Page 1 GAO-12-725R Navy Training

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

June 29, 2012

Congressional Committees

Subject: Navy Training: Observations on the Navy’s Use of Live and Simulated Training

The Department of Defense uses live training, simulators, and other virtual training devices to 

prepare its forces to conduct military operations. Virtual training can help the services mitigate 

obstacles to training, such as the high cost of conducting live training or range access issues, 

while allowing military personnel to replicate many of the interactions and procedures they may 

encounter on the battlefield. In an effort to achieve greater efficiency, maximize training 

opportunities, and potentially reduce training costs, each military service is in various stages of 

developing concepts and training programs that mix live and synthetic training (which is how the 

Navy typically refers to training that relies significantly on simulators or virtual training devices).1

The Navy, in particular, believes that effective training requires an efficient balance of live and 

synthetic approaches.

H.R. Rep. No. 112-78 (2011), which accompanied a bill for the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2012, directed GAO to review the status of the military services’ training 

programs and report the results to the House and Senate Armed Services committees. It also 

stated that in reporting on each of the services, we may take a phased approach in undertaking 

our review and reporting to the Senate and House Armed Services committees.2

 

1 For the purposes of this report, “simulators” will be used to describe specific devices that mimic actual equipment, 

such as a flight simulator, while “synthetic training” will refer to any training that takes place in a virtual environment.

 This Navy 

review is the first engagement in our phased approach, and an Air Force review is also 

underway. For this review, we assessed (1) the principles the Navy considers in determining 

whether to use live or synthetic training to meet its training requirements, (2) how the Navy’s mix 

2 H.R. Rep. No. 112-78 (2011), which accompanied H.R. 1540, a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2012.

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-725R Navy Training

of live and synthetic training has changed over time, and (3) how the Navy prioritizes its 

synthetic training investments. 

To address our objectives, we interviewed officials and reviewed and analyzed data from Navy 

headquarters and Navy commands, including the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, as 

well as the U.S. Fleet Forces and Pacific Fleet Commands; commanders from the aviation, 

submarine and surface platform communities; resource sponsors for these platform 

communities; and the Naval Reserve Command. We reviewed Navy and command policy 

guidance, including the Fleet Training Simulator Strategy3 which provides detailed objectives for 

investments in simulators and synthetic training. We also reviewed the Fleet Synthetic Training 

Program Instruction4 and the Fleet Training Continuum Instruction5 which provides guidance on 

how to successfully execute fleet training. We reviewed Navy’s Aviation Simulator Master Plan, 

which included information on planned investments in aviation simulators. 

We conducted this performance audit from August 2011 to June 2012, in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and 

perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence provides a 

reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Summary

To determine whether to use live or synthetic training to meet its training requirements, the Navy 

relies on guiding principles outlined in its Overarching Fleet Training Simulator Strategy. These 

principles are intended to provide flexibility in determining the appropriate solution for a specific 

training requirement or gap, while maintaining readiness levels and capitalizing on technical 

advances in modeling and simulation. In applying these principles, Navy decision makers 

 

3 Overarching Fleet Training Simulator Strategy in support of Synthetic Training in Program Objective Memorandum 

2013 and beyond (Jan. 25, 2011).

4 Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command and Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet Instruction 3500.3, Fleet Synthetic 

Training Program (Mar. 31, 2011).

5 Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command and Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet Instruction 3501.3C, Fleet Training 

Continuum Instruction (Mar. 31, 2011).
 

Page 3 GAO-12-725R Navy Training

consider the circumstances surrounding each individual requirement. For example, the Navy 

may choose to use synthetic training where regular live training is not feasible due to 

operational, cost, or safety concerns, such as training for ballistic missile defense.

Over the last decade, the Navy has increased its emphasis on the use of synthetic training. For 

example, between 2003 and 2011, the Navy has taken certain steps, such as establishing 

organizations to focus on synthetic training and issuing a concept of operations. The Navy’s 

platform communities currently use different mixes of live and synthetic training. For example, 

the submarine community conducts all of its pre-deployment training in shore-based simulators. 

Navy surface ships have the capability to conduct just over half of their training synthetically, but 

the mix of actual training varies by ship-type and by mission area. Navy makes significant use of 

simulation for new pilot training and pilot practice once personnel are assigned to operational 

units, but Naval aviation makes limited use of synthetic training for graded events6 due to 

concerns about simulation realism and safety. According to Naval Reserve Command officials, 

there are no significant differences between the anticipated tasks that active and reserve 

component forces conduct when using simulators.

The Navy’s Overarching Fleet Training Simulator Strategy also provides 12 investment priorities

for synthetic training. For example, aviation, littoral combat ship, and future platform simulator

procurement takes precedence over legacy platform simulator investments. The Navy applies 

these priorities to guide decisions on simulator procurement and upgrades at both the platform 

and fleet levels. At the platform level, the aviation community has an investment strategy, 

contained in its naval aviation simulator master plan; the surface community is working on a 

master plan, which is expected to be complete by the end of the year; and the priority in the 

submarine community is ensuring that upgrades to the actual submarines are made to the 

corresponding simulators. At the fleet level, a fleet training integration panel prioritizes 

investments across the platforms and fleets and provides a forum where the priorities of each 

platform community compete against each other. For additional details on our results, see 

enclosure I. 

 

6 Graded training events are those that are reported through the Navy’s readiness reporting system.
 

Page 4 GAO-12-725R Navy Training

Agency Comments

In commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of Defense concurred with our report 

and observations. The Department’s comments are reprinted in their entirety in enclosure II. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Navy, and 

to the appropriate congressional committees. The report also is available at no charge on the 

GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. Should you or your staff have any questions on the matters 

discussed in this report, please contact me at (202) 512-9619 or pickups@gao.gov. Contact 

points for our offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this report. GAO staff who contributed to this report are listed in enclosure III. 

Sharon L. Pickup

Director

Defense Capabilities and Management

Enclosures – 3 
 

Page 5 GAO-12-725R Navy Training

List of Committees

The Honorable Carl Levin 

Chairman 

The Honorable John McCain 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Armed Services 

United States Senate

The Honorable Howard P. McKeon 

Chairman 

The Honorable Adam Smith 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Armed Services 

House of Representatives
 

Briefing for the Senate and House Armed Services 

Committees 

Enclosure I 

Navy Training: Observations on the 

Navy’s Use of Live and Simulated Training 

Page 6 GAO-12-725R Navy Training
Background 

 The Navy uses a combination of live and synthetic1 training to 

prepare its forces to conduct military operations. 

 Live Training: Navy personnel and units conduct live 

training using actual platforms (ship, submarine, aircraft) at 

sea or on a live training range. 

 Synthetic Training: Navy personnel and units conduct 

synthetic training in a virtual or simulated environment. 

This training often involves the use of simulators, computer 

software that is embedded in a weapon system, or 

hardware and networks which can be used to conduct 

training while ships are pierside or underway. 

1 The Navy uses the term “synthetic” rather than “simulated”. 

Page 7 GAO-12-725R Navy Training
Background (cont’d) 

 The Navy has a phased plan (called the Fleet Response Training Plan) 

that identifies the types of training needed to prepare its forces to deploy 

for military requirements. Most live and synthetic training occurs within 

the basic and integrated phases, but some training occurs in all phases. 

 Basic Phase: By the end of this phase, units are expected to exhibit 

unit level proficiency (e.g., effectively employ weapons and 

equipment). Type Commanders for each of the Navy’s platform 

communities (surface, submarine, and aviation) schedule, plan, 

and execute unit-level synthetic training events. 

 Integrated/Advanced Phase: During this phase, unit warfare skills 

are combined so units form a cohesive strike group. The Navy’s two 

fleet commands – US Fleet Forces Command and the US Pacific 

Fleet – train and equip forces during the integrated/advanced 

phase. 

Page 8 GAO-12-725R Navy Training
Background (cont’d)

Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.

Maintenance Basic Integrated/

Advanced

Sustainment

• Fundamentals

• Unit level training focus

• Managed by Type 

 Commanders

• Increasing complexity

• Group level training focus

• Managed by Fleets

Notional Fleet Response Training Plan Timeline

Interactivity instructions: Roll over a photo to view the vessel’s time per phase. Roll over a training phase to see examples of training.

See appendix 1 for the non-interactive, printer-friendly version. 

Aircraft carrier Amphibious ship Surface Combatant Submarine 

Page 9 GAO-12-725R Navy Training
Background (cont’d)

 The Navy has developed a network called the Navy Continuous Training 

Environment to distribute synthetic training to its ships, submarine simulators, 

and aircraft simulators. 

 While connected to the network, units that are separated by hundreds of miles 

or more can train as though they were operating in close proximity to one 

another. 

5

Page 10 GAO-12-725R Navy Training
Background (cont’d) 

 H.R. Rep. No. 112-78 (2011), which accompanied a bill for the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, directed 

GAO to review the status of the military services’ training 

programs and report the results to the House and Senate Armed 

Services committees. 

 This review covers the Navy. We are reporting separately on 

the Air Force, Army, and Marine Corps. 

Page 11 GAO-12-725R Navy Training
Objectives 

1) What principles does the Navy consider in determining 

whether to use live or synthetic training to meet its training 

requirements? 

2) How has the Navy’s mix of live and synthetic training 

changed over time? 

3) How does the Navy prioritize its synthetic training 

investments? 

Page 12 GAO-12-725R Navy Training
To determine whether to use live or synthetic training to 

meet its training requirements, the Navy uses the 

Overarching Fleet Training Simulator Strategy, which 

includes guiding principles. 

These guiding principles are intended to provide 

flexibility in determining the appropriate solution for a 

specific training requirement or gap, while maintaining 

readiness levels and capitalizing on technical advances 

in modeling and simulation. 

Obj 1: Determining the Training Mix 

Page 13 GAO-12-725R Navy Training
Obj 1: Determining the Training Mix (cont’d) 

Guiding Principles (1 of 2) 

1) Effective training requires an efficient balance of live and synthetic 

approaches. 

2) Simulator decisions are complex and require thoughtful and thorough 

analysis. 

3) Train in port and validate at sea, or train on the ground and validate in the 

air, or train at home base and validate in the field. 

4) Training simulators should be used to replace live training to the maximum 

extent possible where training effectiveness and operational readiness are 

not compromised. 

5) Some live training events cannot or should not be replaced by a simulator. 

6) If a skill or talent can be developed or refined, or if a proficiency can be

effectively and efficiently maintained in a simulator, then these 

skills/talents/proficiencies should be developed/refined/maintained in a 

simulator. 

Page 14 GAO-12-725R Navy Training
Obj 1: Determining the Training Mix (cont’d) 

Guiding Principles (2 of 2)

7) If a qualification or certification can realistically and economically be 

accomplished in a simulator, do it in a simulator. 

8) Simulator training objectives must be directly linked with specific Navy 

Mission Essential Tasks or individual personnel qualification standard 

requirements. 

9) Simulators that are intended to interface with other simulators during Fleet 

Synthetic Training2 events must be compatible with the Navy Continuous 

Training Environment network. 

10) Simulators that could conceivably be used for multi-platform or crossplatform mission area training should be designed with integration as a 

primary goal. 

11) Simulators should provide the appropriate level of fidelity required to 

effectively and economically train to the specified task(s). 

12) Simulator procurement needs to stay aligned with Fleet-wide technical 

innovation to deliver timely, cost effective solutions. 

2

 Fleet Synthetic Training is an event for multiple platforms of various types (air, surface, submarine) or individual units with training audiences 

connected at different locations through the network, which could be local or worldwide. 

Page 15 GAO-12-725R Navy Training
Obj 1: Determining the Training Mix (cont’d) 

Examples of Applying Guiding Principles (1 of 2) 

 The Navy’s guiding principles provide decision makers with a measure of 

flexibility that allows them to customize simulator decisions based on the 

individual circumstances surrounding each training requirement. The 

following are examples of how the Navy applies its guiding principles: 

 Guiding principle 6 states that if a skill or talent can be developed in a 

simulator, then it should be developed in a simulator. Based on that 

principle, Navy decision makers have chosen to use synthetic training 

in areas where regular live training is not feasible due to operational, 

cost, or safety concerns, such as training for ballistic missile defense. 

 Guiding principle 5 states that some live training events cannot or 

should not be replaced by a simulator. In 2008, the Navy found that 

lowering the number of live flying hours below 10 per month resulted in 

increased risk of accidents while flying. Therefore, Navy decision 

makers choose live training when the use of synthetic training would 

cause pilot live flying hours to fall below 10 hours per month. 

Page 16 GAO-12-725R Navy Training
Obj 1: Determining the Training Mix (cont’d) 

Examples of Applying Guiding Principles (2 of 2) 

 Guiding principle 1 states that effective training requires an efficient 

balance of live and synthetic approaches. Based on the principle of 

efficient balance, the incremental costs associated with a live training 

event (e.g., fuel, ammunition) must be compared to the incremental 

costs associated with conducting the event synthetically (e.g., 

simulators, technical support). Although synthetic training is generally 

less expensive than live training, decision makers may opt to conduct 

live training in some cases because the incremental cost of conducting 

that live training is very low. For example, because a ship’s crew 

typically conducts multiple live training events while underway, moving 

a single live event to synthetic training would not reduce underway time 

or fuel costs and it could add to simulator costs, thus making it more 

expensive to conduct the event synthetically.

Page 17 GAO-12-725R Navy Training
Obj 2: Changes in the Training Mix 

 The Navy has increased its emphasis on and use of 

synthetic training over the last decade, as shown on the 

following slide. 

 Currently, the use of synthetic training varies within and 

among the platform communities because of differences 

in their training needs.

Page 18 GAO-12-725R Navy Training
Obj 2: Changes in the Training Mix (cont’d) 

Timeline of Key Milestones

Source: GAO analysis of Navy data. 

Interactivity instructions

Roll over the event bullet to view more information. See appendix 2 for the non-interactive, printer-friendly version. 

2004-2005:

Navy increases 

simulator use 

to mitigate the 

effects of 

reduced 

funding to 

support live 

training

2005: Task Force SIM 

issues final reports 

and Fleet Forces 

issues Fleet Synthetic 

Training instruction

2006: Navy Aviation 

Simulator Master Plan is 

issued and Fleet Forces 

hosts Fleet Synthetic 

Training Flag Symposium

2011: Navy issues 

Overarching Fleet 

Training Simulator 

Strategy and associated 

guidance and plans

2003: Atlantic Fleet 

Weapons Training 

Facility (Vieques 

Island) closes 

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

2007: Navy establishes 

Fleet Synthetic Training 

concept of operations 

2009: Navy 

reduces live 

training for 

certain joint 

exercises

2010: Navy establishes 

Guiding Principles for 

simulator use

2004: Navy 

establishes 

Task Force 

SIM

Page 19 GAO-12-725R Navy Training
Obj 2: Changes in the Training Mix (cont’d) 

 The Navy’s platform communities (i.e., surface, submarine, and aviation) use 

different mixes of live and synthetic training. 

 Submarine forces: Submarines use shore-based simulators for all of their 

pre-deployment training. Some submarines have two rotating crews,3

which led the Navy to procure simulators to synthetically train the at-home 

crew because live training was not possible. These simulators were then 

used to train the entire submarine community. This level of synthetic 

training is possible because the hardware and software in the simulators is 

the same as that in the actual submarines. 

 Surface forces: Surface ships have the capability to conduct just over half 

of their training synthetically, but the mix of actual training varies by ship 

type and mission area. For example, some of the oldest ships do not have 

the type of computer infrastructure needed to support extensive synthetic 

training and require special technical assistance during Fleet Synthetic 

Training events. Conversely, simulators for one of the newest ships, the 

Littoral Combat Ship, are intended to provide crews with full certification 

prior to deployment, much like submarine crews. 

3

 To maximize the presence of these submarines, one crew is always at sea, while the other is at home. 

Page 20 GAO-12-725R Navy Training
Obj 2: Changes in the Training Mix (cont’d) 

 Aviation forces: Naval aviation currently relies more heavily on live 

training due to concerns about simulation realism and safety. Fleet Forces 

Command and Naval aviation command officials noted that Navy makes 

significant use of simulation for new pilot training and pilot practice, once 

personnel are assigned to operational units. They also noted, though, that 

pilots currently do not complete a significant portion of their graded4

training events in a synthetic environment. The use of synthetic training in 

the aviation community varies significantly depending on airframe and 

mission area. For example: 

 At present, synthetic training accounts for: 

 18 percent of all F/A-18E/F (fighter) training.

 Over 50 percent of all P-3 (surveillance aircraft) electronic warfare 

training. 

 Although the aviation community expects synthetic training to increase in 

the future, it expects live training to remain a majority of total training for 

key airframes through 2020. 

4 Graded training events are those that are reported through the Navy’s readiness reporting system.

Page 21 GAO-12-725R Navy Training
 According to Naval Reserve Command officials, there are no 

significant differences between the anticipated tasks that active 

and reserve component forces conduct when using simulators. 

According to these officials: 

 Reservists have access to simulators either in classroom 

training environments or when they are training with their 

active component counterparts. 

 The preferred and most common training for a reservist is 

side-by-side with active component personnel. 

Obj 2: Changes in the Training Mix (cont’d) 

Page 22 GAO-12-725R Navy Training
 The Navy’s Overarching Fleet Training Simulator Strategy also 

provides investment priorities for synthetic training. 

 The Strategy states that it is imperative that all training simulator 

and synthetic training system investments be made in a costconscious manner with careful consideration for how those 

investments will contribute to platform or integrated readiness. In 

particular, it states that the Fleet must invest in areas that will 

close the most critical training capability gaps and improve 

warfighting readiness while providing the highest return on those 

investments. 

Obj 3: Prioritizing Synthetic Training Investments 

Page 23 GAO-12-725R Navy Training
Obj 3: Prioritizing Synthetic Training Investments 

(cont’d) 

Investment Priorities (1 of 2)

1) Training simulators and synthetic training systems that have the greatest 

potential to improve mission performance. 

2) Investments focus on operator/team training more than staff level training 

(i.e. training that improves a specific skill as opposed to training in 

decision-making). 

3) Investments that enable cross-platform and multi-platform synthetic 

training that improve collective warfare area proficiency and readiness. 

4) Navy Continuous Training Environment network reliability and 

sustainability upgrades. 

5) Aviation, Littoral Combat Ship, and future platform simulator procurement 

takes precedence over legacy platform simulator investments. 

6) Integration of simulators for current platforms. 

7) Investments that procure new or upgraded simulators with greater fidelity. 

Page 24 GAO-12-725R Navy Training
Obj 3: Prioritizing Synthetic Training Investments 

(cont’d) 

Investment Priorities (2 of 2)

8) Fleet Training Integration Panel approved warfare area training priorities. 

9) Training simulators and synthetic training systems that fill gaps in existing 

live training. 

10) Investments that provide common data (compiled from historical, 

worldwide environmental data) for use during cross-platform integrated 

training, which realistically replicates conditions that affect 

sensor/communications/weapon system performance. 

11) Investments that provide a common synthetic training architecture using 

common security protocols and databases that integrate and can be easily 

updated as simulators are upgraded. 

12) Training simulators and synthetic training systems that have the greatest 

potential to generate savings over live training. 

Page 25 GAO-12-725R Navy Training
 The Navy applies these investment priorities to guide decisions on simulator 

procurement and upgrades. These decisions are made at both the platform 

(i.e., surface, submarine, and aviation) and fleet levels (i.e., Fleet Forces 

Command and Pacific Fleet). 

 At the platform level: 

 Naval aviation has a master plan investment strategy for simulator 

upgrades to key airframes.

 The surface community is working on a master plan for synthetic 

training, which is expected to be complete by the end of the year. 

 The submarine community’s training is fully synthetic; its priority is 

ensuring that upgrades to the actual submarines are also made in 

the corresponding simulators. 

 The surface and submarine communities also use stakeholder 

committees to help make simulator procurement and upgrade 

decisions. 

 At the fleet level, a fleet training integration panel prioritizes 

investments across the platforms and the fleets. 

Obj 3: Prioritizing Synthetic Training Investments 

(cont’d) 

Page 26 GAO-12-725R Navy Training
Obj 3: Prioritizing Synthetic Training Investments 

(cont’d) 

 Although the aviation community has, to date, made limited use of synthetic 

training for graded events, it has seen opportunities for potential savings and 

has developed an investment plan to prioritize simulator investments, with the 

intent of reducing live training costs and achieving better overall training 

through development and use of high-fidelity simulation. 

 The Navy Aviation Simulator Master Plan lays out anticipated simulator 

upgrades for key existing airframes that are expected to remain in service 

through 2030. The aviation community identified which simulator upgrades 

could reduce the most flight-hours and provide the best return on 

investment. They concluded that an investment of roughly $500 million over 

7 years starting in fiscal year 2012 could lead to a return of $119 million per 

year beginning in fiscal year 2020. 

 The Navy plans to apply a similar analysis to all new-production systems, 

including the P-8A, E-2D, and Navy F-35C. 

Page 27 GAO-12-725R Navy Training
Obj 3: Prioritizing Synthetic Training Investments 

(cont’d) 

 By airframe, Navy’s expectations are that the use of synthetic training, as a 

percentage of unit training, will be as follows: 

Synthetic training as a percentage of 

total training

Aircraft Platforms Current state In 2020

F/A-18E/F 18 32 

EA-18G 20 34 

MH-60R 39 48 

MH-60S 41 49 

Page 28 GAO-12-725R Navy Training
Obj 3: Prioritizing Synthetic Training Investments 

(cont’d) 

 The surface and submarine communities use platform committees to 

involve relevant stakeholders in investment decisions. 

 The Surface Warfare Training Committee is responsible for completing 

and implementing the surface training master plan and assessing 

training systems and devices for inclusion into the plan. The committee 

also produces analyses and cost estimates to help guide simulator 

decisions. 

 The submarine community manages its simulator upgrades to ensure 

that they align with upgrades to the actual submarines and weapon 

systems. They also use the Undersea Warfare Training Committee to 

prioritize training requirements. A member of the committee told us that 

its analyses are focused on mission essentiality, cost, and delivery 

mechanisms. 

Page 29 GAO-12-725R Navy Training
Obj 3: Prioritizing Synthetic Training Investments 

(cont’d) 

 At the fleet level, the Fleet Training Integration Panel, co-chaired by the 

Atlantic and Pacific fleets, provides a forum where the priorities of the platform 

communities compete against each other. 

 The panel receives inputs from many organizations, including the platform 

communities, resource sponsors, and contracting offices, among others, and 

is intended to ensure an integrated training effort as well as establish 

accountability for fleet training. It also identifies corrective action plans that 

require additional resources. 

 The panel has predominantly focused on platform area synthetic training in 

accordance with the Fleet Strategy, and less on multi-platform integration. 

 According to the Strategy’s guiding principles, simulators that could be 

used for multi-platform or cross-platform mission area training should be 

designed with integration as a primary goal. The Fleet commands have 

thus drafted “roadmaps” to identify cross-community synthetic training 

integration capabilities needed to enable warfare area training. 

Page 30 GAO-12-725R Navy Training
Appendix 1: Notional Fleet Response Training 

Plan Timeline 

Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.

Unit training may be

live, distributed or in a

standalone simulator

Sailor at schoolhouse

training while platform is 

undergoing maintenance

Advanced

Distributed force

training (joint and

coalition integration)

Sustaining proficiency

or deployment

Integrated

Force may be

distributed or live

Maintenance Basic Integrated/

Advanced

Sustainment

Notional Fleet Response Training Plan Timeline

Aircraft carrier Amphibious ship Surface Combatant Submarine 

• Fundamentals

• Unit level training focus

• Managed by Type 

 Commanders

• Increasing complexity

• Group level training focus

• Managed by Fleets

Page 31 GAO-12-725R Navy Training
Enclosure 2: Average Notional Fleet Response 

Training Plan (FRTP) Timeline

Appendix 1: Notional Fleet Response Training 

Plan Timeline 

Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.

Aircraft carrier

Maintenance

26 weeks

Basic

13 weeks

Integrated

14 weeks

Sustainment

86 weeks

139 weeks

Page 32 GAO-12-725R Navy Training
Enclosure 2: Average Notional Fleet Response 

Training Plan (FRTP) Timeline

Appendix 1: Notional Fleet Response Training 

Plan Timeline 

Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.

Amphibious ship

Basic

20 weeks

Maintenance

15 weeks

Integrated

14 weeks

118 weeks

Sustainment

69 weeks

Page 33 GAO-12-725R Navy Training
Enclosure 2: Average Notional Fleet Response 

Training Plan (FRTP) Timeline

Appendix 1: Notional Fleet Response Training 

Plan Timeline 

Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.

Surface combatant

Basic

20 weeks

Maintenance

15 weeks

Integrated/Advanced

13 weeks

117 weeks

*The Integrated/Advanced training phase includes an average of 14 weeks

for Carrier Strike Group escorts and 12 weeks for independent deployers

Sustainment

69 weeks

Page 34 GAO-12-725R Navy Training
Enclosure 2: Average Notional Fleet Response 

Training Plan (FRTP) Timeline

Appendix 1: Notional Fleet Response Training 

Plan Timeline 

Source: GAO analysis of Navy data.

Submarine

Basic

21 weeks

Integrated/Advanced

26 weeks

Maintenance

27 weeks

113 weeks

Sustainment

39 weeks

Page 35 GAO-12-725R Navy Training
Appendix 2: Timeline of Key Milestones 

Year Event

2003 Atlantic Fleet Weapons Training Facility (Vieques Island) closes 

• The closure of the Vieques live training range left the Navy with a gap in its training capabilities. This closure was announced in 2001. 

2004 Navy establishes Task Force SIM

• The Chief of Naval Operations established Task Force SIM (simulation) to provide guidance and a framework for the use of modeling and simulation in the Navy. The 

task force focused on strike group training and multi-platform, mission-linked tactical flight training, among other things.

2004-2005 Navy increases simulator use to mitigate the effects of reduced funding to support live training

• Navy begins to increase simulator use to mitigate reduction in flying hours and steaming days and loss of availability of the Vieques range. 

2005 Task Force SIM issues final reports and Fleet Forces issues Fleet Synthetic Training Instruction

• In April and May 2005, Task Force SIM reported on its efforts to promote fleet readiness and joint interoperability by providing a strategic framework and guidance for 

Navy-wide use of modeling and simulation to support training, acquisition, experimentation, and analysis conducted in synthetic and live environments. In its report, 

the task force identified initial savings strategies. In November 2005, U.S. Fleet Forces issued the Fleet Synthetic Training Instruction to provide specific responsibilities and procedures for surface ships, submarines, and air squadron personnel regarding Fleet Synthetic Training events. 

2006 Navy Aviation Simulator Master Plan is issued and Fleet Forces hosts Fleet Synthetic Training Flag Symposium

• In April 2006, the Navy Aviation Simulator Master Plan was issued as a strategy to upgrade simulator-based training. In May 2006, Fleet Forces hosted the Fleet 

Synthetic Training Flag Symposium to articulate a requirement for synthetic training and chart the course for the Navy’s Synthetic Training program. 

2007 Navy establishes Fleet Synthetic Training concept of operations

• In April 2007, the Navy issued the Fleet Synthetic Training concept of operations for the Navy Continuous Training Environment. In this concept, the Navy noted that, 

due to cost, environmental, and political concerns, live range availability was more limited than it had been in the past. The Navy believed that fleet synthetic training 

could mitigate the impacts of this by substituting, where appropriate, synthetic training for some live training requirements. 

2009 Navy reduces live training for certain joint exercises

• The Navy reduced live underway training for certain joint task force exercises from 3 weeks to 2 weeks per event.

2010 Navy establishes Guiding Principles for simulator use

• The Chief of Naval Operations approved the guiding principles for simulator use, which established fleet-wide policy. 

2011 Navy issues Overarching Fleet Training Simulator Strategy and associated guidance and plans

• In January 2011, the Navy Fleet commanders issued the Overarching Fleet Training Simulator Strategy, which included the guiding principles established in 2010 as 

well as investment priorities. Following this, the Navy updated the Fleet Synthetic Training Program Instruction and issued the Fleet Training Continuum Instruction. 

The Commander, Naval Air Forces also updated the 2006 Aviation Simulator Master Plan with guidance for specific synthetic training investments.

Page 36 GAO-12-725R Navy Training
Enclosure II: Comments from the Department of Defense

Page 37 GAO-12-725R Navy Training

Enclosure II: Comments from the Department of Defense
Enclosure III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

Page 38 GAO-12-725R Navy Training

GAO Contact 

Sharon Pickup, (202) 512- 9619 or pickups@gao.gov

Staff Acknowledgments 

. 

In addition to the contact named above, key contributors to this report included Michael 

Ferren, Assistant Director; Clarine Allen; Grace Coleman; James Lackey; Amie Steele; 

Maria Storts; and Nicole Willems.

(351646) 

Enclosure III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.