UCD Results

1
(No Transcript)
2
Agenda

• Unmanned Platforms in FCS
• Unmanned Combat Demonstrations
• Objective
• Approach
• Virtual Demonstration
• Live Demonstrations
• Results

3
Unmanned Platforms in FCSFCS ORD Definition
Family of Systems (FoS) Common Requirements
Annex A Battle Command (C4ISR)
Annex B Leader Development
Annex C Soldier
Annex D Manned Systems
Annex E Unmanned Systems
Annex F Sustainment
Annex G Systems Interface
Annex H Joint Interoperability
Annex I Classified
MMR HIMARS
Engineer Vehicles
Army Aviation A2C2S
CBRNRS
FTTS UAH
JTRS, WIN-T DCGS-A
ACS Prophet
CA/PSYOP Vehicle
Land Warrior Block III (OFW)
TSV ASV
UAV
UGV
Unattended Munitions
Unattended Sensors
Maneuver Sustainment Systems
Fire Team/ Squad
Combat Systems
MV
ICV
RSV
NLOS -LS
UAV Class 2
UAV Class1
MULE
NLOS Cannon
UGS
LOS/BLOS (MCS)
C2V
FRMV
NLOS Mortar
ARV
UAV Class 3
UAV Class 4
SUGV
IMS
4
Unmanned Platforms in FCSUnmanned Ground Vehicle
Systems

• 5-6 Ton Armored Vehicle
• Speed 40-90 kph
• Shoot-on-the-move, Silent Watch
• Type I RSTA, Type II Assault
• Rapidly Shape Battlespace
• Provide Force Protection
• Self Employed

• 1- 2.5 Ton Utility Vehicle
• Speed 8-90 kph
• Payload 2000 lbs min.
• Multipurpose capability

Multi-role Utility/Logistics Equipment (MULE)
Platform
Armed Robotic Vehicle

• 20-30 lbs, 3-6 mph
• Multiple Payloads
• Shape MOUT Sub-Terrainean Battlespace
• Provide Force Protection

• Autonomous Navigation
• For Unmanned Manned Combat Vehicles

Small Man-Packable Unmanned Ground Vehicle
Autonomous Navigation System
5
Unmanned Combat DemonstrationObjective
Demonstrate the effectiveness of
soldier-controlled remote unmanned ground
vehicles, including RSTA and combat engagement,
in a relevant tactical environment

• Goals
• Workload Analysis Investigation of operator
  workload issues (ratio of operators to ARVs,
  stressful situations, maneuver, communication,
  level of autonomy, weapons engagement, RSTA)
• Live Demonstration Support Support the
  exercise/scenario development, demo rehearsal and
  training of soldier crews
• Focus on real environment stressors, physical
  loading, real system mentality
• Requirements Verification May be used to
  verify realistic and achievable performance
  parameters for ARVs.
• SDD Preparation/Risk Reduction
• Provide basis of soldier control/ARV concept and
  technology maturity for FCS Block I.
• Validate Virtual Development Environment
  (VDE)/UCD SIL as resource for SDD.

6
Unmanned Combat Demonstration Approach

• Leverage/Reuse existing and near term assets,
  projects, demonstrations
• Enhance existing virtual capabilities
• Use surrogate vehicles for live demonstrations
• Piggy-back and share planned demonstrations
• Implement Armys SMART (Simulation and Modeling
  Acquisition, Requirements and Training)
  Simulation Based Acquisition (SBA) concepts
• Combination of Virtual and Live exercises with a
  Common Thread
• During the Virtual Demonstration, define the
  amount of human interaction Workload required
  to operate an ARV
• During the Live Demonstrations, validate the
  amount of human interaction Workload required
  to operate a surrogate ARV
• Use virtual and live demonstration results to
  calibrate/validate existing ARV modeling tools
• Focus on ARV Objective System, RSTA mission
• Objective capabilities for RSTA and Weapons

7
Unmanned Combat Demonstration Approach
Modify/Improve IMPRINT Models ?
Validation
Simulation Runs
IMPRINT Modeling
Data Reduction

• Data
• Comparison
• Analysis
• Correlation
• Anchoring

Data Reduction
Exercises Surveys
Scenario Definition
Live Maneuvers (Ft Bliss)
Results Conclusions
Virtual Man-in-the-loop (UCD SIL)
SIL Runs Surveys
Data Reduction
Validation
Modify/Improve UCD SIL Models ?
8
Unmanned Combat Demonstration Schedule
2002
2003
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
Nov
May
Virtual Demonstration
Development
Soldier Training
IMPRINT Runs
Phase 1 (11 Ratio)
Phase 2 (1 Many Ratio)
IMPRINT Verification
UCD SIL Verification
Live Demonstrations
Vehicle Dev/ Integration
Vehicle C/O
Maneuver Demonstration
VIP 3/7
Live Fire Demonstration
9
Unmanned Combat Demonstration Scenario
10
Unmanned Combat Demonstration Improved
Performance Research Integration Tool

• IMPRINT Developed by ARL-HRED, in use since 1995
  
• Successfully used in Comanche, Crusader, OOTW,
  FCS and other programs.
• A network modeling tool, used to identify
  soldier-driven constraints on system design and
  evaluate the capability of available manpower.

• Workload on each crew station is modeled,
  implementing scenarios used in the
  demonstrations.
• Expect data from demonstrations to help refine
  IMPRINT models only at the trend level, due to
  limitations of demonstration environment and
  breadth of the experiment.

11
Unmanned Combat DemonstrationCrew Station
12
Unmanned Combat Demonstration Virtual
Demonstration System UCD SIL
Control Vehicle (CV)
Data Collection/Visualization
Video Audio
Video Camera
SMI Data

• Observations
• Surveys
• Interviews

After Action Review Stealth View Battlefield View
B-Kit Interface
Crewstation 1
A-Kit/B-Kit ICD
Crewstation 2
B-Kit (ESS)
CAT Virtual Processes
A-Kit Interface
PIU Comm Data
DIS Data (V2.04)
Ethernet
Ethernet
OneSAF
Embedded Simulation System (B-Kit)
13
Unmanned Combat DemonstrationLive Maneuver
Configuration

• Stryker Platform (CAT VTI RF)
• Mobility (16T)
• Semi Autonomous Nav.

• Platform (Demo III ARL XUV)
• Mobility (2.5T)
• Semi Autonomous Nav.

• ESS (B-kit)
• Targets (stationary)
• Mounted Dismounted
• Virtual Weapons and RSTA
• Virtual Env. (OneSAF)

ARV-1 Surrogate
ARV-2 Surrogate

• Stryker Platform (CAT VTI)
• Mobility (16T)
• CV driver (Safety)
• 2 Crew Stations (ARV controllers)
• C2
• Weapon and RSTA Control

C2 Station (Battle Master)
CV Surrogate
14
Unmanned Combat DemonstrationLive Fire
Configuration
Targets Dismounted - Silhouettes Mounted M113
Hunter
Killer

• COUGAR Turret
• Target Acquisition
• Javelin and M240
• Safety Driver
• Weapon Arm Switches

• Surrogate C3 Network
• RSTA
• Target Cueing
• Weapon Control

ARV-2b RSTA Surrogate
Control
ARV-1 Surrogate
ARV-2a Mobility Surrogate
Common Ops Picture
CV Surrogate
15
Unmanned Combat Demonstrations UCD Live Weapon
Fire Demo Scenario
16
Unmanned Combat DemonstrationResults Virtual
Environment
Significant Insight Implication
IMPRINT established a workload baseline showing relatively flat workload results, and not typically close to overload, which was expected. (11 soldier to ARV ratio) Used to establish benchmarks for expectations during Virtual and Live Demos. Results from demos will be used to calibrate IMPRINT models.
IMPRINT workload peaks occur while dealing with obstacles or engaging with enemy vehicles. Identified operator tasks that needed to be focused on during the Virtual and Live Demos.
Soldiers learned to operate system quickly very short learning curve Crew station useful as baseline starting point for follow-on SMI development.
Data collection strategies worked well in virtual demonstration. Approaches useful for future demonstrations and analysis efforts.
Workload influenced by realism issues. The virtual experience treated like a video game. Virtual Demos have their limitations and cannot fully replace Live Demos. Live Demo results will be used to calibrate the virtual environment
17
Unmanned Combat DemonstrationResults Virtual
Environment
Significant Insights Implication
Tele-operation during Virtual Demo was not a significant event. The virtual version of the Ft. Bliss maneuver range is relatively benign with no non-traversable terrain, so operators drive at maximum speed without regard to terrain. Workload studies without motion-based crew stations biases results. Different terrain types using real platforms or improved models are necessity.
Soldier bravado and can-do attitude have impact on survey/interview responses. In several cases soldiers were clearly overloaded but were reluctant to admit a weakness or shortcoming.
Well defined CONOPS, TTPs and strategies do not exist for the operation of UGVs Workload and design of UGVs will be influenced by CONOPS and TTPs
There was no time pressure in relation to completing tasks. No standard for comparison or basis of performance. Task time constraints will influence workload. Established TTPs required to determine realistic or acceptable task timelines.
18
Unmanned Combat DemonstrationResults Live
Environment
Significant Insights Implication
Time to complete a live scenario is significantly greater than a virtual scenario Plan shorter, task focused activities. Safety/maintenance routines take time. Resolving problems in the field is time consuming. Pessimistic planning is best.
Data collection during live maneuver demonstration was more difficult due to lack of real-time view of the soldiers. Plan for real-time video or an in-vehicle observer area for live demonstrations. You need to see and hear the soldiers.
Workload was influenced by live system characteristics such as natural environment, fatigue, communications loss, and performing tasks on-the-move Motion effects, monotony/repetitiveness of tasks, system stability/problems, weather, mood/attitude, periods of confinement, etc. affect workload and overall stress on the soldier.
Workload influenced in live system by damage risk to real equipment. Soldiers were more cautious in using the real equipment than in the virtual environment. Fear of breaking something.
19
Unmanned Combat DemonstrationResults Live
Environment
Significant Insights Implication
Live/Virtual mix in maneuver demonstration was functional but had its own set of problems and issues. Extra testing/dry run time for demonstrations that include a mix of live and virtual environments required. Many unique issues.
Mission Planning tasks were consistently identified as most difficult during the entire UCD effort. Mission Planning identified as an area for potential improvement
Soldiers had a preference toward tele-operation in the virtual environment and AM in the live environment. Soldier preference was based on speed and risk. The AM proved faster in the live environment.
UCD Live Fire Demonstration has opened the door to the safety issues involved in combining autonomous mobility of armed vehicles. Must actively work acceptance, trust and system safety issues for armed robotic assets within the Army during SDD
20
FCS Risks Mitigated by UCD
FCS Risks Insights Implications to SDD
Planning and execution of UCD, to meet constrained schedule, required leverage/reuse existing and near term assets, projects, demonstrations. Team building between Government agencies and Industry Need for coordination between Non-FCS demos to ensure complimentary objectives. Need for early safety community involvement in demo planning Robust safety approaches for operation of operational unmanned platforms need to be developed
Live Fire Demo using surrogate CV and ARVs performing a representative mission in a realistic environment showed the soundness of the concept and the maturity of the technologies. Reduced robotics perception problems Integrated surrogate architecture to perform Mobility, RSTA and Fire Control. ANS integration onto 16T platform Remote Weapon Fire from SMI
21
FCS Risks Mitigated by UCDFCS Risk Insight
Soldier to ARV Ratio

• Soldiers had no problem controlling a single ARV
• Soldiers performed cooperative planning to use
  each others asset
• Soldiers said no single event (RSTA, Weapons,
  Tele-op) was significant to workload
• Performed housekeeping tasks during non-active
  time.
• 1 Soldier controlling 2 ARVs
• Soldiers seemed realistically capable of
  controlling two assets
• Soldiers still coordinating as a team but also
  using own assets as a team (e.g. bounding over
  watch)
• Lack of well defined TTPs becoming apparent
• 1 Soldier controlling 3-4 ARVs
• Soldiers thought they could handle. A drop in
  situational awareness was apparent.
• As number of ARVs increased, team coordination
  decreased. Soldiers were focused on controlling
  their team of ARVs.
• No extra time for house keeping
• Soldiers seldom handed off an asset to partner
  who was not loaded. Stopped other ARVs when one
  ARV was task loaded.
• Lack of CONOPS, strategies and TTPs for robotic
  assets very apparent

22
FCS Risks Mitigated by UCDImplication to SDD
Soldier to ARV Ratio

• Increased definition of Soldier-to-Vehicle
  collaboration issues.
• Vehicle to Vehicle collaboration (Block 2)
• Burden of ARV Integration into Squads lowered
• Interviews indicate that mission planning is the
  most demanding activity, need to focus attention
  on aids to assist in planning.
• Soldiers indicate they want to have improved
  situation awareness, which will put a greater
  demand for communications bandwidth /
  technologies / techniques.
• Improved tie into CROP needed in the future.
• Vigilance required to recognize incoming targets
  from AiTR, improved AiTR required.
• More robust ATR for Block 2
• Soldiers impressed with crew station
  capabilities, said that they definitely felt that
  this type of system would reduce risk and save
  lives
• Soldiers provided a great deal of constructive
  inputs for changes
• Developed insight to draft set of TTPs

23
Unmanned Combat DemonstrationSummary

• UCD Successful
• Reduced/provide insight for FCS SDD risk
• Provided basis for soldier workload issues
• Provided tools for additional analysis
• Virtual Live gives best results
• Virtual provides flexibility
• Live provides realism focus, validation

Demo Phase Virtual Live Maneuver Live Fire
Date 7-23 Jan 03 17-25 Feb 03 3-7 Mar 03
of Crews 2 2 1
of Scenarios 26 8 1
Cntl. Time (Per ARV) 130 hrs 48 Hrs 12 hrs
Distance Traveled (Per ARV) 364 km 40 km 18 km
Ratios Tested 11, 12 13, 14 11 11
24
Unmanned Combat DemonstrationTeam

• Javelin Missile Data Coordination
• Javelin Missile/M240 SME
• COUGAR Turret/Integration
• Weapon Fire Range/Demo Support

• Management of UCD SIL Development
• Embedded Simulation System Development
• Demonstration Facility Coordination
• Maneuver Range/Demo Support
• Live Demo Vehicles

• SMI, Scenario and
• TTP Review
• Soldier Support

• Demonstration Management,
• Coordination, Execution and Reporting

• Workload Analysis Support
• Usability Analysis Support
• Demo III RSTA Vehicle

• Embedded Simulation
• System Development

• Imprint Model Execution
• and Data Analysis
• Workload Analysis
• Data Collection Support

• Crew Station Development
• Crew Station Integration
• and Test
• Maneuver Range/Demo Support
• Live Demo Vehicles

• SMI Design and Test
• Imprint Model Development
• Data Collection Support
• Demonstration Support