Future Combat Systems Unmanned Combat Demonstration Soldier Task
Future Combat Systems Unmanned Combat Demonstration Soldier Task Loading Results Gary Kamsickas gary. m. kamsickas@boeing. com 2003 Intelligent Vehicle Systems Symposium “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited”
Agenda • Unmanned Platforms in FCS • Unmanned Combat Demonstrations – – Objective Approach Virtual Demonstration Live Demonstrations • Results “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited” 2
Unmanned Platforms in FCS ORD Definition Family of Systems (Fo. S) Common Requirements Annex A Battle Command (C 4 ISR) Fire Team/ Squad ICV C 2 V Annex B Leader Development Annex C Annex D Annex E Annex F Annex G Soldier Manned Systems Unmanned Systems Sustainment Systems Interface NLOS Cannon LOS/BLOS (MCS) RSV NLOS Mortar Engineer Vehicles CBRNRS FTTS & UAH ACS & Prophet JTRS, WIN-T & DCGS-A TSV & ASV CA/PSYOP & Vehicle Land Warrior Block III (OFW) FRMV UAV Class 4 Unattended Sensors UGV UAV Class 2 UAV Class 1 UAV Class 3 Classified MMR & HIMARS UAV MV Annex I Army Aviation & A 2 C 2 S Maneuver Sustainment Systems Combat Systems Annex H Joint Interoperability Unattended Munitions MULE NLOS -LS UGS ARV “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited” SUGV IMS 3
Unmanned Platforms in FCS Unmanned 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 • Autonomous Navigation • For Unmanned & Manned Combat Vehicles Autonomous Navigation System • 20 -30 lbs, 3 -6 mph • Multiple Payloads • Shape MOUT & Sub. Terrainean Battlespace • Provide Force Protection Small Man-Packable Unmanned Ground Vehicle “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited” 4
Unmanned Combat Demonstration Objective Goals: Demonstrate the effectiveness of soldier-controlled remote unmanned ground vehicles, including RSTA and combat engagement, in a relevant tactical environment – 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. “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited” 5 • Validate Virtual Development Environment (VDE)/UCD SIL as resource for
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 “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited” 6
Unmanned Combat Demonstration Approach Modify/Improve IMPRINT Models ? IMPRINT Modeling Scenario Definition Simulation Runs “Validation” Data Reduction Live Maneuvers Exercises Data (Ft Bliss) Surveys Reduction Data • Comparison Results & • Analysis • Correlation Conclusions • Anchoring Virtual SIL Runs Data Man-in-the-loop Surveys Reduction (UCD SIL) Modify/Improve UCD SIL Models ? “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited” “Validation” 7
Unmanned Combat Demonstration Schedule Nov 2002 Dec Jan Feb Mar 2003 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 “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited” 8
Unmanned Combat Demonstration Scenario Arms. Area Range Restricted RA Small Cross Country Recon Area Activity Point Enemy Observation Post Enemy Infantry Obj. ARV (RSTA Unit) Obj. CV Tank Ditch BRDM-2 Anti Tank Recon “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited” BTR 80 Wheeled Armored Personal Carrier 9
Unmanned Combat Demonstration Improved Performance Research Integration Tool • • • IMPRINT; Developed by ARLHRED, 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. “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited” 10
Unmanned Combat Demonstration Crew Station “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited” 11
Unmanned Combat Demonstration Virtual Demonstration System – UCD SIL Data Collection/Visualization Video & Audio Control Vehicle (CV) Video Camera SMI Data • Observations • Surveys • Interviews After Action Review Stealth View Battlefield View B-Kit A-Kit/B-Kit ICD Interface B-Kit (ESS) CAT Virtual Processes Crewstation 1 Crewstation 2 A-Kit Interface PIU Comm Data Ethernet DIS Data (V 2. 04) Ethernet One. SAF Embedded Simulation System (B-Kit) “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited” 12
Unmanned Combat Demonstration Live Maneuver Configuration • Stryker Platform (CAT VTI RF) • Mobility (~16 T) • Semi Autonomous Nav. ESS (B-kit) • Targets (stationary) • Mounted & Dismounted • Virtual Weapons and RSTA • Virtual Env. (One. SAF) ARV-1 Surrogate • Platform (Demo III ARL XUV) • Mobility (~2. 5 T) • Semi Autonomous Nav. ARV-2 Surrogate • Stryker Platform (CAT VTI) • Mobility (~16 T) • CV driver (Safety) • 2 Crew Stations (ARV controllers) • C 2 • Weapon and RSTA Control CV Surrogate “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited” C 2 Station (Battle Master) 13
Unmanned Combat Demonstration Live Fire Configuration Targets Killer Dismounted - Silhouettes Mounted – M 113 • COUGAR Turret • Target Acquisition • Javelin and M 240 • Safety Driver • Weapon Arm Switches Surrogate C 3 Network • RSTA • Target Cueing • Weapon Control Hunter ARV-2 b RSTA Surrogate Control ARV-1 Surrogate ARV-2 a Mobility Surrogate CV Surrogate “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited” Common Ops Picture 14
Unmanned Combat Demonstrations UCD Live Weapon Fire Demo Scenario “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited” 15
Unmanned Combat Demonstration Results – 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 “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited” used to “calibrate” the virtual 16
Unmanned Combat Demonstration Results – 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 motionbased 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 Task time constraints will influence relation to completing tasks. No workload. Established TTPs standard for comparison orforbasis of Distribution required to determine realistic or “Approved Public Release, Unlimited” 17 performance. acceptable task timelines.
Unmanned Combat Demonstration Results – Live Environment Significant Insights Implication Time to complete a “live” scenario Plan shorter, task focused activities. is significantly greater than a virtual Safety/maintenance routines take scenario 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 “invehicle” 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” Soldiers were more cautious in system by “damage risk” toforreal using the real equipment than in the “Approved Public Release, Distribution Unlimited” 18 equipment. virtual environment. Fear of
Unmanned Combat Demonstration Results – 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 Must actively work acceptance, opened the door to the safety trust and system safety issues for issues involved in combining armed robotic assets within the autonomous mobility of armed Army during SDD “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited” vehicles. 19
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 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 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 problems • Integrated surrogate architecture to perform Mobility, RSTA and Fire Control. – ANS integration onto 16 T “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited” 20 platform
FCS Risks Mitigated by UCD FCS 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 “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited” 21
FCS Risks Mitigated by UCD Implication 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 Ai. TR, improved Ai. TR 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 “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited” 22
Unmanned Combat Demonstration Summary Demo Phase Virtual Live Maneuv er Live Fire 7 -23 Jan 03 17 -25 Feb 03 3 -7 Mar 03 2 2 1 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: 1 Date # of Crews # of Scenario s • 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 “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited” 23
Unmanned Combat Demonstration Team • 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 • Javelin Missile Data Coordination • Javelin Missile/M 240 SME • COUGAR Turret/Integration • Weapon Fire Range/Demo Support • Demonstration Management, Coordination, Execution and Reporting • Embedded Simulation System Development • 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 “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited” • Workload Analysis Support • Usability Analysis Support • Demo III RSTA Vehicle • SMI Design and Test • Imprint Model Development • Data Collection Support • Demonstration Support 24
- Slides: 24