Flatten the On-site Learning Curve

Pre-deployment Training Improvements

By Iain Herring and Edited By Captain Gavin Berke and Captain Ethan Gordon

June 1, 2026 | Air Defense Artillery Journal, 2026 E-Edition

Read Time: < 10 mins

Land-based Phalanx Weapon Systems (LPWS) conducting Counter-Rocket Artillery Mortar (C-RAM) for base defense during deployment supporting Operation Inherent Reslove (OIR), 2023. (Photo by CPT Iain Herring)

After climbing the dimly lit steps of our flight and securing my rifle under the seat, I reflect on the hard work my unit accomplished to enable our deployment. In the back of my mind, I am reassured because our unit is well trained and primed to address any obstacles or threats. From meticulous preparation and steadfast leadership, our Soldiers exceed the standard. Upon quickly completing relief in place, we see there is still a significant learning curve to master operations in our area of responsibility (AOR). We hunker down with our grit earned from training and learn.

Months go by, and we reflect on how pre-deployment operations were simple compared to overseas. Each of our Soldiers’ tasks grew with more systems to wield in a harsher environment and in the middle of an ongoing conflict. How could our training have been just a little more realistic? Was it possible to have trained for the unexpected? Looking to the future, units must adapt and revise Tactical Standard Operating Procedures (TAC-SOPs) to simulate combat environments.

As conveyed in Army Techniques Publication (ATP) 3-01.81, doctrine is constantly playing catch-up with ever-changing unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) threats. That is why leaders must go beyond doctrine and utilize home-station training and the program offices to prepare soldiers with up-to-date threat expectations and simulated battle rehearsals (Headquarters, Department of the Army 2025). Great tips and training resources can be found in that ATP; however, it lacks detailed guidelines to optimize training difficulty with realistic evolving UAS threats.

Lessons Learned the Hard Way: Training for Difficult Situations

My peers and I experienced similar lessons learned as indirect fire protection capability (IFPC) platoon leaders conducting base-defense operations. Our short-range air defense (SHORAD) crews began pre-deployment with gunnery table qualification culminating in a battalion live fire exercise (LFX). Training even exceeded the necessary standards in some respects with repeated iterations of gunnery tables and specialized counter unmanned aircraft systems (C-UAS) training. Systems not on our modified table of organization and equipment (MTOE) were immediately introduced and trained upon arrival in Iraq. In-theater, non-MTOE equipment introduction was the first lesson learned that units must incorporate while doing pre-deployment training at their home station. Multi-phase attacks, extreme weather, degraded equipment, and coordination with multiple different actors outside the battalion compounded to make operations very difficult. Prioritizing and executing ad-hoc requirements would have been more efficient if they were integrated during pre-deployment operations.

Why Level-up Your Training

In order to reduce the on-site learning curve, battle-drill simulation realism, integration of civilian support, and base-asset maintenance tasks must all be considered when preparing crews for deployments. C-UAS systems like spotting systems, kinetic weapons, and electronic warfare effectors not present during pre-deployment training were unavoidable for success because of the evolving friendly-, local-, and hostile-actor UAS presence. Even most unit organic systems required software updates during deployment. It is difficult to be successful with non-MTOE systems because crew responsibilities had to adjust. New gunnery qualifications and C2-hardware adjustments compounded these issues. Each new function had to be tested with already over-tasked operators and reassessed based on crew success. Base-defense crews had to incorporate system requisites into SOPs for maintenance, operator manning responsibilities, and defense-plan battle drills.

It's prudent to identify how non-MTOE systems fill capability gaps by studying system capabilities and limitations. Understanding system basics enables leaders to enhance the overall defense design and crew battle drills. Defense crews have better expectation management when they can better visualize their overall capabilities on a day-to-day basis. Specifically, electronic warfare (EW) systems are great examples of capabilities with not-so-obvious requirements and effects that complicate their employment in a battle plan. There is no doubt that many C-UAS systems with various capabilities will be present at forward stations now and into the future.

Anticipate and Integrate Novel Systems into Training

Was it possible to have trained for the unexpected? Although systems utilized today may be retired, there are several methods to learn how the most current systems impact your mission. Many Army weapon systems conduct LFXs multiple times a year, but larger systems, like many air defense weapons, conduct LFXs annually; therefore, units must use alternate training. The best substitute training for live fires is through simulators and dry rehearsals.

It is difficult to prepare for non-MTOE systems because of the necessary crew-responsibility adjustments, gunnery qualifications, and command-and-control hardware adjustments necessary for operations. Leaders should anticipate and brief their formations on those systems’ capabilities and limitations. Crew expectations are better managed when they can visualize systems that they will integrate into the defense design.

Many of the latest and emerging C-UAS systems incorporate EW. Different EW effector systems use various electromagnetic frequencies to disrupt, degrade, or neutralize specific UAS or a specific area of threats. They should not be used haphazardly. Overuse allows adversaries the opportunity to create counter measures and operating procedures. EW systems can even create interference with friendly and local populations and with potential degradation to electromagnetic infrastructure. That is why EW systems should be incorporated into training to navigate those scenarios.

Computer-simulation trainers are easy to use because they emit no real frequencies that require land, frequency, or UAS pilot requests. To start learning about EW systems and effects, begin with the science and fundamentals of how EW works with capability briefs, then dive into simulations and battle drill development. Joint Knowledge Online (JKO) offers five C-UAS classes from basic- to moderate-level understanding. Home-station training teams offer operator classes for systems like the Dronebuster. Finally, leaders should require C-UAS Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) in their section to attend the C-UAS Operator or Planner courses at the Joint C-UAS University at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. For specific systems like Low, Slow, Small, UAS Integrated Defeat Systems (LIDS), crew training and certification can be conducted by a Mobile Training Team (MTT). If units are using a system certified by an MTT, they should reach out as soon as possible to start coordinating ranges and integration into LFXs.

My unit’s support mission required all personnel to learn the fundamentals of EW and how to employ EW systems in our battle drills. It became vital to base-defense operations as time continued. Evidently, EW detection and effect are spreading to all areas of combat training because EW goes beyond C-UAS operations to include detection or degradation of command and control, communication, detection, and targeting capabilities.

Air Defense Track Management

Today’s air-defense management crews must be able to deconflict saturated airspace through analysis of information from several detection systems. This skill is necessary because complex airspaces can be saturated with legitimate air tracks, airborne debris, and ground clutter. This training requires operators and leaders to prioritize threats when the airspace is saturated. Highly proficient crews with combat experience or improved training realism will be able to identify threats without the use of visual identification. Crews must learn all aspects of flight patterns and track data to accurately identify unknown tracks and evaluate threat indicators.

The proliferation of air-defense simulation systems will take time; therefore, before Soldiers are able to get hands-on, the options for training include the Joint Multi-TDL Network (MTN) Operations JKO course, Joint Firepower Course, or Army Space Cadre Basic Course. A step further would be to train with division Air and Missile Defense Sections (AMDs) or ADSEs.

Table XII Gunnery certification Live Fire Exercise (LFX) at Ft Campbell, Kentucky, in January 2023, preparing for deployment operations. (Photo by CPT Iain Herring)

New systems that help to visually identify UAS have proliferated across Army bases. These systems can be greatly beneficial, but they may be hiding a dangerous sense of ease when training. System simulators for visual identification must consider the visibility and manual operation of the “live” version. Legitimate hostile threats do not present themselves in ideal illumination and weather conditions; however, simulation systems default to ideal illumination, visibility, weather, terrain, etcetera. This dilemma was clear during our deployment when we used an EO/IR camera that did not auto-zoom or auto-focus like its simulation equivalent. Unknowingly, we spent most of our time training with the daytime setting on while we could have utilized a night-time simulation. This training would have helped during our deployment because the majority of target identification occurred at night. By tailoring the simulator, we could have aligned training better to the deployment environment.

Communicating Outside the Comfort Zone

During pre-deployment training, we should have asked ourselves: How many contractors will we work with daily? And will my base command team understand the limitations of our systems? If these questions were asked prior to deployment, the answers could have been found and incorporated into training to make it more realistic.

Contractors play a crucial role in maintaining and updating non-MTOE equipment during deployment operations. Compile a list of equipment you expect to have while deployed by reaching out to the unit you will relieve. Representative contractors may provide the non-test version of equipment for you to include in your pre-deployment exercises. Surpass rudimentary system capabilities and limitations to ask contractors about maintenance requirements and Soldier-maintenance support. All members of our crews interacted with or worked alongside contractors in some capacity during our deployment, so prepare your unit accordingly during training to ease that transition downrange.

There is a good probability that when your unit deploys, organic leadership at the battalion or battery level will not be co-located with each crew. It is also more likely that the base commander has a different operational background than your unit. In that situation, it is imperative that crew leaders clearly communicate your unit’s standard operating procedures and safety control measures with the local command team. Demonstrating your proficiency with your unit’s weapon systems (C-UAS, C-RAM, Patriot, etcetera) will enhance trust between base-defense crews and the units they defend. After our unit demonstrated proficiency and communicated effectively with our base command team regarding C-UAS operations, they began to trust and defer to our unit on all air-defense topics. Our pre-deployment training and lessons on C-UAS simulators were vital for us to demonstrate our value to the base. Battalion training and certification teams can provide simulated inorganic command teams for crews to practice communication and deconfliction skills.

To Wrap Up

Air-defense artillery crews conducted daily base-defense operations upon arrival and until we exited the theater. Operations included airspace integration, cooperation with contractors and host-nation organizations, and reporting events and readiness levels. Each of these vital tasks had numerous subcomponents. Prioritizing and executing those tasks would have been more efficient if they were better integrated during pre-deployment training.

As threats evolve, unit preparations for deployment need to anticipate the presence of unknown, friendly, hostile, neutral, and civilian air tracks. Base-defense operations will only benefit when experienced Soldiers and leaders accurately simulate their weapon systems and practice working with non-U.S. military organizations. Training-value improvement during qualification tables should ultimately emerge from officers, NCOs, and Soldiers who anticipate future obstacles in various threat environments. Continuously improve pre-deployment training for defense-crew efficacy today and reap the future benefits. Will you anticipate the unexpected and devise methods to integrate new SOPs and battle drills for your future missions?

Notes