Future Combat Systems Unmanned Combat Demonstration Soldier Task Loading Results Gary Kamsickas [email protected] 2003 Intelligent Vehicle Systems

Future Combat Systems Future Combat Systems Unmanned Combat DemonstrationUnmanned Combat Demonstration

Soldier Task Loading ResultsSoldier Task Loading ResultsGary Kamsickas

[email protected]

2003 Intelligent Vehicle Systems Symposium

“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


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


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

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

Multi-role Utility/Logistics Equipment (MULE) Platform

• Autonomous Navigation • For Unmanned & Manned Combat Vehicles

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


Unmanned Combat DemonstrationUnmanned Combat DemonstrationObjectiveObjective

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 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


Unmanned Combat Demonstration Unmanned Combat Demonstration ApproachApproach

• 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


Unmanned Combat Demonstration Unmanned Combat Demonstration ApproachApproach

ScenarioDefinition

ScenarioDefinition

DataReduction

DataReduction

VirtualMan-in-the-loop

(UCD SIL)

VirtualMan-in-the-loop

(UCD SIL)

Live Maneuvers(Ft Bliss)

Live Maneuvers(Ft Bliss)

IMPRINTModelingIMPRINTModeling

DataReduction

DataReduction

DataReduction

DataReduction

Data•Comparison

•Analysis•Correlation•Anchoring

Data•Comparison

•Analysis•Correlation•Anchoring

Results &Conclusions

Results &Conclusions

Modify/Improve IMPRINT Models ?

Modify/Improve UCD SIL Models ?

Simulation Runs

SIL RunsSurveys

ExercisesSurveys

““Validation”Validation”

““Validation”Validation”


Unmanned Combat Demonstration Unmanned Combat Demonstration ScheduleSchedule

2002 2003Dec Jan Feb Mar AprNov May

Virtual Demonstration

Live Demonstrations

Development

Phase 2 (1: Many Ratio)

Vehicle Dev/ Integration

Vehicle C/O

VIP 3/7

Phase 1 (1:1 Ratio)

Soldier Training

IMPRINT Verification

UCD SIL Verification

Maneuver Demonstration

Live Fire Demonstration

IMPRINT Runs


Unmanned Combat Demonstration Unmanned Combat Demonstration ScenarioScenario

Small Arms Range

Cross Country Recon AreaActivity Point

Enemy Observation Post

Enemy Infantry

Obj. ARV (RSTA Unit)

Obj. CV

Tank Ditch

BTR80 Wheeled Armored Personal Carrier

BRDM-2 Anti Tank Recon

RA Restricted Area


Unmanned Combat Demonstration Unmanned Combat Demonstration ImImproved proved PPerformance erformance RResearch esearch InIntegration tegration TToolool

• 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


Unmanned Combat DemonstrationUnmanned Combat DemonstrationCrew StationCrew Station


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


ARV-1 Surrogate

Unmanned Combat DemonstrationUnmanned Combat DemonstrationLive Maneuver ConfigurationLive Maneuver Configuration

CV Surrogate

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

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

C2 Station (Battle Master)

ARV-2 Surrogate

•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)


Unmanned Combat DemonstrationUnmanned Combat DemonstrationLive Fire ConfigurationLive Fire Configuration

TargetsDismounted - Silhouettes

Mounted – M113

ARV-1 Surrogate

CV Surrogate

Surrogate C3 Network• RSTA•Target Cueing•Weapon Control

Common Ops Picture

ARV-2a Mobility Surrogate

HunterKiller

ARV-2b RSTA Surrogate

Control

• COUGAR Turret•Target Acquisition •Javelin and M240

• Safety Driver• Weapon Arm Switches


Unmanned Combat Demonstrations Unmanned Combat Demonstrations UCD Live Weapon Fire Demo ScenarioUCD Live Weapon Fire Demo Scenario

+

X 1

X 2

X 3

X 4

PL Chevy

PL Ford

PL Hummer

(RSTA Waypoint)

Zone Orange

Assembly Area

Viewing Area – 5Km

OBJ Yukon

LD

LD

SP

CV OBS PT +

X 1

X 2

X 3

X 4

PL Chevy

PL Ford

PL Hummer

(RSTA Waypoint)

Zone Orange

Assembly Area

Viewing Area – 5Km

OBJ Yukon

LD

LD

SPSP

CV OBS PT


Unmanned Combat DemonstrationUnmanned Combat DemonstrationResults – Virtual EnvironmentResults – Virtual Environment

Significant Insight Implication

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


Unmanned Combat DemonstrationUnmanned Combat DemonstrationResults – Virtual EnvironmentResults – 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.


Unmanned Combat DemonstrationUnmanned Combat DemonstrationResults – Live EnvironmentResults – Live Environment


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.


Unmanned Combat DemonstrationUnmanned Combat DemonstrationResults – Live EnvironmentResults – Live Environment


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


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


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


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


Unmanned Combat DemonstrationUnmanned Combat DemonstrationSummarySummary

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

1:1, 1:2

1:3, 1:4

1:1 1:1

Jan

Feb

Mar Feb

Mar

1 2 3 4 5

1

2

3

4

5

Co

nse

qu

ence

1 2 3 4 5

1

2

3

4

5

Probability

Co

nse

qu

ence

RISK MITIGATION

Semi-AutonomousManeuver

CombatFunctionality

WarfighterWorkload

Jan

Feb

Mar Feb

Mar

Jan

Feb

Mar Feb

Mar

1 2 3 4 5

1

2

3

4

5

Co

nse

qu

ence

1 2 3 4 5

1

2

3

4

5

Probability

Co

nse

qu

ence

RISK MITIGATION

Semi-AutonomousManeuver

CombatFunctionality

WarfighterWorkload

Jan

Feb

Mar Feb

Mar

• 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


Unmanned Combat DemonstrationUnmanned Combat DemonstrationTeamTeam

•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

•SMI, Scenario and TTP Review•Soldier Support

Documents

Future Combat Systems Unmanned Combat Demonstration Soldier Task Loading Results Gary Kamsickas [email protected] 2003 Intelligent Vehicle Systems