The UK Royal Navy have still to embrace advances in synthetic training as the Fleet Operational Standards and Training (FOST) organisation continue to push leadership to endorse a new strategy.
There are no clear requirements at the moment according to Commodore Andrew Ingham, Commander of FOST, during a talk at IT²EC 2025 in Oslo, Norway on 26 March.
Go deeper with GlobalData
“One of the things I’m desperately trying to achieve is coherence [across] the Royal Navy.”
At present, the Navy’s Maritime Operational Training Environment is split into two pillars: ‘Apollo’ (live training) and ‘Spartan’ (synthetic), with each encompassing several forms of training.
Spartan includes the Maritime Command and Staff Trainer, or MCAST; Spartan Hub, a white force that allows simulated training; a platform-enabled training capability; and the service is also looking to flesh out a Live, Virtual and Constructive environment in the future.
Nevertheless, Ingham hinted there will be a “big change… in terms of people” in the middle of 2025 as part of his effort to formulate a “cohesive” training strategy.
Forward presence
More integration is needed to meet the new operational demands of the Royal Navy.
A reduction in legacy platforms – such as the Albion-class and HMS Northumberland in November 2024 – has led to the implementation of a persistent forward presence model. In accordance with this concept, fewer warships will be needed to conduct operations; the Ministry of Defence cite a requirement for as few as five ships to offset the work of 11 vessels under this new strategic model.
“We’re moving towards a persistently deployed Navy whereby we need to take the training and the replacement crews… How do we affect that? How do we train the oncoming crew so that they’re ready to take over the military task?”
Falling behind allied training
Naval Technology learned that the Royal Navy is currently pursuing the same digital technologies and simulators as its Nato counterparts.
There are many standards within Nato that determine how users should set up these resources to ensure a common simulation training model in terms of tactical procedures but also synthetic connectivity.
The alliance has been developing standards for simulation applied to ships and maritime systems since before 2009, according to one conference paper providing an update on progress at that time.
“The Royal Navy has fallen a bit behind with that. We’ve allowed ourselves to get out of date,” Ingham acknowledged.
It is worth noting that Nato simulation developments appear fall behind the structures established for armies and air forces, such as the coordination of shared facilities under Nato Flight Training Europe, which reached full operational capability in November 2024.
“The Royal Navy has fallen a bit behind… We’ve allowed ourselves to get out of date.”
Cdre Andrew Ingham, Royal Navy FOST Commander
Britain’s realisation – that the Royal Navy is falling behind partners – comes at an opportune moment in the run up to the Strategic Defence Review (SDR), which will outline policy and priorities for years to come amid a fractured security climate.
“The SDR probably won’t speak specifically to that level of detail, but I think there’s an overarching intent… [that] digital, synthetic is going to be a big part.”
Undersea training seeps through the cracks
Combining different maritime tasks into one synthetic training system is a particular problem that has yet to be determined.
While it is more simple to conduct training for ships and naval aviation, it is far more difficult to bring anti-submarine warfare (ASW) training into the mix – or even as an area of exclusive training in its own right.
“What I can’t do is have a submarine in [this integrated virtual environment] as well, and there are some technical challenges to it,” he said. “But it’s definitely an area that we need to explore the feasibility of doing it in the future.”
ASW training would encompass a diverse range of tasks above and below the surface, including work on the hull; variable depth; mine countermeasures; active towed array; dipping sonars; air-dropped sonobuoys; as well as more invasive measures such as torpedoes and defensive mining.
While a lot of training is done in the real world already, the Navy is falling behind in simulating training in these key areas.
One solution Ingham put forward was to invest in onshore training facilities: “it doesn’t need to be a ship. It doesn’t need to look like a ship,” he suggested.
“It could just be in a warehouse with… different classrooms, or it could be in a different location. As long as the ship company are connected.”
