When military training exercises run to a routine, it is time to introduce some IT-based chaos SINCE TIME immemorial, successful generals have insisted that training hard meant fighting easy. They`ve also insisted their soldiers train the way they will fight.

However, real combat today is, thankfully, scarce. This means SA`s soldiers, such as the 4 800 currently deployed at the South African Army`s combat training centre at Lohatlha near Postmasburg in the Northern Cape, need to gain their combat experience in a simulated environment.

Best practice today is IT-based force-on-force training, but this is currently beyond the South African military`s means, senior officers at this year`s Exercise Seboka said. The Seboka is the Army`s annual capstone training event and is used in a manner similar to an exam to assess whether the force is ready for war or peacekeeping.

The current state-of-the-art combat training involves technology similar to that used in laser tag games, with pointers fitted to soldiers` weapons and receivers fitted to their clothing and vehicles. This is then coupled to a network of sensors and computers that record every move and every shot for instructional critique (called an after-action review) once the dust settles.

Until recently, these systems tended to be bulky and required permanent installation - no more. Portable, even manpack versions that can be carried in a rucksack are now on the market. Swedish defence technology giant Saab is in talks with the South African Army, which last year said it wanted to join a small club of countries that already train force-on-force, including the US, the Netherlands, Norway, Finland and Italy.

When the US introduced the concept in the early 1980s, it resulted in chaos. The enemy kept doing the unexpected, no plan survived contact with the enemy and key leaders were getting killed or wounded at critical moments. The result, however, was better soldiers and officers. Another result was less damage to the environment and greater safety as the laser tag system is used in conjunction with blank ammunition and pyrotechnics - not live bullets and bombs.

The South African Army currently trains in a one-sided analogue manner which has drawbacks in that troops never lose and seldom have to face simulated casualties or replace dead commanders in mid-battle. Many feel that this is not good enough.

Experts say that while the initial outlay might be high, an advanced IT-based combat training system would ultimately save money and produce better soldiers.

Cost considerations would require SA to settle for a manpack or trailer-borne version of the system, if only to prove the concept to sceptics in the military and at the Treasury. The manpack version is constructed around a laptop and a small radio base station. It can accommodate up to 60 soldiers deployed over an area with a radius of 3km.

Since it is carried in a backpack, the system can follow the soldiers as they go through their paces, practising ambushing and counter-ambushing, amphibious landings or fighting guerrillas in shanty towns. The trailer-borne version can support up to 1 500 participants over a radius of five to eight kilometres and can be set up in as little as an hour and be operated by one person. An integrated power generator and fuel supply allows the fighting to last a week. If available, several trailers can be coupled by microwave datalink to cover a larger manoeuvre area.

Major-General Johan Jooste, who retired from the military earlier this year, told ITWeb a system of this type was tested last year, and had proved a resounding success.

Any army will need courage to buy the simulator because it is expensive, but there are huge advantages and long-term savings, he said. The cost of ammunition and all other commodities for training exercises of the current type is staggering. By comparison, simulation is cheap and allows us to give soldiers intensive exposure to many different scenarios in a very short time.

Jooste observed that apart from skills, procedures and drills can be tested using simulators and valuable input into doctrinal development can be obtained. Leadership skills are developed under these realistic conditions where both successes and failures can be reviewed and learnt from. How can we afford it? Is how can we afford not to not the real question?