PRIORITY AREAS FOR TRAINING PERSONNEL FOR ANTI-AIRCRAFT UNITS
Authors
Baltayev Xudayberdi Ataboyevich ()Files
Abstract
This article examines the priority areas for training personnel for anti-aircraft units in the context of modern military education, professional competence, technological change, and national defense readiness. The study emphasizes that the preparation of specialists for air defense structures requires not only technical knowledge of weapons systems and detection technologies, but also systematic development of analytical thinking, discipline, operational responsibility, teamwork, digital literacy, command interaction, and decision-making under complex conditions. Particular attention is paid to the importance of simulator-based training, integrated theoretical and practical instruction, psychological resilience, cyber awareness, communication culture, and legal-ethical responsibility in the professional formation of future anti-aircraft personnel. The article argues that effective training should be based on a competency-oriented model that combines engineering knowledge, tactical awareness at a general educational level, safety standards, and the ability to operate within coordinated defense structures. In the context of Uzbekistan, the modernization of military education increases the need for highly qualified personnel capable of adapting to rapidly changing security environments while maintaining professional discipline, responsibility, and loyalty to service duties. The article concludes that the development of anti-aircraft personnel training should prioritize technological modernization, methodological renewal, practical readiness, and continuous professional improvement.
References
1.Abenova, A. (2020). Military pedagogy and professional training of future officers. Military Education and Science, 2(15), 41–47.
2.Alberts, D. S., & Hayes, R. E. (2006). Understanding command and control. CCRP Publication Series.
3.Boyko, A. M. (2019). Pedagogical foundations of professional competence development in military education. Military Thought, 4, 78–84.
4.Clark, R. E. (2010). Cognitive and task analysis for expert-based instruction in complex military environments. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 23(2), 29–41.
5.Department of Defense. (2020). Military and security developments involving the People’s Republic of China. Office of the Secretary of Defense.
6.Endsley, M. R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37(1), 32–64.
7.Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
8.Hays, R. T., & Singer, M. J. (1989). Simulation fidelity in training system design: Bridging the gap between reality and training. Springer.
9.International Committee of the Red Cross. (2020). International humanitarian law: A comprehensive introduction. ICRC.
10.Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. Routledge.
11.Kazakov, A. V. (2018). Simulation technologies in the professional training of military specialists. Military Academic Journal, 3(19), 55–62.
12.Karimov, I. A. (1997). O‘zbekiston XXI asr bo‘sag‘asida: Xavfsizlikka tahdid, barqarorlik shartlari va taraqqiyot kafolatlari. O‘zbekiston.
13.Kozlov, S. N. (2021). Digital transformation of military education: Problems and prospects. Military Education, 1, 24–31.
14.Mirziyoyev, Sh. M. (2021). Yangi O‘zbekiston strategiyasi. O‘zbekiston.
15.NATO. (2021). NATO education, training, exercises and evaluation policy. North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
16.O‘zbekiston Respublikasi. (2018). O‘zbekiston Respublikasining Mudofaa doktrinasi to‘g‘risida. O‘zbekiston Respublikasi qonun hujjatlari to‘plami.
17.Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kraiger, K., & Smith-Jentsch, K. A. (2012). The science of training and development in organizations: What matters in practice. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(2), 74–101.
18.Shadiev, R. D. (2022). Professional competence formation in military higher education institutions. Society and Innovations, 3(6), 112–119.
19.Smetana, L. K., & Bell, R. L. (2012). Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 34(9), 1337–1370.
20.United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs. (2021). The role of science and technology in the context of international security and disarmament. United Nations.
Details
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Omega Journal of Interdisciplinary Research and Development
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation.
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
