1 / 24

Agenda

Agenda. Unmanned Platforms in FCS Unmanned Combat Demonstrations Objective Approach Virtual Demonstration Live Demonstrations Results. Unmanned Platforms in FCS FCS ORD Definition. Family of Systems (FoS) Common Requirements. Annex I Classified. Annex A Battle Command (C4ISR).

parvani
Download Presentation

Agenda

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

  2. Unmanned Platforms in FCSFCS ORD Definition Family of Systems (FoS) Common Requirements Annex I Classified 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 Army Aviation & A2C2S MMR & HIMARS Engineer Vehicles CBRNRS FTTS & UAH ACS & Prophet JTRS, WIN-T & DCGS-A CA/PSYOP & Vehicle Land Warrior Block III (OFW) TSV & ASV UGV Unattended Sensors Unattended Munitions UAV Fire Team/ Squad Maneuver Sustainment Systems Combat Systems ICV NLOS Cannon RSV MV UAV Class1 UAV Class 2 MULE NLOS -LS UGS LOS/BLOS (MCS) FRMV UAV Class 3 UAV Class 4 C2V NLOS Mortar ARV SUGV IMS

  3. 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

  4. Unmanned Combat DemonstrationObjective 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. Demonstrate the effectiveness of soldier-controlled remote unmanned ground vehicles, including RSTA and combat engagement, in a relevant tactical environment

  5. 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 Army’s 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

  6. 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 ?

  7. Unmanned Combat Demonstration Schedule 2002 2003 Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Virtual Demonstration Development Soldier Training IMPRINT Runs Phase 1 (1:1 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

  8. Small Arms Range Restricted Area RA Cross Country Recon Area Activity Point Enemy Observation Post Enemy Infantry Obj. ARV (RSTA Unit) Obj. CV Tank Ditch BRDM-2 Anti Tank Recon BTR80 Wheeled Armored Personal Carrier Unmanned Combat Demonstration Scenario

  9. 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. 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. Unmanned Combat Demonstration Improved Performance Research Integration Tool

  10. Unmanned Combat DemonstrationCrew Station

  11. 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)

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. Unmanned Combat Demonstrations UCD Live Weapon Fire Demo Scenario

  15. Unmanned Combat DemonstrationResults – Virtual Environment

  16. Unmanned Combat DemonstrationResults – Virtual Environment

  17. Unmanned Combat DemonstrationResults – Live Environment

  18. Unmanned Combat DemonstrationResults – Live Environment

  19. FCS Risks Mitigated by UCD

  20. 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 other’s 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

  21. 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

  22. 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

  23. 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

More Related