Modern warfare is outpacing military training

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has forced a reckoning across modern militaries. The character of war is shifting at a pace that legacy training systems cannot match.

Dispersion, specialisation, and speed now define the battlefield. Small, agile units equipped with drones, sensors, and precision fires routinely deliver effects that once required brigades. Yet many armed forces still train as if mass and heavy armour were the decisive factors.

The gap between how wars are fought and how warfighters are prepared is widening, and the consequences are becoming harder to ignore.

A recent Wall Street Journal commentary by Jillian Kay Melchior captured this tension vividly. During a major alliance exercise in Estonia in May 2025, a small opposing force of Ukrainian soldiers, battle-hardened and fluent in drone-enabled tactics, neutralised the equivalent of two NATO battalions in a single day.

Their success was not an accident. It was the product of relentless adaptation under fire. Ukrainian innovation is rightly praised across NATO, but Ukrainian commanders themselves point to the real engine behind it: training that is continuous, improvisational, and aligned with battlefield reality.

This is where many Western forces fall short. Modern battle formations are breaking down into smaller, more specialised units that depend on distributed operations and cognitive agility. Training, however, still leans heavily on large, choreographed field exercises that reward movement and coordination more than judgment and adaptation. Traditional physical simulators, while useful, remain immobile and slow to deploy. They are poorly suited to a world where tactical innovation cycles run in weeks, not years.

The challenge is not limited to ground forces. Air forces are entering an era of manned and unmanned teaming that pushes human cognition to its limits. Pilots and operators must track and act on large volumes of data in contested airspace where seconds decide outcomes. Conventional training environments struggle to replicate this complexity, including the cognitive load that defines it.

Economic pressure sharpens the dilemma. Fuel, ammunition, maintenance, and logistics costs are rising faster than budgets. Large-scale live exercises consume resources at a level that is increasingly difficult to justify, especially when they fail to reflect the operational realities of modern conflict. Militaries are already shifting toward lighter, more affordable platforms. Training must follow, and evidence suggests it already delivers results where adopted. The U.S. Air Force conducted a three-year study following the introduction of virtual simulation into undergraduate pilot training in 2020. Students showed measurable improvement across all 40 evaluated flight manoeuvres before their first real flight, with 33 of those improvements statistically significant. Embry-Riddle University found in 2022 that student pilots reached their first solo flight 30 percent faster after integrating virtual training.

The evidence extends beyond initial training. A 2024 study presented at the Interservice and Industry Training, Simulation and Education Conference examined 198 B-52 pilots training for air refuelling at Barksdale Air Force Base. Pilots who trained with virtual reality required on average 1.35 fewer sorties to reach proficiency than those who did not. Given that one hour of B-52 operation costs approximately $88,000, a reduction of one to two sorties per student per class translates to an estimated cost saving of $10 million per training class. These are not marginal gains. They represent a shift in how quickly and cost-effectively competence can be built.

Extended reality offers a practical path forward by addressing both the cognitive and economic dimensions of the problem. Forces can train more often, adapt faster, and rehearse complex scenarios, including manned and unmanned teaming, degraded communications, and multi-domain operations, without burning fuel or risking airframes.

Units can iterate, fail, and learn at speed, mirroring the dynamics that define today’s battlefield. Ukraine provides a clear example. Immersive extended reality has been integrated into its operational infrastructure, addressing gaps where access to physical platforms and safe training environments has been limited during mass mobilisation.

In recent weeks, a Nordic defence technology initiative funded through Norway’s Nansen Support Programme for Ukraine and contracted by the Norwegian Defence Materiel Agency has delivered extended reality training systems for Ukrainian soldiers operating land vehicles, including the Leopard 2 A4 main battle tank. The use of these systems extends beyond land platforms, supporting early-stage F-16 pilot training and preparation to counter unmanned aerial systems.

In the UK, mixed reality is playing a growing role in RAF fast jet pilot training. Trainee pilots are using it to practise circuits, formation flying, and low-level navigation in realistic virtual environments, saving up to £4 million annually in training costs.

Scepticism toward virtual training persists, often based on the belief that only live training can prepare forces for war. Live training remains essential. Relying on it as the primary method leaves forces underprepared for the conflicts they are most likely to face. Advanced virtual simulations are not replacements. They are force multipliers that cultivate adaptation, judgment, and speed.

As the battlefield becomes more asymmetric, training must evolve. Militaries that cling to outdated methods risk producing forces that are technically capable yet operationally unready. The way wars are fought has already changed. Military training must catch up or accept a widening gap between preparation and reality.

This article is the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.

Timo Toikkanen is CEO of Varjo. He originally joined Varjo as an investor and board member in 2016 but quickly started working full-time in the role of President and COO, leading Varjo’s global business until becoming CEO in summer 2020. Before Varjo, Toikkanen was Executive Vice President, Mobile Phones, at Nokia (later Microsoft) and responsible for the business and product development of Nokia’s global mobile phone operations. He joined Nokia in 1995, and has spent much of his career in a variety of executive roles spearheading Mobile Phones sales growth in Europe, Asia-Pacific, the Middle East and Africa. Toikkanen has a L.LM from University of Helsinki and King’s College London. He also serves as board member at Framery.

Nico Lange is the founder and director of IRIS (Institute for Risk Analysis and International Security) and a senior advisor at GLOBSEC. He is the former chief of staff of the German Federal Ministry of Defense (2019–2022) and also works as a senior fellow at the Munich Security Conference in Berlin and Munich. He teaches at the Chair of Military History at the University of Potsdam and at the Hertie School of Governance.