The LVC Enterprise Foundation for the International Fighter Training School

IFTS has pioneered an integrated Live-Virtual-Constructive (LVC) training ecosystem that transcends traditional distinctions between simulation and actual flight operations.

This approach doesn’t simply use simulators to prepare pilots for flying. Rather, it creates a seamless continuum where synthetic and live environments merge to produce combat-ready aviators capable of operating in the complex, multi-domain battlespace of modern warfare.

When visiting IFTS, I saw and was briefed on the work of the four LVC areas in the ground based training facility at IFTS. I was briefed by senior Leonardo officials working at IFTS and providing what I would label as the LVC enterprise, as opposed to providing various LVC capabilities, for each segment provides capabilities which work seamlessly with the next segment.

I would like to thank the following Leonardo personnel for spending time with me to explain the LVC enterprise: Giuseppe Recchia – Leonardo Aeronautics, SVP head of IFTS business; Giuseppe Pietroniro – Leonardo Aeronautics, VP Simulation & Training Systems; Stefano Centioni – Leonardo Aeronautics, IFTS chief Flight Training.

This is how I would conceptualize the LVC enterprise from this point of view:

What makes IFTS unique is not merely its advanced technology, but rather its foundational architecture: a partnership between the Italian Air Force and Leonardo that has eliminated the traditional barriers between military operators and defense contractors. This collaborative structure enables rapid integration of operational experience into training systems, creating a dynamic feedback loop that continuously evolves the training syllabus based on real-world needs and emerging technologies.

The LVC infrastructure at IFTS consists of four distinct but interconnected clusters, each serving a specific purpose in the pilot development continuum. Together, they represent not just a training system, but a comprehensive ecosystem for developing air warriors. Understanding how these clusters work individually and collectively reveals why IFTS represents a paradigm shift in military aviation training.

The Foundation: Understanding Integrated Training Systems

Before examining the four LVC clusters, it’s essential to understand the philosophical and technical foundation upon which IFTS was built. Giuseppe Pietroniro, speaking from the technical perspective, explained that the M-346 integrated training system began its development more than a decade ago with a revolutionary premise: “We started to create an integrated training system, not taking into account the airplanes, but the airplanes one of the key element of these big integrated training system.”

This seemingly subtle distinction marks a profound shift in thinking. Traditional flight training programs were aircraft-centric, simulators existed to prepare pilots for the aircraft. IFTS inverted this relationship, creating an integrated training ecosystem where the aircraft itself became one element within a comprehensive synthetic and live training environment.

The technical innovation that enables this integration is “one simulation” or the principle that all software running on the aircraft also runs in every simulator, from the most basic desktop trainer to the most sophisticated full-mission simulator. As Giuseppe Pietroniro emphasized: “Our approach is one simulation. So this means that all software that are running on the aircraft are running in this simple system, are running in the complex simulators. Because this is really important. This is the key, the same software we started in a digital way.”

This approach delivers multiple advantages.

• First, it eliminates negative training for pilots never learn procedures or behaviors in simulators that differ from actual aircraft operations.

• Second, it enables rapid system deployment: “We are very quick to deliver the systems on ground as soon as the aircraft is ready, because the software is the same when we are delivering the aircraft at the same time, you are delivering all system on ground, because the software is exactly the same.”

• Third, and perhaps most importantly, this one-simulation approach creates the technical foundation for the LVC infrastructure. Because the synthetic environment runs the same software as the live aircraft, virtual entities can interact seamlessly with live aircraft, and live aircraft can receive synthetic inputs that their systems process exactly as they would process real-world sensor data.

But technology alone cannot create an effective training system. The critical enabler is the partnership model. Giuseppe Pietroniro was emphatic about this point: “What I want to underline that from technological point of view, we are delivering and progressing a lot as an industry, but without the help of the end users, it’s impossible to have a real product, a supportive product to install.”

This partnership extends beyond simple customer-contractor relationships. As one instructor noted, every six months the IFTS squadron conducts meetings with the F-35 Operational Conversion Unit to understand their requirements: “What do you want? What’s the product of the students you want? We want them to know this. We want them to know these phases. We know them to do this, and we apply those things in here.”

This creates a bidirectional flow of operational knowledge. IFTS pushes requirements back to basic flight training schools, informing them what students need to know before arriving. Simultaneously, IFTS learns from operational F-35 and Eurofighter units what capabilities pilots need when they arrive at operational squadrons. This means that IFTS serves as a the transmission belt between early training and operational units, driving improvements in both directions.

With this foundational understanding established, we can now examine how the four LVC clusters operationalize these principles.

Cluster One: Mastering the Machine

The first LVC cluster focuses on what most people recognize as traditional simulation-based training or learning to operate the aircraft systems and master basic flying skills. However, even at this foundational level, IFTS demonstrates its innovative approach through the evolution of its Simulation-Based Trainer (SBT).

The SBT’s development history illustrates the partnership model in action. The system began simply: “At the beginning, he started with, let’s say, a desk, just HOTAS and video screen, stick throttle, as per the aircraft.” This basic configuration allowed students to familiarize themselves with aircraft controls and procedures using actual software from the aircraft.

But this was just the starting point. Giuseppe Pietroniro explained: “We deliver it. And then told us, hey, it’s much simple, so it’s more or less, we can do something, but we can improve the system. And we started together with customer to improve the system. And this is now is, let’s say, more or less, the final stage.”

The evolution incorporated several technological advances. The system now includes a virtual instructor or software that guides students through procedures and emergency scenarios just as they would encounter in the actual aircraft. This virtual instructor capability allows students to practice independently, without requiring a human instructor to be present for every training session.

More significantly, IFTS is now incorporating artificial intelligence and adaptive training systems. These AI systems observe pilot behavior, identify patterns of success and failure, and adapt the training to address individual student needs.

As Giuseppe Pietroniro explained, this represents a sophisticated application of machine learning: “We are introducing now also an artificial intelligence that is adaptive training system that will allow to the student also to follow and to support the instructors to better improve the training when a student is using this kind of system.”

The AI’s value lies in its ability to recognize patterns that might not be immediately obvious to human instructors. By analyzing thousands of training iterations across multiple students, the system can identify subtle indicators of future performance issues and provide targeted remediation. The system is also beginning to incorporate virtual reality and extended reality technologies to create more immersive training experiences.

However, Giuseppe Pietroniro was careful to emphasize that these technological capabilities only become truly valuable through the partnership with operational pilots: “Everybody is developing artificial intelligence. We know, no now it’s the standard. But without the end user, it’s impossible to have a real product, a supportive product to install.”

This phase of training operates outside the formal syllabus constraints. This creates a crucial learning environment where students can fail without consequence

Previous generations of pilots memorized procedures from manuals and practiced them mentally or on paper. Modern students at IFTS practice procedures using actual aircraft software in an environment that precisely replicates the aircraft’s behavior, systems, and interface and all without time or cost constraints that would limit their repetitions.

The nine-month IFTS course dedicates roughly half its time to synthetic training, but students can supplement this with unlimited additional practice in the Simulation-Based Trainer. This creates a learning environment where students arrive at higher-level simulators and actual flight operations far better prepared than would be possible with traditional training methods.

The connection to F-35 training philosophy is explicit. As noted during the discussion, the F-35 program is already based on this notion. What the students are doing here is very symmetrical with the experience from the F-35 pilot. The F-35 program pioneered the concept of allowing pilots to progress at their own pace using simulation-based training, and IFTS has adopted and extended this approach for the M-346.

Cluster One therefore establishes the foundation where students who thoroughly understand their aircraft’s systems, controls, and basic operating procedures before they ever face the time constraints and evaluation pressures of formal simulator events or live flight operations. This foundation proves essential as students progress to more complex training in the subsequent clusters.

Cluster Two: Immersive Extended Reality Training

While Cluster One focuses on mastering the aircraft itself, Cluster Two introduces students to operating within a complex battlespace. This cluster leverages emerging technologies, particularly augmented reality, virtual reality, and extended reality, to create increasingly immersive training experiences that bridge the gap between synthetic training and live flight operations.

The challenge, as Giuseppe Pietroniro articulated, is fundamental: “Our challenge is to minimize this kind of impression with real feeling, and how we can do this using new technologies.” The stress and sensory experience of actual flight operations differs profoundly from even the most sophisticated ground-based simulator. Pilots feel G-forces, experience actual acceleration, and face real consequences for errors when flying live aircraft. These factors create a psychological and physiological state that’s difficult to replicate in ground-based systems.

IFTS addresses this challenge through a multi-pronged approach combining advanced display technologies, immersive environments, and sophisticated software. As Giuseppe Pietroniro explained: “We are trying to use and to maximize the virtual reality, make to close as much as possible to the real world, and with these new systems that giving you stroboscopic vision, that are putting you in better situation when you are flying, more similar.”

The admission that current technology cannot fully replicate the flight experience was frank: “What is missing? It’s missing just the acceleration is the G. This is true. This is true in these systems.” However, the goal is not perfect replication but rather creating sufficient fidelity that students can develop the cognitive skills and decision-making abilities they’ll need in actual flight operations.

The concept of “augmented reality” proves central to this cluster’s approach. Giuseppe Pietroniro described how the technology evolution progresses: “We are calling it augmented reality. So our virtual become becomes closer to the real. This is the big challenge on what you are working and in this system, we are doing this.”

Importantly, IFTS leverages commercial technologies rather than developing purely proprietary military systems: “We are moving using commercial things, you see, in order to improve the effectiveness of the training.” This approach allows IFTS to benefit from rapid advances in consumer virtual reality and gaming technologies, which often outpace defense-specific development efforts.

The technology adoption process demonstrates the value of the IFTS partnership model. Rather than simply purchasing commercial VR systems and deploying them, IFTS works collaboratively with operational pilots to refine and adapt these systems for military training applications. Giuseppe Pietroniro emphasized: “You see here is everybody are using now, virtual reality, extended reality, but we are working with them. We are working with them. They are giving us suggestion how you have to adjust these. You have to move in this way.”

This iterative development process ensures that new technologies actually improve training effectiveness rather than simply adding technological complexity. Operational pilots test the systems, provide feedback on what works and what doesn’t, and help identify what adjustments are necessary to make the training relevant to actual combat operations.

The discussion touched on a broader industrial reality: “The biggest change in my lifetime, defense industry was always ahead of the commercial industry, but it is. But when it comes to simulation, comes to virtual reality, the defense sector is not the leader.”

This observation has profound implications for training system development. If defense organizations maintain traditional proprietary acquisition approaches, they risk falling behind commercial capabilities. The IFTS model, with its ability to rapidly integrate commercial technologies through the contractor-military partnership, offers an alternative approach.

Cluster Two also introduces cognitive assessment capabilities that leverage extended reality systems. Instructors explained that the system can track where pilots look, how their eyes move, and what their attention focuses on during training scenarios. This eye-tracking data provides insights into cognitive workload and decision-making processes.

As one of my interlocutors explained: “You can have a look at what is, ISIS are looking, what is the workload history, where is pointing this workload? So we do have a constant cognitive assessment, and we can get this data in order to improve the artificial intelligence that it may help us to create the structures to train the students.”

The data collection enables several valuable applications.

• First, it helps identify individual student challenges, for example, if a student’s eye movements indicate they’re missing critical information or fixating on the wrong displays, instructors can provide targeted remediation.

• Second, aggregating data across multiple students helps identify patterns that characterize successful versus unsuccessful performance: “We can even understand who’s the best student, what’s the ideal typology of the ideal trainee, the ideal student.”

This capability has implications even for student selection. The instructor noted: “This will like also in the screening phase we have when we have 100 of students, how can we select them for the fifth generation type of area? If we have a model of the type of students collecting all this data, then in the next future, we can also understand which is the typical idea students that we want to look for.”

The generational differences in cognitive processing emerged as another consideration: “Maybe when I’m acting in here, my eyes are moving in a different way. A young student is cognitive assessment is going to be different from the mind. So we have to collect all this data, and that’s what we also do in here during the training of the student.”

Understanding these generational differences helps IFTS adapt training methods to match how modern students who have grown up with video games, smartphones, and constant digital stimulation actually process information and learn complex skills.

The culmination of Cluster Two is what instructors described as a “mix between vehicle and reality, because it’s inside the exact same cockpit of the aircraft.” Students train in actual M-346 cockpits with full-fidelity controls and displays but wearing VR headsets that provide the visual environment. This creates a hybrid experience or the physical sensation and control inputs match the actual aircraft, while the visual environment can represent any scenario the instructors design.

Cluster Two therefore represents the transition from learning how the aircraft works (Cluster One) to learning how to employ the aircraft in operationally realistic scenarios. Students develop the cognitive skills, decision-making abilities, and situational awareness they’ll need in actual combat operations, all within an environment that provides immediate feedback, allows unlimited repetitions, and captures detailed data about their performance and learning progression.

Cluster Three: Mission Engagement and Scenario Integration

Cluster Three marks a significant conceptual shift in the LVC infrastructure. Where Clusters One and Two focused on individual pilot development, Cluster Three introduces mission-level integration where multiple entities both synthetic and live interact within common scenarios. This cluster embodies the “Live-Virtual-Constructive” concept in its fullest sense.

The physical environment of Cluster Three consists of a room with large screens displaying a comprehensive tactical picture. From this room, mission commanders can orchestrate training scenarios that combine live aircraft, simulator-based participants, and computer-generated forces into integrated mission exercises.

The fundamental concept, as explained during the tour, involves projecting complex mission scenarios to aircraft in flight. The mission commander can “take control, like if he’s on the back seat” of the aircraft, providing instruction, guidance, and scenario modifications in real-time. This capability enables highly dynamic training that responds to student performance and learning needs during the mission itself.

The flexibility of scenario creation represents a key advantage. As one instructor explained: “The more complex the mission, the more aircraft” can be integrated into the scenario. However, critically, not all these “aircraft” must be physically flying. The scenario might include one or two live aircraft, several pilots operating from ground-based simulators, and numerous computer-generated forces—all interacting in a common battlespace.

The terminology reveals the integration: “The opponent, we can build his coming computer generated forces created just by with a click of a mouse from the real time. So we can create a live aircraft. They work together, plus a computer forces, perfect. That’s the live electronic point.”

This integration delivers enormous operational and economic advantages. Instead of requiring five or six aircraft aloft to create a realistic training scenario, IFTS can fly just one or two aircraft while synthetic entities provide the remaining force structure and threat representation. The environmental benefits are explicit: “As I told you before, environmental wise, you have only one aircraft flying. We are only one aircraft fly, but the scenario is very complex for the students in flight.”

The evolution toward displays that mimic F-35 systems demonstrates IFTS’s commitment to preparing pilots for fifth-generation operations. The traditional “three legacy kind of screen is going to be on only one big screen with helmet display in the Block 20 configuration coming to the M-346. So we try to create this type of training as similar as possible to the next generation.”

This display evolution matters because it familiarizes students with the display paradigm and information presentation they’ll encounter in fifth-generation aircraft. Rather than learning on legacy display systems and then needing to adapt to helmet-mounted displays and large-format screens, IFTS students begin developing the cognitive patterns and scanning techniques they’ll use throughout their operational careers.

A specific example provided during the tour illustrated Cluster Three operations: “For example, this one, it’s a defensive ACM mission. So these guys is connected with another one in another simulator, versus a Red Air guy. Okay, so they are in three entities working on the sim now.”

This mission scenario includes two pilots operating from separate simulators working cooperatively against a computer-generated adversary or potentially another pilot in a third simulator playing the adversary role. The mission commander in Cluster Three monitors their performance, can modify the scenario parameters, and can intervene if necessary to provide instruction or adjust difficulty.

The critical capability is that any of these simulator-based entities could be replaced with a live aircraft. The same scenario could run with one student pilot in a simulator, one in a live aircraft, and computer-generated forces providing additional participants. From the students’ perspective, the experience would be nearly identical for the systems integration ensures that whether they’re communicating with a live pilot, a simulator pilot, or a computer-generated entity, the interactions feel realistic and operationally representative.

This flexible architecture enables IFTS to maximize training value while optimizing resource utilization. Weather constraints, maintenance issues, or scheduling conflicts that would prevent live flying don’t stop training. Scenarios can proceed with simulator-based participants. Conversely, when weather and resources permit, adding live aircraft to the scenario increases fidelity and introduces the physiological and psychological factors that distinguish actual flight from simulation.

The concept of “augmented reality LVC” emerged as a particularly useful framework for understanding Cluster Three. As discussed: “If I like the augmented reality OPC, that’s a good phrase, yes, because that allows me to change with battle space.” The ability to rapidly reconfigure the battlespace adding threats, changing force structures, modifying mission parameters creates a dynamic training environment that can adapt to student performance in real-time.

Cluster Three therefore represents the integration of individual pilot skills (developed in Clusters One and Two) into mission-level operations. Students learn to operate as part of a team, respond to dynamic tactical situations, communicate effectively, and employ their aircraft as weapon systems within realistic mission scenarios. The LVC infrastructure enables this mission-level training without requiring the resource expenditure and environmental impact of flying large force packages.

Cluster Four: The Integration Room and Extended Battlespace

Cluster Four represents the most sophisticated element of the IFTS LVC infrastructure. The integration room, which is how I would label it, where operators project extended battlespace scenarios into live aircraft operations. This room serves as the command center for creating multi-domain threat environments that combine live aircraft, synthetic entities, and complex scenario dynamics into realistic operational training.

The physical environment resembles an air operations center, with multiple displays showing radar-like representations of the battlespace. As explained during the tour: “Here we put everything together. Okay, so as you can see, it’s like a radar. So we can see the blue aircraft that are the live one, the real aircraft that are flying at this time.”

The real-time nature of this integration is crucial. The displays show actual live aircraft conducting training missions in Sardinian airspace. From this room, operators can observe these aircraft and inject synthetic entities and events into their mission scenarios.

A demonstration illustrated the concept: operators displayed live aircraft conducting routine training, then with a few mouse clicks, injected a MIG-29 into the scenario. The interface allows selection from a wide range of threat aircraft types: “Can you pick up the aircraft you do want? Yeah, I know you can take a choice of whatever you need, a fighter, carrier, bomber, whatever.”

Each synthetic entity comes with behavioral characteristics: “These aircraft are having also their own doctrine. They can be aggressive, not aggressive, or just loitering in an area.” The operator can configure these behaviors to create training scenarios of varying difficulty and complexity.

Once injected into the scenario, these synthetic entities appear on the live aircraft’s displays exactly as real threats would appear. The instructor explained: “With a click of a mouse, we take him, we put in the scenario, and then, if the mission, it’s a 2v one, meaning two real aircraft that are flying here in the south. We can, from the station, talk to them and say, we have a pop up intruder in the north.”

The pilots receive standard tactical communications providing position, altitude, airspeed, and heading for the synthetic threat. They “put the radar on the north and start locking him and work with him. Okay, they can fight. They cannot fight. They can get closer. They can stay. They can do whatever they do need according to the type of mission.”

Critically, the synthetic threat behaves according to its programmed doctrine and responds to the live aircraft’s actions. If the pilots employ their radar, the synthetic entity might detect the emissions and react. If they close within weapons range, the synthetic entity might employ countermeasures or execute defensive maneuvers. The aircraft systems process these synthetic inputs exactly as they would process real-world sensor data.

The complexity extends beyond aerial threats. Operators can inject surface-to-air missile systems into the scenario: “We can add surface to air missile. So we can say that in the scenario, there is an SA-3, coupled with SA-8s and SA-4s. So the students, they have the routing, plus those entity that are here. Those entity are going to shoot if you pass over them.”

From the pilots’ perspective in the live aircraft, these synthetic SAM systems represent real threats. Their radar warning receivers will alert them to threat radar illumination. Their defensive systems will respond exactly as they would to actual SAM sites. If they fly within engagement range, the synthetic SAMs will “shoot”, meaning the training system will register a weapons employment and potentially score a kill depending on the pilots’ defensive response.

This capability creates operationally realistic threat environments without requiring actual threat emitters or live weapons. The phrase “you and the aircraft will sense its reality, absolutely” captures this perfectly. The aircraft’s sensors and systems cannot distinguish between synthetic threats projected through the LVC infrastructure and actual physical threats.

The operator’s role as a “GCI controller” (Ground Controlled Intercept) adds another layer of realism. This operator “acts like is the AWACS” or other command and control aircraft, providing tactical coordination, threat warnings, and mission direction to the live aircraft. This replicates the command and control relationships pilots will experience in actual combat operations.

The integration room can also incorporate simulator-based participants into these live scenarios. As explained: “We can get the simulator and put the simulator in this scenario.” This means a live aircraft might be operating cooperatively with pilots in ground-based simulators, all while engaging synthetic threats projected into their respective environments. The LVC infrastructure ensures that all participants, live, virtual (simulator-based), and constructive (computer-generated), interact seamlessly within the common battlespace.

The operational advantages are significant: “At the very end, you have only one aircraft flying. So as I told you before, environmental wise, you have only one aircraft. Your device. We are only one aircraft fly, but the scenario is very complex for the students in flight. The scenario is created by 5, 6, 7, 8 entities, but in reality, is only one.”

This efficiency has environmental, economic, and practical benefits. One aircraft can train against a complex multi-ship scenario without the fuel consumption, maintenance burden, or environmental impact of flying the entire force package. Training throughput increases because the constraint becomes the number of students and instructors available, not the number of aircraft serviceable and available for flight operations.

The progression of scenario complexity emerged as an important consideration. As the instructor emphasized: “Obviously, this is a learning process. What I’m showing you now is almost, I don’t want to say the end of the course, but almost. Here they are at 80% done. More or less they are at the end of the course where they put all together how to fight in Beyond Visual Range, how to drop a precision bomb, how to deal with the wingman, and how to act against one or two or three opponents.”

Early-course students would receive simpler scenarios with fewer entities and less complex threat behavior. As students progress and demonstrate proficiency, the scenario complexity increases. By the end of the course, students face scenarios that closely approximate actual combat complexity, multiple adversaries, integrated air defenses, coordination requirements with wingmen, time-sensitive targeting, and dynamic tactical problems requiring rapid decision-making.

The geographic context of Sardinia emerged as a significant advantage for Cluster Four operations. The island’s location and airspace structure provide unique training opportunities.

As the instructor explained while displaying the operational area: “We have a very wide area where we’re going to work on the west, the yellow labeled area on the west and on the east. So those are area where we can fly with military aircraft, pretty big areas, so we can create scenarios we want, and we don’t have any liners around us that is gonna interact or bother us in the mission we are doing.”

This unrestricted airspace proves “very unusual in Europe” for most European airspace is heavily constrained by civilian air traffic, requiring military training to work around commercial airline operations. Sardinia’s relative isolation and large military operating areas allow IFTS to conduct complex training scenarios without these constraints.

The infrastructure extends beyond just airspace. Sardinia hosts actual weapon ranges where students can employ live ordnance: “We have this virtual scenario environment. But we have also a live range so we can drop a real bomb.” The integration room can create scenarios that culminate in actual weapons employment, with students receiving synthetic threat cues and tactical direction via the LVC infrastructure, then employing real weapons against physical targets.

Electronic warfare ranges provide another training dimension: “We have an EW range on the east side. So there, there are daily F-35 or Eurofighter working with the live emitters, so they can practice.” This means students can face actual electronic warfare threats, not just synthetic representations, but real emitters that their aircraft must detect, identify, and counter.

The concept of multi-domain threats received significant emphasis during the discussion. Sardinia’s island geography enables training against threats from multiple domains: “The fact that you’re on an island like Sardinia means you can generate threats from the air, from the sea, from land, against your aircraft, which is basically the problem we’re facing.”

This geographic reality mirrors the modern combat environment where threats come from all domains. The LVC infrastructure allows IFTS to project maritime threats, land-based missile systems, aerial adversaries, and electronic warfare into integrated scenarios that challenge students to maintain situational awareness across multiple domains simultaneously.

This perfectly captures Cluster Four’s value for it forces students to think about and train for multi-domain operations in a geographic environment that naturally emphasizes these challenges. The island setting, combined with the LVC infrastructure’s ability to project diverse threats, creates training scenarios that prepare pilots for the complex, multi-domain battlespace they’ll face in modern combat operations.

The weather conditions at Decimomannu Air Base provide another operational advantage. The instructor noted that “95% of the year it’s okay, slightly windy, but not big deal. Almost always aligned with the runway.”

Unlike many European training locations that face extended periods of weather that prevents flying, Sardinia’s Mediterranean climate enables year-round operations. This consistency proves “important” for “training environment where time to finish the course is important: we don’t have three weeks of bad weather, foggy, so we don’t fly.”

Cluster Four therefore represents the capstone of the IFTS LVC infrastructure. It takes students who have mastered their aircraft (Cluster One), developed cognitive and decision-making skills in immersive environments (Cluster Two), and practiced mission-level integration (Cluster Three), and exposes them to realistic operational scenarios in actual flight operations.

The extended battlespace projections force students to apply everything they’ve learned while experiencing the physiological and psychological demands of actual flight operations. By the time students complete training at IFTS, they have experienced scenarios that closely approximate combat operations without the risk, expense, or environmental impact of large-force live flying.

The Ecosystem Architecture: Integration and Evolution

Understanding each cluster individually provides important insights, but the true innovation of IFTS emerges from how these clusters integrate into a coherent ecosystem. The architecture enables several critical capabilities that distinguish IFTS from traditional training approaches.

• First, the ecosystem creates a continuous learning environment without artificial barriers between synthetic and live training. Students progress seamlessly from basic simulation (Cluster One) through immersive synthetic training (Cluster Two) to mission-level integration (Cluster Three) and finally to extended battlespace operations in live aircraft (Cluster Four). Because all systems run the same software and interface seamlessly through the LVC infrastructure, students experience consistency throughout this progression. This eliminates the “negative training” problem that plagued earlier simulation approaches. When simulators operated differently from actual aircraft, or when procedures learned in simulators didn’t transfer to aircraft operations, students had to unlearn bad habits or incorrect procedures. The one-simulation approach ensures that every action, every procedure, and every system behavior students experience in any synthetic environment exactly matches what they’ll encounter in the aircraft.

• Second, the ecosystem enables bidirectional feedback between operational experience and training system evolution. The partnership between the Italian Air Force and Leonardo eliminates barriers that would slow this feedback. When operational pilots identify training deficiencies or system inaccuracies, corrections can be implemented rapidly. When new technologies emerge, whether from defense R&D or commercial applications, they can be evaluated, adapted, and integrated into the training system.

• Third, the ecosystem’s data collection capabilities create opportunities for continuous improvement through artificial intelligence and machine learning. Each student interaction with every system generates data about performance, decision-making, cognitive workload, and learning progression. Aggregated across multiple students and multiple iterations, this data enables identification of patterns that can improve training effectiveness. The cognitive assessment capabilities in Cluster Two exemplify this potential. By tracking eye movements, attention patterns, and response times, the system can identify subtle indicators of future performance issues. Over time, as the AI systems process more data, their ability to provide personalized training adaptations and predict student success should improve continuously.

• Fourth, the ecosystem architecture enables resource optimization without compromising training effectiveness. The economic implications prove significant when traditional training costs are considered. Live flight operations consume fuel, generate maintenance requirements, produce environmental impacts, and impose wear on aircraft that eventually requires costly overhauls or replacement. By maximizing synthetic training and using the LVC infrastructure to reduce the number of aircraft required for complex scenarios, IFTS delivers high-fidelity training at substantially lower cost than traditional approaches. The ability to conduct unlimited repetitions in Cluster One without cost or time constraints means students arrive at formal evaluation events far better prepared, increasing pass rates and reducing the total training time required.

• Fifth, the ecosystem creates scalability that traditional approaches cannot match. Adding student capacity in traditional flight training requires additional aircraft, maintenance infrastructure, fuel supplies, and qualified instructor pilots. At IFTS, adding capacity primarily requires additional simulator stations, far less expensive than additional aircraft, and operable by a smaller instructor cadre since students can practice independently in Cluster One and with virtual instructors in Cluster Two. The modular architecture means that as technology improves, individual clusters can be upgraded without redesigning the entire system. New display technologies, improved AI algorithms, enhanced synthetic entity behaviors, or more sophisticated threat representations can be integrated into specific clusters, with the LVC infrastructure ensuring these improvements propagate throughout the ecosystem.

• Sixth, the ecosystem’s foundation on a partnership model rather than traditional contractor-customer relationships creates organizational learning that extends beyond specific technologies. Both the Italian Air Force and Leonardo learn from each interaction, each training iteration, and each technology integration. This accumulated knowledge enables both organizations to continuously improve their contributions to the ecosystem.

The military personnel develop deeper understanding of how synthetic training can prepare pilots for operational missions, what technologies prove most valuable, and how training scenarios should evolve to match emerging operational concepts. Leonardo develops deeper understanding of military operational requirements, what technologies can effectively support training objectives, and how commercial innovations can be adapted for defense applications.

This organizational learning creates competitive advantages for both parties. The Italian Air Force develops superior training capabilities and operational experience that inform future aircraft acquisitions and training system requirements. Leonardo develops expertise in integrated training systems that makes them a more capable provider for future programs both in Italy and internationally.

The Training Paradigm Shift

The IFTS LVC infrastructure represents more than technological innovation. It embodies a fundamental paradigm shift in how military organizations should approach pilot training for fifth-generation and future combat operations. Several implications deserve emphasis.

• First, the terminology matters. Calling IFTS a “training school” or describing its capabilities as “simulation” fails to capture the operational reality. As one participant noted during discussions: “Calling it training is not a great term. It’s not adequate enough to project what it says.” The alternative framing, projecting complex battlespace scenarios into operational environments, better describes what Cluster Four actually does. The distinction proves important because it shapes how military organizations and political leaders understand these capabilities. “Training” suggests a preliminary phase separate from operations. “Projecting extended battlespace scenarios” suggests an operational capability that prepares forces for the complexity they’ll face in combat. The latter framing better just ifies the investment and better explains the operational value these systems deliver.

• Second, the IFTS approach demonstrates that aircraft selection for training should consider integration capabilities as much as flight performance characteristics. The M-346’s ability to serve as a platform for LVC integration proves as important as its flying qualities. The aircraft was “designed the capability to take this augmented reality and work” with synthetic inputs from the LVC infrastructure. This suggests that future trainer aircraft specifications should explicitly address LVC integration requirements. The aircraft must serve not just as a flying machine but as a node in an integrated synthetic-live training network. Its avionics architecture must support receiving and processing synthetic entities, threat representations, and tactical data. Its displays must present this synthetic information seamlessly alongside data from onboard sensors.

• Thirds, geographic location matters more than often recognized. Sardinia’s unique attributes, large unrestricted airspace, multiple live ranges, good year-round weather, island geography enabling multi-domain scenarios, contribute substantially to IFTS effectiveness. As noted during discussions, “It wouldn’t be incorrect to say that IFTS is located unique training area in Europe, absolutely, which means that the way you configured IFTS is symmetric over the unique training range.” This suggests that training base selection should emphasize geographic attributes that enable complex training scenarios. Large airspace with minimal civilian traffic conflicts, proximity to ranges where live weapons can be employed, and geographic features that support realistic operational scenarios all enhance training value. The island geography specifically enables multi-domain training that proves increasingly relevant as military operations become more integrated across domains. Training locations that naturally present multi-domain considerations—whether islands, peninsulas, or areas with complex terrain and maritime approaches—better prepare forces for modern operational environments.

• Fourth, the evolution from “training” to “augmented reality operational preparation” suggests broader applications beyond initial pilot training. The LVC infrastructure and operational concepts developed at IFTS could support operational squadrons, not just training units. Operational pilots could use these capabilities for mission rehearsal, tactics development, and currency maintenance.

• Fifth, the IFTS model has implications for international partnerships and allied interoperability. The U.S. Air Force’s interest in IFTS, reflected in the August 2025 agreement to send their pilots to IFTS, As the United States considers its own training modernization, the IFTS partnership model and operational concepts offer proven approaches that merit serious consideration.

• Sixth, the environmental implications deserve greater emphasis in training system discussions. The observation that “you have only one aircraft flying… but the scenario is very complex” with “5, 6, 7, 8 entities” created synthetically highlights significant environmental benefits.

Military training generates substantial environmental impacts through fuel consumption, noise, emissions, and wear on training ranges. By enabling complex training scenarios with fewer aircraft, LVC infrastructure substantially reduces these impacts. This proves increasingly important as environmental regulations tighten and as military organizations face pressure to reduce their environmental footprints.

The environmental benefits also create operational advantages. Training organizations can conduct more complex, more frequent training within environmental constraints that might otherwise limit operations. They can maintain training proficiency during environmental review processes or in response to local community concerns about noise or other impacts.

Framing LVC infrastructure investments partially as environmental initiatives might broaden political support and help justify budget allocations. The combination of improved training effectiveness, reduced costs, and decreased environmental impacts creates a compelling value proposition.

In short, the terminology matters, and perhaps the most important insight is recognizing that “training” inadequately describes what IFTS delivers. The more accurate framing emphasizes projecting operational complexity into learning environments, preparing pilots for the actual battlespace they’ll face through augmented reality scenarios that combine synthetic and live elements seamlessly.

For an e-book of the report:

For a video discussing the LVC enterprise at IFTS, see the following: