Future Combat Systems Future Combat Systems Unmanned Combat Demonstration Unmanned Combat Demonstration Soldier Task Loading Results Soldier Task Loading Results Gary Kamsickas [email protected]2003 Intelligent Vehicle Systems Symposium “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited”
24
Embed
Future Combat Systems Unmanned Combat Demonstration Soldier Task Loading Results Gary Kamsickas [email protected] 2003 Intelligent Vehicle Systems.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Future Combat Systems Future Combat Systems Unmanned Combat DemonstrationUnmanned Combat Demonstration
“Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited”
2“Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited”
AgendaAgenda
• Unmanned Platforms in FCS• Unmanned Combat Demonstrations
– Objective– Approach– Virtual Demonstration– Live Demonstrations
• Results
3“Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited”
Unmanned Platforms in FCSUnmanned Platforms in FCSFCS ORD DefinitionFCS ORD Definition
C2V
Family of Systems (FoS)Common Requirements
Annex ABattle
Command (C4ISR)
Annex BLeader
Development
Annex C
Soldier
Annex D
MannedSystems
Annex E
UnmannedSystems
Annex F
Sustainment
Annex G
SystemsInterface
Annex HJoint
Interoperability
CombatSystems
ManeuverSustainment
Systems
MV
FRMV
ICV
LOS/BLOS(MCS) NLOS
Mortar
RSV
UAV UGVUnattendedMunitions
UGS
NLOS -LS
ARV
UAVClass 2
UAVClass 3
UAVClass 4
UAVClass1
MULE
Fire Team/Squad
MMR &HIMARS
EngineerVehicles
JTRS, WIN-T& DCGS-A
TSV &ASV
ACS &Prophet
CA/PSYOP& Vehicle
ArmyAviation &
A2C2S
CBRNRSFTTS &
UAH
SUGV
Annex I
Classified
Land WarriorBlock III
(OFW)
UnattendedSensors
IMS
NLOSCannon
4“Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited”
Unmanned Platforms in FCSUnmanned Platforms in FCSUnmanned Ground Vehicle SystemsUnmanned Ground Vehicle Systems
Autonomous Navigation SystemSmall Man-Packable
Unmanned Ground Vehicle
Armed Robotic Vehicle
• 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
– 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 Demonstrate the effectiveness of soldier-controlled remote unmanned ground vehicles, including RSTA and combat engagement, in a relevant tactical vehicles, including RSTA and combat engagement, in a relevant tactical
environmentenvironment
6“Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited”
• 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.
Scenario 1: Commander
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Time (seconds)
Inte
gra
ted
VA
CP
Series1
11“Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited”
Unmanned Combat DemonstrationUnmanned Combat DemonstrationCrew StationCrew Station
12“Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited”
Unmanned Combat Demonstration Unmanned Combat Demonstration Virtual Demonstration System – UCD SILVirtual Demonstration System – UCD SIL
CAT VirtualProcesses
OneSAF
A-KitInterface
B-Kit (ESS)
Ethernet
DIS Data (V2.04)
PIU CommData
B-KitInterface
Crewstation 1
Crewstation 2
Control Vehicle (CV)
Eth
ern
et
A-Kit/B-Kit ICD
VideoCamera
Data Collection/Visualization Video & Audio
After Action ReviewStealth ViewBattlefield View
SMI Data
Embedded Simulation System (B-Kit)
•Observations•Surveys•Interviews
13“Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited”
IMPRINT established a workload baseline showing relatively flat workload results, and not typically close to overload, which was expected. (1:1 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“Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited”
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“Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited”
Unmanned Combat DemonstrationUnmanned Combat DemonstrationResults – Live EnvironmentResults – 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“Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited”
Unmanned Combat DemonstrationUnmanned Combat DemonstrationResults – Live EnvironmentResults – 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“Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited”
FCS Risks Mitigated by UCDFCS 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“Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited”
FCS Risks Mitigated by UCDFCS Risks Mitigated by UCDFCS Risk Insight – Soldier to ARV RatioFCS 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
22“Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited”
FCS Risks Mitigated by UCDFCS Risks Mitigated by UCDImplication to SDD – Soldier to ARV RatioImplication 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“Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited”
•Javelin Missile Data Coordination•Javelin Missile/M240 SME•COUGAR Turret/Integration•Weapon Fire Range/Demo Support
•Embedded Simulation System Development
•Workload Analysis Support•Usability Analysis Support•Demo III RSTA Vehicle
•Demonstration Management, Coordination, Execution and Reporting
•SMI Design and Test•Imprint Model Development•Data Collection Support•Demonstration Support
•Crew Station Development•Crew Station Integration and Test•Maneuver Range/Demo Support•Live Demo Vehicles
•Imprint Model Execution and Data Analysis•Workload Analysis•Data Collection Support
•Management of UCD SIL Development•Embedded Simulation System Development•Demonstration Facility Coordination•Maneuver Range/Demo Support•Live Demo Vehicles