ARMY AND MARINE 

CORPS TRAINING

Better Performance 

and Cost Data Needed 

to More Fully Assess 

Simulation-Based 

Efforts

Report to Congressional Committees

August 2013

GAO-13-698

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-698, a report to 

congressional committees

August 2013

ARMY AND MARINE CORPS TRAINING

Better Performance and Cost Data Needed to More 

Fully Assess Simulation-Based Efforts

Why GAO Did This Study

The Army and Marine Corps use live 

and simulation-based training to meet 

training goals and objectives. Service 

officials have noted benefits from the 

use of simulation-based training—both 

in terms of training effectiveness and in 

cost savings or cost avoidance. A 

House report accompanying the bill for 

the National Defense Authorization Act 

for 2012 mandated GAO to review the 

status of the military services’ training 

programs. This report follows GAO’s

reports on the Navy and Air Force, and 

assesses (1) changes in the Army’s

and Marine Corps’ use of simulationbased training, including efforts to 

integrate live and simulation-based 

training capabilities; and (2) the factors 

the Army and Marine Corps consider in 

determining whether to use live or 

simulation-based training, including the 

extent to which they consider 

performance and cost information.

GAO focused on a broad cross-section 

of occupations (e.g., aviation, armor, 

artillery), and analyzed service training 

strategies and other documents; and 

conducted six site visits and 

interviewed service officials involved 

with training and training development

for the selected occupations. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the services 

develop metrics, and a methodology to 

compare live and simulation-based 

training costs. DOD partially concurred, 

but noted that it captures all relevant 

costs needed for decision making. 

GAO continues to believe the services 

may not be considering some 

important simulation-based training 

costs and a specific methodology is 

needed to more fully identify the 

universe of costs needed for 

comparison purposes. 

What GAO Found

Over the past several decades, the Army and Marine Corps have increased their 

use of simulation-based training—simulators and computer-based simulations. 

Historically, the aviation communities in both services have used simulators to 

train servicemembers in tasks such as takeoffs, and emergency procedures that 

could not be taught safely live. In contrast, the services’ ground communities 

used limited simulations prior to 2000. However, advances in technology, and

emerging conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan have led to increased use of 

simulation-based training in the ground forces. For example, in response to 

increases in vehicle rollovers, both services began using simulators to train 

servicemembers to safely evacuate vehicles. The services are also collaborating 

in the development of some simulation-based training devices. For instance, 

according to Marine Corps officials, the service reused 87 percent of the Army’s 

Homestation Instrumentation Training System’s components in its own training 

system, achieving about $11 million in cost avoidance and saving an estimated 7 

years in fielding time. The services are also taking steps to better integrate live 

and simulation-based training, developing technical capabilities to connect 

previously incompatible simulation-based training devices. The Army’s capability

is now being fielded, and the Marine Corps’ is in the initial development phase. 

The Army and Marine Corps consider various factors in determining whether to 

use live or simulation-based training, but lack key performance and cost 

information that would enhance their ability to determine the optimal mix of

training and prioritize related investments. As the services identify which 

requirements can be met with either live or simulation-based training or both, 

they consider factors such as safety and training mission. Also, they have cited

numerous benefits of simulation-based training, such as improving 

servicemember performance in live training events, and reducing operating 

costs. Both services rely on subject matter experts, who develop their training 

programs, and after action reports from deployments and training exercises for 

information on how servicemembers may have benefited from simulation-based 

training. However, neither service has established outcome metrics to assist 

them in more precisely measuring the impact of using simulation-based devices 

to improve performance or proficiency. Leading management practices recognize 

that performance metrics can help agencies determine the contributions that 

training makes to improve results. Army and Marine Corps officials also generally 

consider simulation-based training to be less costly than live training and analyze 

some data, such as life cycle costs, when considering options to acquire a 

particular simulation-based training device. However, once simulation-based

training devices are fielded, the services neither reevaluate cost information as 

they determine the mix of training nor have a methodology for determining the 

costs associated with simulation-based training. Federal internal control 

standards state that decision makers need visibility over a program’s financial 

data to determine whether the program is meeting the agencies’ goals and 

effectively using resources. Without better performance and cost data, the 

services lack the information they need to make more fully informed decisions in 

the future regarding the optimal mix of training and how best to target 

investments for simulation-based training capabilities. 

View GAO-13-698. For more information, 

contact Sharon Pickup at (202) 512-9619 or 

pickups@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-13-698 Army and Marine Corps Training

Letter 1

Background 4

Army and Marine Corps Have Increased the Use of SimulationBased Training and Taken Steps to Collaborate on Development 

Efforts 5

The Army and Marine Corps Consider Various Factors in 

Determining the Mix of Live and Simulation-Based Training, But 

Lack Key Information to Assess the Impact and Cost of 

Simulation-Based Training 9

Conclusions 16

Recommendations for Executive Action 17

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 17

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 20

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Defense 26

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 28

Tables

Table 1: Examples of Army and Marine Corps Simulators and 

Simulations 7

Table 2: Organizations Interviewed During Our Review 23

Contents
Page ii GAO-13-698 Army and Marine Corps Training

Abbreviations

CATS Combined Arms Training Strategies

DOD Department of Defense

HMMWV High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle

LVC-IA Live, Virtual, Constructive Integrating Architecture 

MRAP Mine Resistant Ambush Protected

PPBE Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution

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.
Page 1 GAO-13-698 Army and Marine Corps Training

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

August 22, 2013

The Honorable Carl Levin

Chairman

The Honorable James M. Inhofe

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Howard P. “Buck” McKeon

Chairman

The Honorable Adam Smith

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

For more than a decade, the Army and Marine Corps have focused their 

training on counterinsurgency and stability operations in order to meet 

challenges abroad. With the drawdown from Iraq now complete and the 

U.S. decreasing its military presence in Afghanistan, more forces are 

available for training and the services are transitioning to focus their 

training to once again emphasize a broader range of missions. At the 

same time, both services face constraints that can affect live training, 

such as limitations in maneuver space and access to ranges. As a result, 

they must find ways to maximize efficiency and cost-effectiveness in the 

use of their training resources. Both services have concluded that 

simulation-based training1

 1

Training in a live environment involves real people operating real systems, e.g., an 

aviator flying an actual helicopter. Simulation-based training takes several forms. For 

example, virtual training involves real people operating simulated systems—specific

devices that mimic actual equipment, such as a vehicle simulator. In constructive training, 

real people are trained using simulations—computer representations or imitations of 

reality. For example, the scene on a computer screen may look like contours on a map 

and the units and people are represented by icons. The services also use low cost gaming 

simulations. For the purposes of this report, simulation-based training will refer to all 

training that uses simulators or simulations, encompassing all virtual, constructive, and 

gaming training. 

can contribute to these aims and serve as a 

complement to live training.
Page 2 GAO-13-698 Army and Marine Corps Training

A report of the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, 

which accompanied a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for 

2012, mandated that we review the status of the military services’ training 

programs and report the results to the House and Senate Armed Services 

Committees.2

This is the third report we have produced to assess the services’ mix of 

live and simulation-based training. In June 2012, we reported that the 

Navy had increased its emphasis on simulation-based training over the 

last decade, and had developed an overarching strategy that provided 12 

investment priorities for simulation-based training.

For this review we assessed (1) changes in the Army’s and 

Marine Corps’ use of simulation-based training devices, including efforts 

to integrate live and simulation-based training capabilities; and (2) the 

factors the Army and Marine Corps consider in determining whether to 

use live or simulation-based training, including the extent to which they 

consider performance and cost information.

3 In July 2012, we 

reported that the Air Force’s approach to managing its virtual training 

efforts lacked (1) a designated organization with accountability and 

authority for achieving results and (2) an overarching strategy —key 

elements of an organizational framework —and, (3) a methodology for 

determining the costs of virtual training.4

To address our objectives, we met with officials involved in training and 

training development across both services and visited simulation-based 

training facilities. We focused our review to capture a significant portion of 

both services’ training, by reviewing institutional and home station training 

and a broad cross-section of occupations that use simulation-based 

training devices. For both services, we selected the aviation, armor, and 

Accordingly, we recommended 

that the Air Force designate an entity to integrate its virtual training 

efforts, develop a strategy to align virtual training initiatives and goals, 

and develop a methodology to collect virtual training cost data. DOD 

concurred with our recommendations and identified actions that the Air 

Force planned to take.

 2

H.R. Rep. No. 112-78, at 111 (2011), which accompanied H.R. 1540, a bill for the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-81 (2011). 

3

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

GAO-12-725R (Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2012). 

4

GAO, Air Force Training: Actions Needed to Better Manage and Determine Costs of 

Virtual Training Efforts, GAO-12-727 (Washington, D.C.: July 19, 2012).
Page 3 GAO-13-698 Army and Marine Corps Training

artillery occupations. For the Army we also included infantry, and for the 

Marine Corps we also included amphibious assault vehicles and motor 

transport occupations.

To determine how the Army’s and Marine Corps’ use of simulation-based 

training devices has changed, including efforts to integrate live and 

simulation-based training capabilities, we analyzed service documents 

that provided information on the historical use of simulation-based training 

devices. We also interviewed officials representing the selected 

occupations and, among others, the services’ training commands and 

materiel development organizations to discuss how simulators and 

simulations were and are currently being used. We evaluated guidance 

and documentation on the services’ processes for coordinating their 

development of simulation-based training capabilities and technologies. In 

addition, we reviewed documents on the development of technical 

capabilities to connect simulation-based training devices. We also 

interviewed, and reviewed documents from, officials at Fort Hood, 

Texas—the first installation to field and use the Army’s new technical 

capability for connecting live and simulation-based training—to discuss 

user assessments.

To ascertain the factors the Army and Marine Corps consider in 

determining whether to use live or simulation-based training, including the 

extent to which they consider performance and cost information, we 

reviewed DOD and service policies and guidance related to developing 

and conducting training. We also reviewed documentation on simulator 

usage data and met with officials from the services’ training commands to 

discuss how this data was being used, and how the services determine 

the relationship between simulator usage and performance. In addition, 

we met with officials from Department of the Army and both services’

training commands to determine how costs are considered and compared 

when developing the different mixes of live and simulation-based training. 

We reviewed training documents to determine how the services identified 

the mix of training for institutional and home station training. In addition, 

we reviewed leading management practices, the federal internal control 

standards, and our past reviews on the Navy’s and Air Force’s use of live 

and virtual training, and federal cost-estimating and budgeting guidance.

We conducted this performance audit from June 2012 to August 2013, 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 
Page 4 GAO-13-698 Army and Marine Corps Training

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. For additional information on 

our scope and methodology, see appendix I.

All Army and Marine Corps training —whether for individuals or units —is 

task-based, and each task has an associated set of conditions and 

standards. For example, the conditions may specify daytime or nighttime 

training, and the standard, a measure of a unit’s or individual’s proficiency 

in performing a task, could be to fire a weapon to become familiar with 

how it operates, or to put a specific number of rounds on target.

Active and reserve component servicemembers receive both institutional 

and home station training during the course of their career. Institutional 

training, which includes initial military training, subsequent professional 

military education, and leadership training, takes place at schoolhouses, 

i.e., Army centers of excellence and Marine Corps formal learning centers 

(which include recruit depots). Schoolhouses have designated training 

specialties, such as infantry, aviation, and artillery. For some occupations, 

the Army and Marine Corps train together at the same location. For 

example, both services train their armor and artillery occupations at Fort 

Benning, GA and Fort Sill, OK, respectively. During this training, 

instructors must closely follow a prescribed program of instruction so 

servicemembers can develop, refine, and improve individual skills to 

prescribed standards. The goal of institutional training is to ensure a 

common base of training and capability that can serve as a foundation for 

unit training.

Training at home station builds on the individual skills developed during 

institutional training. It begins with individual and small unit training and 

builds to large scale culminating training events that are designed to 

certify units for deployment.5

 5

A culminating training event is a large scale training exercise that occurs prior to 

deployment or after a series of smaller training events. The event is individually tailored to 

support and assess a unit’s ability to perform tasks. 

Along the way, training complexity is 

increased incrementally by increasing the: task conditions (e.g., adding 

nighttime training); training tempo; number of tasks; or, number of 

personnel.

Background
Page 5 GAO-13-698 Army and Marine Corps Training

Like type units, e.g., all infantry platoons, all Apache helicopter 

squadrons, or all Stryker brigade combat teams, train on many of the 

same tasks. However, unit commanders are ultimately responsible for 

their units’ training, and a variety of factors can lead commanders to 

adopt different approaches to training. For example, when units are 

scheduled to deploy, commanders may adjust their training based on 

their units’ assigned missions or deployment locations.

Over the last several decades, the Army and Marine Corps have 

incorporated simulators and simulations more broadly into training and 

are collaborating in the development of these devices. The two services 

are also taking steps intended to increase the interoperability of 

simulators and simulations and support training across live and 

simulation-based training environments.

The Army’s and Marine Corps’ use of simulation-based training devices 

has increased over time, and the services have collaborated in 

developing some devices. Simulation-based training devices were first 

incorporated into training for aircraft and later incorporated into the 

ground communities. Both services’ aviation communities have used 

simulators for more than half a century. In addition to training tasks that 

could not be trained in an actual aircraft, such as emergency procedures, 

the services currently use flight simulators to train new pilots on tasks 

such as take-offs and landings, and to provide refresher training to more 

experienced pilots.

The services’ ground communities did not begin using simulators and 

simulations until later. Specifically, until the 1980s, training in the ground 

communities was primarily live training. Then, to enhance live, force on 

force training, the Army began using a laser training device that simulated 

weapons fire. In addition, both services began using simulations for the 

purpose of training higher-level commanders and their staffs in command 

and control and decision making.

Further advances in technology resulted in the acquisition of simulators 

and simulations with additional capabilities designed to help 

servicemembers and units acquire and refine skills through more 

Army and Marine 

Corps Have Increased 

the Use of SimulationBased Training and 

Taken Steps to 

Collaborate on

Development Efforts

The Services’ Use of 

Simulation-Based Training 

Devices Has Increased and 

They Are Collaborating in 

Device Development
Page 6 GAO-13-698 Army and Marine Corps Training

concentrated and repetitive training. For example, during the 1990s, the 

Army introduced more advanced trainers for its ground and aviation 

forces. In addition, the Marine Corps began using devices that allowed 

individual marines to conduct training in basic and advanced 

marksmanship, shoot/no-shoot judgment, and weapons employment 

tactics. More recently, during operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, both 

services introduced a number of new simulators and simulations to 

prepare servicemembers for conditions on the ground and emerging 

threats. For example, to provide initial and sustainment driver training, the 

Army and Marine Corps began using simulators that can be reconfigured 

to replicate a variety of vehicles. In addition, in response to an increase in 

vehicle rollovers, both services began using egress trainers to train 

servicemembers to safely evacuate their vehicles.

As the Army and Marine Corps have continued to expand their use of 

simulation-based training, they have collaborated on the development of 

some simulation-based training devices. For example, the Army uses the 

Homestation Instrumentation Training System to support collective 

maneuver training for platoon through battalion units. In developing a 

similar training system— the Marine Corps Instrumentation Training 

System —the service determined that it could reuse 87 percent of the 

components in the Army’s system.6 As a result, officials told us, the 

Marine Corps achieved approximately $11 million in cost avoidance and 

fielded the system in 2 years instead of the projected 9 years. In turn, the 

Marine Corps developed enhancements for its own training system that 

the Army has incorporated into its fielded version of the Homestation 

Instrumentation Training System. Further, the Army and Marine Corps 

determined that they had a similar need for terrain maps of Iraq and 

Afghanistan in their simulators. Rather than each service acquiring their 

own, the Army and Marine Corps share the same version of Virtual 

Battlespace 2, a gaming capability, resulting in shared development costs 

and content. In addition, the Army’s and Marine Corps’ training materiel 

developers, who are collocated in Orlando, Florida,7

 6

The Army’s Homestation Instrumentation Training System and the Marine Corps’

Instrumentation Training System are capable of monitoring real-time live training and 

exercises for the purposes of data collection, analysis, and review. The systems provide 

data and analysis of unit performance in various training situations, such as force on force.

have established 

memorandums of understanding intended to promote coordination and 

7

The primary simulation and training acquisition and sustainment organizations for each of 

the four services are located in Orlando, Florida. 
Page 7 GAO-13-698 Army and Marine Corps Training

encourage maximum reusability of existing devices. Table 1 provides 

examples of simulators and simulations currently being used in the Army 

and Marine Corps aviation and ground communities.

Table 1: Examples of Army and Marine Corps Simulators and Simulations

Name Purpose Simulator or Simulationa Service

Virtual Battlespace 2 To allow a unit to train together in a 

number of environments against a virtual 

opposing force.

Simulation Army and Marine Corps

Close Combat Tactical Trainer To provide armor, infantry, cavalry, and 

reconnaissance crews, units, and staffs 

with a collective training capability. 

Simulator Army

Aviation Combined Arms Tactical 

Trainer

To support unit collective and combined 

arms training for multiple helicopter 

platforms such as the Blackhawk and the 

Apache.

Simulator Army

Indoor Simulated Marksmanship 

Trainer

To provide the capability to train in basic 

and advanced marksmanship; can be 

reconfigured to replicate multiple 

weapons.

Simulator Marine Corps

Family of egress simulators

(For example, High-mobility 

multipurpose wheeled vehicle

(HMMWV) and mine resistant 

ambush protected (MRAP) vehicle 

egress simulator)

To develop the skills necessary to survive 

a vehicle rollover.

Simulator Army and Marine Corps

Common Driver Trainer, Operator 

Driver Simulator

To teach servicemembers how to drive 

selected vehicles, such as the HMMWV 

and MRAP.

Simulators Army and Marine Corps, 

respectively

Combined Arms Command and 

Control Trainer Upgrade System

Allows commanders and their staff to train 

or rehearse tactics, techniques, 

procedures and decision making 

processes in a realistic, scenario driven 

environment.

Simulation Marine Corps

Source: GAO analysis of Army and Marine Corps information.

a A simulator is a specific device that mimics actual equipment, e.g. a vehicle simulator. A simulation 

is a computer representation or imitation of reality.

As the Army and Marine Corps continue integrating simulation-based 

devices into their training, they are taking steps intended to increase 

interoperability and support training across live and simulation-based 

training environments. The Army’s live, virtual, and constructive 

capabilities were largely incompatible and operators at individual 

installations had to develop technical workarounds to connect these 

capabilities in a single realistic home station training exercise. According 

The Army and Marine 

Corps Are Taking Steps 

Intended to Better 

Integrate Live and 

Simulation-Based Training 

Capabilities
Page 8 GAO-13-698 Army and Marine Corps Training

to Army officials, these workarounds are temporary and require significant 

time and manpower to prepare for each exercise, which limits the 

availability of simulator operators to support other training needs on an 

installation. In an effort to overcome the need for temporary solutions and 

more fully integrate live, virtual, and constructive training, the Army began 

developing the Live, Virtual, Constructive Integrating Architecture (LVCIA) in 2005. The LVC-IA is a technical capability that provides common 

protocols, standards, and interfaces to standardize existing incompatible 

devices across installations and facilitate interoperability without 

workarounds. According to the Army, the integrated training 

environment—facilitated by the LVC-IA —will support unit live and 

simulation-based training at the brigade level and below; expand the 

training area and mitigate constraints imposed by limited maneuver space 

and environmental restrictions; and allow units to replicate the 

complexities of the operating environment. Since September 2012, the 

Army has fielded the LVC-IA capability at four installations and expects to 

field it to a total of 18 Army installations by the end of fiscal year 2017. 

Currently, the LVC-IA connects three simulators and simulations, 

although service officials told us that they plan to incorporate additional 

devices, including those of other services, when they field future versions 

of the LVC-IA.8

To facilitate the integration of live and simulation-based training devices in 

the Marine Corps, the service is currently in the conceptual phase of 

development for its Live, Virtual and Constructive Training Environment.

The Marine Corps’ intent is to eventually combine any of the three training 

environments (live, virtual and constructive) to create a common 

environment by which units can seamlessly interact as though they are 

physically located together. After assessing the Army’s LVC-IA, the 

Marine Corps concluded that the capabilities identified by the Army were 

beneficial to the Marine Corps; however, it did not address all of the 

capabilities needed to meet the unique training requirements of the 

Marine Corps, such as the need to train across environments while 

embarked aboard naval vessels. According to Marine Corps officials, they 

are monitoring the Army’s LVC-IA initiative to leverage applicable 

technology and lessons learned.

 8

The LVC-IA currently connects the Homestation Instrumentation Training System, the 

Close Combat Tactical Trainer, and the Aviation Combined Arms Tactical Trainer, and 

constructive simulations. 
Page 9 GAO-13-698 Army and Marine Corps Training

The Army and Marine Corps consider various factors —such as safety, 

and training objective or mission—in determining whether to use live or 

simulation-based training to meet training requirements. However, the 

services do not have information on performance and cost that would 

assist them in assessing and comparing the benefits of simulation-based 

training as they seek to optimize the mix of training to meet requirements 

and prioritize related investments. For example, regarding home station 

training, they collect some information on usage of simulation-based 

training devices, and the Army’s training materiel developer is conducting

a study to determine the benefits of training specific tasks using 

simulations. However, neither service has developed overall metrics or 

indicators that can be used on a service-wide basis to measure how the 

use of simulation-based training devices contributes to improving the 

effectiveness of training. In addition, the services have not developed a 

methodology to identify the costs associated with using simulation-based 

training.

The Army and Marine Corps identify requirements and develop related 

programs of instruction for institutional training, and overarching training 

strategies for home station training. In developing the programs of 

instruction and overarching training strategies, officials identify which 

requirements can be met with live or simulation-based training and which 

can be met using a combination of both types of training. Each type of 

training has certain advantages. For example, live training allows 

servicemembers to become familiar with the feel and use of actual 

weapons or equipment, adjust to uncertain conditions that can change 

quickly, such as weather, and work together in teams in a more realistic 

environment. Simulation-based training allows servicemembers to quickly 

replicate a wide variety of conditions that may not exist on a live training 

range, such as terrain differences. It also allows individuals and units to 

conduct numerous iterations to master a task (an option that may not be 

viable in a live training environment); reduces required equipment 

maintenance; and provides instant feedback on performance.

To leverage the advantages associated with both types of training and 

determine whether to use live or simulation-based training, officials from 

the services consider a number of factors, such as: training objective or 

mission; safety of servicemembers conducting the training and the safety 

of the general public; required training frequency for the task; available 

training time; the need to replicate environmental conditions, e.g., 

weather conditions; availability of training ranges, simulators, and 

simulations; and realism of existing simulators and simulations, including 

The Army and Marine 

Corps Consider 

Various Factors in 

Determining the Mix 

of Live and 

Simulation-Based 

Training, But Lack 

Key Information to 

Assess the Impact and 

Cost of SimulationBased Training

The Services Consider 

Various Factors to 

Determine When Live and 

Simulation-Based Training 

Can or Will Be Used
Page 10 GAO-13-698 Army and Marine Corps Training

their concurrency.9

In developing programs of instruction for institutional training, Army and 

Marine Corps subject matter experts, who in many cases have prior 

service experience, determine which training tasks will be conducted live, 

and which will be met using simulation-based training. For example, Army 

aviators learning to fly an Apache helicopter must train for about 55 hours 

in a simulation-based environment and about 84 hours in a live 

environment. In the same way the Marine Corps prescribes about 66 

hours of live training and about 272 hours of simulation-based training for 

one of its artillery courses.

According to Army officials and Marine Corps training 

guidance, when deciding whether to use simulation-based training, the 

primary consideration is improving the quality of training and the state of 

readiness; potential cost savings or avoided costs are an important, but 

secondary, consideration.

For home station training, the services provide unit commanders with 

various guidance documents to assist them in developing their unit 

training plans. However, the services do not prescribe the environment in 

which home station training should be conducted. Instead, both services 

allow unit commanders to decide whether to use live or simulation-based 

training or a mix of both types of training. While unit commanders have 

this discretion, available training time, and the availability of ranges, 

ammunition, and simulation-based training devices may influence their 

decisions concerning their units’ mix of training.

The Army provides guidance to unit commanders through its Combined 

Arms Training Strategies (CATS) and the Marine Corps through Training 

and Readiness Manuals. The Army’s CATS identify the tasks to be 

trained; purpose; outcomes; training audience; and event duration and 

frequency. The CATS also identify which requirements should be 

conducted through live training and which can be conducted using a 

combination of live and simulation-based training. They also identify the 

simulators or simulations that could be used. Similarly, the Marine Corps’

Training and Readiness Manuals identify the critical tasks and associated 

standards to which the tasks should be trained; prerequisite training 

events; the internal and external support necessary to complete an event; 

 9

Concurrency refers to the extent to which simulators match the most current aspects of 

the weapons systems they are designed to replicate. 
Page 11 GAO-13-698 Army and Marine Corps Training

as well as the simulation-based training devices that can be used. In 

some instances, the Marine Corps manuals are more specific than the 

Army CATS because they contain simulation codes that specify when a 

simulator or simulation must, should, or can be used, as well as when no 

simulation-based training device is available. However, there are very few 

instances where the manuals specify that simulation-based training must 

be used. Both services’ training strategies recommend that 

servicemembers and units use simulators or simulations to build and 

maintain proficiency prior to qualifying for many tasks in a live training 

environment.

Like the Army and Marine Corps, the Air Force and Navy recognize that 

effective training requires a mix of live and simulation-based training and 

some live training events cannot or should not be replaced by a simulator.

As we previously reported,10 the Navy and Air Force have identified mixes 

of live and simulation-based training and in some cases are more 

prescriptive with regard to simulation-based training and their investments 

in these training technologies. In particular, the Air Force has identified 

the percentage of events that can be completed in a simulator and the 

Navy’s Overarching Fleet Training Simulator Strategy contains specific 

guiding principles for simulator use. For example, one principle states that 

training simulators should be used to replace live training to the maximum 

extent possible where training effectiveness and operational readiness 

are not compromised. Another states that if a skill or talent can be 

developed or refined, or if proficiency can effectively and efficiently be 

maintained in a simulator, then a simulator should be used. Furthermore, 

recognizing the constrained fiscal environment and pressure on defense 

accounts, the strategy lists 12 investment priorities, including investing in 

simulators and simulations that have the greatest potential to generate 

cost savings, and it assigns responsibility for developing a methodology 

for tracking return on simulator investments.

 10GAO-12-725R and GAO-12-727.
Page 12 GAO-13-698 Army and Marine Corps Training

Army and Marine Corps training documents and officials from both 

services have noted benefits from the use of simulation-based training —

both in terms of training effectiveness and in terms of cost savings or cost 

avoidance. According to various documents from both services, training in 

a simulation-based environment complements necessary live training and 

allows the fundamentals to be practiced in a more cost-effective manner. 

Further, simulation-based training allows servicemembers to quickly 

replicate a wide variety of conditions, receive instant feedback on 

performance, and conduct multiple iterations to master a task. In addition, 

training with simulation-based devices can improve training efficiency by: 

controlling costs by expanding the number of training sites; reducing 

training time; improving safety and reducing equipment wear and tear; 

reducing or offsetting training ammunition requirements and/or operating 

tempo costs; and reducing the need for additional training land. Finally, 

training officials from both the Army and the Marine Corps noted the 

improved performance of servicemembers in a live training environment 

as a result of the increased use of simulation-based training. However, 

the services lack information to assist them in better determining how the 

use of simulation-based training devices contribute to improved 

performance and evaluating the costs of simulation-based training.

While the Army and Marine Corps currently collect data on the usage of 

simulators and the Army is conducting a study to gain insight into how 

simulation-based training contributes to training, neither service has 

established metrics or indicators to assist them in more broadly 

measuring the impact of simulation-based training on improving the 

performance or proficiency of servicemembers. As the services look at 

ways to optimize the use of training resources, such information could be 

useful to guide decisions on the optimal mix of live and simulation-based 

training during the training development process, and as commanders 

exercise discretion in how best to integrate the use of simulators during 

home station training. Specifically, we found that the services collect 

utilization data to manage the scheduling and distribution of simulationbased training devices across installations to support home station 

training. For example, on a monthly basis, both the Army and Marine 

Corps collect data on the number of hours simulators are used and 

throughput (i.e., the number of soldiers or marines who use a simulator), 

and in some cases, the number of virtual rounds fired or miles driven. 

Further, in the case of the Army, the services’ training materiel developer 

is currently conducting a study to determine the benefits of simulationbased training. Specifically, the Program Executive Office for Simulations, 

Training, and Instrumentation, is compiling case studies to demonstrate 

the benefits and impacts of training certain tasks using simulations. The 

The Army and Marine 

Corps Cite Benefits of 

Simulation-Based Training, 

but Lack Information to 

Evaluate Impacts on 

Performance and Cost

Army and Marine Corps Collect 

Some Data on SimulationBased Training but Lack 

Metrics to Assess Impact on 

Performance
Page 13 GAO-13-698 Army and Marine Corps Training

intent of this study is to evaluate how training with simulation-based 

devices compares to training without these devices. The Army’s study, 

which it expects to release later in 2013, as well as the utilization data 

both services are collecting, could be useful in establishing metrics to 

help optimize the services’ use of their training resources. Neither service 

has taken steps to identify performance metrics and the type of 

performance data that would be needed to evaluate how the use of 

simulation-based training devices contributes to training effectiveness.

Officials told us they recognize the value of performance metrics, but 

given the pace of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past several 

years, priority was focused on conducting training and preparing forces to 

deploy. Officials further noted that some training tasks are subjective, 

making it difficult to develop specific, quantifiable metrics, and that 

different devices may require different sets of metrics to reflect how their 

use contributes to improved performance. Currently, in the absence of 

performance data, the services obtain information on the contribution of 

simulation-based training from subject matter experts, who are 

responsible for developing training programs of instruction and 

overarching strategies, as well as information based on feedback and 

after action reports from deployments and training exercises.

As previously noted, the Navy has identified guiding principles for 

simulator use, including a principle that notes the need to quantifiably 

demonstrate how simulator use contributes to achieving training 

objectives. Further, leading management practices recognize, when 

designed effectively, performance measures help decision makers (1) 

determine the contributions that training makes to improve results, (2) 

identify gaps in performance, and (3) determine where to focus resources 

to improve results.11

 11GAO, Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and Development 

Efforts for the Federal Government, 

In particular, incorporating valid measures of 

effectiveness, i.e., outcome measures, into training programs would 

enable an organization to better ensure that desired changes will occur in 

trainees’ skills, knowledge, and abilities. We recognize and have 

previously reported that it is difficult to establish performance measures 

GAO-04-546G (Washington, D.C.: March 2004).
Page 14 GAO-13-698 Army and Marine Corps Training

for outcomes that are not readily observable.12

Army and Marine Corps officials stated they generally consider 

simulation-based training less costly than live training; however, neither 

service has established a methodology to identify and compare the costs 

associated with live and simulation-based training. According to federal 

internal control standards, decision makers need visibility over a 

program’s financial data to determine whether the program is meeting the 

agencies’ goals and effectively using resources.

However, without a means 

to determine how the use of simulation-based training devices contribute 

to improved performance, decision makers in the Army and Marine Corps 

lack information to make informed decisions about the optimal mix of 

training.

13 On the basis of past 

reviews of federal cost-estimating and budgeting guidance,14 we have 

determined that a key principle for evaluating cost estimates is ensuring 

that all significant costs are included.15

 12GAO, State Partnership Program: Improved Oversight, Guidance, and Training Needed 

for National Guard’s Efforts with Foreign Partners, 

In our previous report on the Air 

GAO-12-548 (Washington, D.C.: May 

2012); GAO, Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation 

for Achieving Greater Results, GAO-04-38 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 10, 2004); and 

Performance Measurement and Evaluation: Definitions and Relationships,

GAO-11-646SP (Washington, D.C.: May 2011). 

13GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1, 1999). 

14GAO, Military Bases: Opportunities Exist to Improve Future Base Realignment and 

Closure Rounds, GAO-13-149 (Washington, D.C.: March 2013). GAO has previously 

reviewed numerous federal guidance documents related to cost estimating, accounting 

standards, economic analysis, and budgeting, and identified key principles that we believe 

can be applied to the evaluation of cost-savings estimates. Two of those four principles 

include having an appropriate level of detailed documentation such that a reasonably 

informed person could easily recreate, update, or understand the cost estimate, and all 

significant costs and key assumptions should be included in the cost estimate. The 

guidance documents we reviewed include: GAO, GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment 

Guide: Best Practices for Developing and Managing Capital Program Costs, GAO-09-3SP 

(March 2009); Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-11, Preparation, 

Submission and Execution of the Budget (August 2011, superseded by an August 2012 

issuance); Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board, Statement of Federal Financial 

Accounting Standards 4 (June 2011); Department of Defense Instruction 7041.3, 

Economic Analysis for Decisionmaking (Nov. 7, 1995); and Department of Defense 

Financial Management Regulation 7000.14-R, vol. 4, ch. 22, Cost Finding (May 2010). We 

believe that these documents collectively contain broad themes that can be applied to 

evaluating cost analyses.

15GAO-12-727. 

Army and Marine Corps Lack a 

Methodology for Identifying 

Costs Related to SimulationBased Training
Page 15 GAO-13-698 Army and Marine Corps Training

Force’s use of live and virtual training, for instance, we reported that the 

Air Force had estimated it could realize savings in its training program by 

reducing live flying hours and taking other steps, such as increasing the 

use of virtual training. However, the Air Force did not have a complete 

picture of costs related to virtual training. For example, it had excluded 

certain costs from its estimates, such as expenses for aircrew travel to 

simulator locations, additional contractor personnel to schedule and 

operate simulators, and the purchase of additional simulators to meet 

increased demand. Therefore, we recommended that the Air Force 

develop a methodology to determine the universe of costs and a means 

to collect and track data in order to enhance its ability to make future 

investment decisions about the mix of live and virtual training. DOD 

concurred with our recommendation and noted that the Air Force is 

developing a standard methodology of accounting and tracking cost 

categories associated with live and simulation-based training.

In general, the Army and Marine Corps collect and assess some costs 

associated with the use of simulation-based training devices as part of 

their acquisition and budgeting processes. For example, both services 

conduct cost benefit analyses—including a review of estimated simulator 

and simulation life-cycle costs, such as development costs and costs to 

dispose of a device at the end of its life—as they make acquisition 

decisions such as whether to develop new simulation-based training 

devices. In addition, after the simulator or simulation is acquired and 

fielded, the services consider the life-cycle cost to operate and maintain 

them as they identify the funding needs to be considered in the budget 

development process. However, they do not reevaluate cost information 

during their training development process as they determine which 

training should be conducted live and which can be conducted using a 

combination of live and simulation-based training. Further, at this point in 

time, neither service has a methodology for identifying the universe of 

costs associated with using simulation-based devices or a means to 

collect and track these costs.

According to Army and Marine Corps officials, additional cost information 

would be useful in making decisions on the mix of training and related 

investment decisions. During the course of our work, some officials cited 

examples of specific costs that could be considered and variables that 

might need to be taken into account in developing an approach to 

comparing simulation-based and live training. For example, some officials 

noted that ammunition costs could be considered significant to both types 

of training, but that there are some variables to be considered in 

comparing these costs. For instance, they noted that the number of virtual 
Page 16 GAO-13-698 Army and Marine Corps Training

rounds fired in a simulator could be compared to the cost of live 

ammunition, but that there are limits to this type of comparison because 

units can fire more rounds in a simulator than they would be allocated 

during live training. As a result, a one-to-one comparison does not 

present a totally accurate picture of the potential costs that are saved or 

avoided when conducting simulation-based training rather than live 

training. Additionally, they noted that ammunition has a shelf life. If it is 

not used within its available shelf life the services can incur costs to 

demilitarize the ammunition. Therefore, firing live ammunition that is 

approaching the end of its shelf life may actually result in cost avoidance 

rather than an additional cost for the services. In addition, they noted that 

comparing the costs of fuel and spare parts of an aircraft used in live 

training to the cost of technicians and spare parts needed to maintain 

simulators would not provide an accurate comparison if the costs of 

facilities, utilities, and training personnel to support the simulators were 

not included as well. These costs and variables could serve as the 

foundation for developing a cost methodology. Without a means to 

assess the impact of using simulators on performance and to compare 

the costs associated with live training and the use of simulation-based 

training devices, decision makers in the Army and Marine Corps lack 

information to make fully informed decisions in the future regarding the 

optimal mix of training and related investment decisions.

As the Army and Marine Corps take steps to further integrate the use of 

simulation-based training with live training, and collaborate on 

development efforts in a fiscally constrained environment, both services 

are facing important decisions regarding how to adapt current approaches 

to meet training requirements and prioritize related investments, including 

those related to the acquisition of simulation-based training capabilities. 

While both services have noted benefits from the use of simulation-based 

training —in terms of training effectiveness and in cost savings or cost 

avoidance, it is important that they have valid performance and cost data 

to assist them in evaluating these benefits. We recognize that both 

services currently collect various types of information on the use of 

simulation devices and consider costs to a certain extent in their 

acquisition and budgeting processes. However, taking additional steps to 

expand these efforts by establishing performance-oriented metrics and a 

methodology to identify the costs associated with simulation-based 

training would provide them greater insights into how the use of 

simulation-based training contributes to improved performance or 

proficiency of servicemembers, and a point of comparison for assessing 

the cost implications of using simulation-based or live training. Moreover, 

Conclusions
Page 17 GAO-13-698 Army and Marine Corps Training

until the Army and Marine Corps take actions to increase their visibility 

over the impact of simulation-based training on performance and costs, 

they will continue to lack key information that could assist them in 

determining how to optimize the mix of live and simulation-based training 

in the future and target simulation-based training investments on the 

devices that have the greatest potential to improve mission performance.

To improve decision makers’ abilities to make fully informed decisions 

concerning whether training requirements can be met with live and 

simulation-based training and determine optimal mixes of live and 

simulation-based training, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense 

direct the Secretary of the Army and the Commandant of the Marine 

Corps to take the following two actions:

• Develop outcome-oriented performance metrics that can be used to 

assess the impact of simulation-based training on improving the 

performance or proficiency of servicemembers and units.

• Develop a methodology—to include identifying the costs that should 

be included and how these costs should be captured—for comparing 

the costs associated with the use of live and simulation-based 

training.

In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD partially concurred with 

our recommendations. In response to our recommendation that the 

Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of the Army and the 

Commandant of the Marine Corps to develop outcome-oriented 

performance metrics that can be used to assess the impact of simulationbased training on improving the performance or proficiency of 

servicemembers and units, DOD agreed that an enhancement in 

outcome-oriented performance metrics would be helpful in the decisionmaking process. DOD noted that given the magnitude and scope of 

training tasks, varying competencies of the training audience, and ever 

changing technology, the problem set contains many independent 

variables. DOD said that it will study the problem set, and as appropriate, 

develop a construct and implementation plan to include performance 

metrics to assess the impact of simulation-based training on improving 

the performance or proficiency of servicemembers and units. We 

recognize that DOD must consider many independent variables and note 

in our report that some training tasks are subjective, making it difficult to 

develop specific, quantifiable metrics. However, facing these same types 

of challenges, we describe in our report that the Navy has a simulator 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 18 GAO-13-698 Army and Marine Corps Training

strategy that notes the need to quantifiably demonstrate how simulator 

use contributes to achieving objectives. Further, as noted in our report, 

Army and Marine Corps training tasks already have associated conditions 

and standards. These standards could be used as the basis for 

developing performance metrics to evaluate differences, if any, between 

live and simulation-based training effectiveness. As both services have 

noted anecdotal benefits from the use of simulation-based training, we 

continue to believe that establishing performance-oriented metrics would 

provide the Army and Marine Corps with greater insights into how the use 

of simulation-based training contributes to improved performance or 

proficiency. 

DOD partially concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of 

Defense direct the Secretary of the Army and the Commandant of the 

Marine Corps to develop a methodology—to include identifying the costs 

that should be included and how these costs should be captured—for 

comparing the costs associated with the use of live and simulation-based 

training. In its comments, DOD noted that the Army and Marine Corps 

capture all relevant costs needed for decision-making during the 

Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) process in 

procuring simulators/simulation devices. DOD further stated that the 

Marine Corps training is based on the Systems Approach to Training, 

which includes policy on developing outcome-oriented performance

metrics that are employed in school house lesson plans and home station 

training. DOD noted that the combination of PPBE and the Systems 

Approach to Training ensures that costs are considered in determining 

the mix of live and simulation-based training. DOD further stated that the 

Army and Marine Corps concur that a more comprehensive cost analysis 

would assist decision making in determining the optimal mix of live and 

simulation-based training. DOD did not cite any specific steps that the 

services plan to take. In our report, we specifically recognize that the 

Army and Marine Corps assess costs associated with simulation based 

devices, such as life cycle costs, as they make acquisition decisions and 

during their budget development process when they determine funding 

needs to operate acquired devices. However, the services do not 

reevaluate cost information during their training development process 

which is the point at which they are determining the mix of live and 

simulated based training. Furthermore, beyond those costs currently 

assessed in the budget process, we found examples of additional costs 

that could be considered if the services were to perform a cost 

comparison analysis between live and simulated based training, such as 

facilities, fuel and ammunition. Therefore, to enhance their ability to 

optimize the mix of training and better understand related cost 
Page 19 GAO-13-698 Army and Marine Corps Training

implications, we continue to believe the services need to expand their 

current efforts and take specific steps to develop a methodology for 

comparing costs associated with the use of live and simulated based 

training. DOD’s comments are included in their entirety in appendix II. 

DOD also provided technical and clarifying comments, which we have 

incorporated where appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional 

committees, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, and the 

Commandant of the Marine Corps. In addition, this report will be available 

at no charge on our website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about 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 made major contributions to this report 

are listed in appendix III.

Sharon L. Pickup

Director

Defense Capabilities and Management
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 20 GAO-13-698 Army and Marine Corps Training

To address our objectives, we met with officials from the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense, the Department of the Army Headquarters, Marine 

Corps Headquarters, and several Army and Marine Corps commands and 

organizations, and visited simulation-based training facilities. Our review 

focused on the mix of live and simulation-based training for institutional 

and home station training because this training represents a significant 

portion of both services’ training. Excluded from this review were live and 

simulation-based training at the services’ combat training centers and 

during deployment. We selected Army and Marine Corps occupations that 

use the largest number of simulation-based training devices and 

represent a broad cross-section of how these devices are used by the 

services, respectively. For both the Army and Marine Corps, we selected 

the aviation, armor, and artillery occupations. In addition, for the Army we 

included infantry, and for the Marine Corps we included amphibious 

assault vehicles and motor transport occupations. We held discussions 

with training officials representing each of these occupations. In addition, 

we visited the Army Aviation Center of Excellence in Fort Rucker, 

Alabama; the Army Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning, GA, 

where both services train their armor personnel; and Fort Sill, Oklahoma, 

where both services train their artillery personnel.

To determine how the Army’s and Marine Corps’ use of simulation-based 

training devices has changed since the services first began using 

simulators, we reviewed and analyzed service briefings and 

documentation that provided information on the historical use of 

simulation-based training devices, and the timelines within which 

simulators for various occupations became available. In addition, we 

interviewed officials from the Department of the Army-Management Office 

for Training Simulations; Marine Corps Plans, Policies and Operations; 

and the services’ training commands —the Army’s Training and Doctrine 

Command and the Marine Corps’ Training and Education Command—to 

discuss how simulators and simulations were and are currently being 

used. We also interviewed officials representing the selected service 

occupations and from the Army Reserve Command, the Army National 

Guard, and Marine Corps Forces Reserve, to discuss the mix of live and 

simulation-based training, how the use of simulators and simulations has 

evolved, and the benefits, limitations, and challenges of simulation-based 

training. Additionally, we reviewed our prior reports to gain additional 

perspective on how simulators and simulations were used in the past. To 

assess the Army’s and Marine Corps’ efforts to better integrate live and 

simulation-based training, we evaluated documentation on simulationbased training technologies and capabilities. In addition, we met with 

officials from the Army’s and Marine Corps’ training commands and 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 21 GAO-13-698 Army and Marine Corps Training

materiel development organizations—the Program Executive Office for 

Simulations, Training, and Instrumentation and the Program Manager for 

Training Systems, respectively—to discuss how they coordinate the 

development of simulation-based training capabilities and technologies 

and ongoing initiatives to further integrate simulation-based training. We 

also obtained and reviewed guidance and documentation from both 

services related to the development of certain technical capabilities to 

connect incompatible simulation-based training devices—the Army’s Live, 

Virtual, and Constructive—Integrated Architecture (LVC-IA), and the 

Marine Corps’ Live, Virtual and Constructive Training Environment. We 

discussed these technical capabilities with officials from the Army 

headquarters, and the services’ training commands and materiel 

development organizations. In addition, we reviewed Army documents on 

the LVC-IA and the summary of the findings and lessons learned from the 

initial fielding of the integrated architecture at Fort Hood, Texas. We also 

interviewed officials from Fort Hood, including company, battalion, and 

brigade-level officials from the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry 

Division, to discuss their perspectives on the benefits and challenges 

related to the initial LVC-IA exercise. Additionally, we reviewed Marine 

Corps’ documents, such as its Live, Virtual and Constructive Training 

Environment Initial Capabilities Document; and the Training and 

Education Modeling and Simulation Master Plan 2010. We also 

interviewed Marine Corps training officials to obtain information on the 

purpose and current state of its Live, Virtual and Constructive Training 

Environment.

To ascertain the factors the Army and Marine Corps consider in 

determining whether to use live or simulation-based training, including the 

extent to which they consider performance and cost information, we 

assessed Army and Marine Corps documentation, such as the 2013 Army 

Posture Statement; U.S Army Training Concept 2012-2020; Army 

Regulation 350-38, Policies and Management for Training Aids, Devices, 

Simulators, and Simulations; the 2012 Army Training Strategy; the 

Posture of the United States Marine Corps, 2013 Report to Congress; 

and Marine Corps Concepts and Programs 2013. We reviewed 

Department of Defense (DOD) and Navy Training guidance. We also 

reviewed our previous reports on Air Force and Navy virtual training. To 

determine the services’ mixes of live and simulation-based training for 

institutional and home station training, we reviewed Army and Marine 

Corps policies and guidance related to developing and conducting 

training, including the Training and Doctrine Command Regulation 350-

70: Army Learning Policy and Systems; U.S. Army Training and Doctrine 

Command Pamphlet 350-70-1, Training Development in Support of the 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 22 GAO-13-698 Army and Marine Corps Training

Operational Domain; and NAVMC 1553.1: the Marine Corps’ Systems 

Approach to Training User’s Guide. We interviewed officials from the 

services’ training commands, the Army Reserve Command, the Army 

National Guard, Marine Corps Forces Reserve, and subject matter 

experts for the selected occupations to discuss the mix of training at 

institutions and home station for active and reserve component 

personnel, how these mixes are developed, and the factors that are 

considered. We reviewed programs of instruction to obtain examples of 

the mixes of live and simulation-based training prescribed during 

institutional training in the selected occupations. To determine the 

services’ mix of training at home station we reviewed examples of the 

Army Combined Arms Training Strategies, Army proponent’s Home 

Station Gated Training Strategies, and the Marine Corps’ Training and 

Readiness Manuals. We also interviewed officials from the Army Reserve 

and Army National Guard, as well as unit commanders and officials from 

the installations that we visited, i.e., Army’s 3rd Brigade, 3rd Infantry 

Division at Fort Benning, Georgia; 1st Air Cavalry Brigade, 1st Calvary 

Division, at Fort Hood, Texas; 31st Air Defense Artillery Brigade, 75th 

Fires Brigade, and 214th Fires Brigade at Fort Sill, Oklahoma; and former 

Marine Corps battalion and company commanders and officials from the 

Marine Corps Forces Reserve to discuss how the Army’s and Marine 

Corps’ overarching training strategies assist commanders in developing a 

mix of live and simulation-based training for home station training. In 

addition, we interviewed Army and Marine Corps training officials to 

identify and determine the types of information collected on the use of 

simulators and simulations; how this information was being used; and 

how the services determine the relationship between simulator usage and 

performance. We also obtained examples of the types of information 

being collected by both services, and participated in an online 

demonstration of the Army’s central repository for this information. In 

addition, we reviewed the Navy’s Overarching Fleet Simulator Strategy 

and management practices on performance measures. To determine how 

costs are considered and compared when developing live and simulationbased training, we met with officials from Department of the Army and 

both services’ training commands. We reviewed the Army’s 3rd edition of 

its Cost Benefit Analysis Guide to identify potential DOD criteria as to 

what factors should be included when conducting a cost-benefit analysis.

We also reviewed Army and Marine Corps acquisition guidance, which 

provides instruction on conducting cost-benefit analyses to acquire 

simulators. In addition, we reviewed federal internal control standards, our 

past reviews on the Air Force’s use of live and virtual training, and federal 

cost-estimating and budgeting guidance. Further, we interviewed training 

officials and current and former unit commanders from both services to 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 23 GAO-13-698 Army and Marine Corps Training

further clarify how costs are considered when developing the different 

mixes of live and simulation-based training.

In conducting this work, we contacted officials from the organizations 

outlined in table 2.

Table 2: Organizations Interviewed During Our Review

Office of the Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Arlington, Va.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Readiness), Training Readiness and Strategy, Arlington, Va.

U.S. Army

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics), Arlington, Va.

Department of the Army, Arlington, Va.

G-3/7, Management Office – Training Simulations, Arlington, Va.

G-8, Force Development Directorate, Arlington, Va.

Army Forces Command, Fort Bragg, N.C.

Army Reserve Command, Fort Bragg, N.C.

Army National Guard, Arlington, Va.

Army Training and Doctrine Command 

Army Training and Doctrine Command Capability Managers—Live, and Distributed Learning Program, Joint Base Langley 

Eustis, Va.

Army Training and Doctrine Command Capability Manager—Virtual, Fort Leavenworth, Kans.

Combined Arms Center—Training, Fort Leavenworth, Kans.

Army Training Support Center, Joint Base Langley Eustis, Va.

Program Executive Office—Simulation, Training, and Instrumentation, Orlando, Fla.

Fort Rucker, Ala.

Directorate of Plans, Training, Mobilization, and Security—Training Division 

Aviation Center of Excellence

G-3 Support Operations

110th Aviation Brigade

1st Aviation Brigade

Fort Benning, Ga. 

3rd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division

Maneuver Center of Excellence

G-3, Operations, Plans, and Training Directorate

316th Cavalry Brigade

Fort Sill, Okla. 

Directorate of Plans, Training, Mobilization, and Security

31st Air Defense Artillery Brigade
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 24 GAO-13-698 Army and Marine Corps Training

75th Fires Brigade

214th Fires Brigade

Fires Center of Excellence

Directorate of Training and Doctrine

Joint and Combined Integration Directorate

Office of the Field Artillery Commandant

30th Air Defense Artillery Brigade

428th Field Artillery Brigade

434th Field Artillery Brigade

Fort Hood, Tex. 

Directorate of Plans, Training, Mobilization, and Security

G-3 Training, 1st Cavalry Division

1st Air Cavalry Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division

2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division

U.S. Marine Corps

Headquarters, Arlington, Va.

Deputy Commandant, Plans, Policies, and Operations

Deputy Commandant, Aviation

Training and Education Command, Quantico, Va. 

Marine Air and Ground Task Force Training and Education Standards Division 

Aviation Branch 

Ground Branch

Training and Education Capabilities Division

Range and Training Area Management Branch

Marine Air and Ground Task Force Training Simulations Branch

Training Command

Marine Corps Detachment, Fort Benning, Ga.

Marine Corps Artillery Detachment, Fort Sill, Okla.

Assault Amphibian School, Camp Pendleton, Calif.

Marine Corps Detachment, Fort Leonard Wood, Mo.

Marine Corps’ Systems Command

Program Manager—Training Systems, Orlando, Fla.

Marine Corps Forces Reserve, New Orleans, La.

Source: GAO.

We conducted this performance audit from June 2012 to August 2013, 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 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 25 GAO-13-698 Army and Marine Corps Training

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 26 GAO-13-698 Army and Marine Corps Training

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Defense
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 27 GAO-13-698 Army and Marine Corps Training
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 28 GAO-13-698 Army and Marine Corps Training

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

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

were Michael Ferren, Assistant Director; Richard Burkard; Kenya Jones; 

Jeff Rankin; Michael Silver; Susan Tindall; Erik Wilkins-McKee; and 

Richard Winsor.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(351738)
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 (http://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 http://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: http://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.