned in simulation are incongruent with real-world flight requirements - potentially degrading performance rather than improving it. 

To mitigate these effects, training designers are increasingly incorporating:

• adaptive scenarios
• structured assessments
• enhanced instructor roles

In turn, this will better reflect human performance under stress and uncertainty, while maintaining alignment with operational demands.

4. How Do Cost, Interoperability and Integration Challenges Affect the Value of Simulation?

These challenges materially influence the value-for-money proposition of simulation in military training – particularly across aircrew training pipelines. High-fidelity systems that support various capabilities, and that must integrate across air, land, naval and joint domains, require significant upfront investment in software, hardware and network infrastructure. 

Without interoperability, bespoke systems are frequently developed in isolation, leading to siloed training environments that cannot easily share data. This means lifecycle costs are increased and reuse across flight training programmes are reduced. Furthermore, integration challenges are far greater in coalition training because different countries use different aircraft, technologies and security systems – this makes joint exercises harder to run smoothly. 

Of course, things are being done to help address these issues and improve value. Defence organisations and their industry partners are advancing shared standards and federated training environments that support multi-system connectivity. One example of this is NATO’s adoption of integrated simulation systems such as JTLS-GO. JTLS-GO is interoperable with multiple allied constructive training tools and has delivered measurable reductions in planning time, support costs and infrastructure overheads. This illustrates the value of interoperable solutions for joint and combined air operations. 

5. What Is Being Done to Bridge the Gap Between Simulation and Operational Readiness?

A number of things are underway to help bridge this gap – defence organisations are adopting blended training models which deliberately integrate live, virtual and constructive (LVC) environments throughout military flight training programmes. This means that rather than treating simulation as a stand-alone training phrase, a modern approach embeds syntenic training across the aircrew readiness cycle. As a result, pilots and mission crews can rehearse complex scenarios that cannot be safely or affordably replicated in live flying alone. The increasing use of LVC architectures supports real aircraft and crews to train alongside virtual entities and constructive forces, therefore creating more representative multi-domain flight scenarios.

At the same time, militaries are also paying greater attention to data-driven validation. Using operational data, mission replay and performance analytics from simulators and live sorties, they are regularly improving simulators to help ensure what pilots learn during the simulations matches real flying and decreases the chance of learning bad habits. 

Simulation is also playing a growing role in:

• accelerating readiness
• enabling more frequent, tailored aircrew training while managing cost
• airframe fatigue and safety constraints.

Over the coming years, these approaches will continue to mature. Ultimately, simulation is becoming a core enabler of flight readiness rather than a preparatory substitute.

References

1. “Constantly Evolving Aerial Threats Demand Training That Adapts Accordingly.” Breaking Defense, September 24, 2025.
   https://breakingdefense.com/2025/09/constantly-evolving-aerial-threats-demand-training-that-adapts-accordingly
   Accessed January 19, 2026.
2. “AI and Modular Systems Reshape Military Training.” Halldale Group, September 24, 2025.
   https://www.halldale.com/defence/ai-and-modular-systems-reshape-military-training
   Accessed January 20, 2026.
3. Pennings, H. J. M. “Factors Related to Negative Transfer of Training in Safety-Critical Professions.” International Journal of Training and Development, published February 12, 2025.
   https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijtd.12358
   Accessed January 21, 2026.
4. “Simulation Integration Boosts NATO Training Efficiency.” Halldale Group, October 30, 2025.
   https://www.halldale.com/defence/simulation-integration-boosts-nato-training-efficiency
   Accessed January 22, 2026.
5. “Industry Pushing Air Force to Work With Existing Training Systems.” National Defense Magazine, December 1, 2025.
   https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2025/12/1/industry-pushing-air-force-to-work-with-existing-training-systems
   Accessed January 23, 2026.