1. 1 USMA Department of Systems Engineering Plan Your Mission

2. 2 USMA Department of Systems Engineering Left to right: Mike Chun, Guillermo Guandique, Chris Grevious, Gene Page Cadet Michael Chun Operations Research Michael.Chun@usma.edu Cadet Christopher Grevious Engineering Management Christopher.Grevious@usma.edu Cadet Guillermo Guandique Systems Engineering Guillermo.Guandique@usma.edu Cadet Eugene Page Engineering Management Eugene.Page@usma.edu LTC Rob Kewley Advisor (845) 938-5206, Fax: (845) 938-5919 Robert.Kewley@usma.edu LTC Rob Kewley Advisor (845) 938-5206, Fax: (845) 938-5919 Robert.Kewley@usma.edu LTC Rob Kewley Advisor Robert.Kewley@usma.edu Tactical Command and Control Data Requirements Team

3. 3 USMA Department of Systems Engineering Agenda Problem Overview Clients Stakeholder Analysis Data Layers Simulation Findings Conclusions Recommendations Future Work

4. 4 USMA Department of Systems Engineering Problem Description Proliferation of Command Control Systems hitting the Force Today All systems have a requirement for terrain data With higher quality data, systems can be better used for mission planning Consumers: Want perfect data, extremely detailed data Producers: Don’t have the resources to provide this

5. 5 USMA Department of Systems Engineering Terrain Data Assessment Problem Statement: Provide information to assist in creating realistic terrain databases for operational testing of the Army’s Future Combat Systems –Providing adequate, realistic data for mission planning and execution.

6. 6 USMA Department of Systems Engineering Overview Terrain Databases are used for various military operations. Key Issues: –Too much data (exceeding network bandwidth). –Limited information/intelligence for a given area. –Different data formats between source data and final product.

7. 7 USMA Department of Systems Engineering Stakeholder Analysis Purpose: Identify functions, objectives, constraints, and measures of the problem Stakeholders –End Users: Tactical Level Commanders, Maneuver Unit Soldiers –US Army Topographic Engineering Center (TEC) –Future Combat Systems (FCS)

8. 8 USMA Department of Systems Engineering Future Combat Systems (FCS) Image Taken From http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/fcs.htm

9. 9 USMA Department of Systems Engineering Future Combat Systems Systems of Systems that will place the Army in the 21 st Century. Can produce a dominant ground force anywhere in the world within days. An ensemble of Unmanned and Manned Vehicles which can quickly and decisively engage the enemy. All Systems are Integrated together by networks to ensure the commander has full command and control over the battle. FCS terrain visualization will allow air and ground control in addition to personal accountability where individuals soldiers are located. –Assisting TEC with finding how much data is needed in order to accomplish the mission. Interested in using perfect data for operational testing

10. 10 USMA Department of Systems Engineering Topographic Engineering Center (TEC) Mission –Provide the warfighter with a superior knowledge of the battlefield and to support the nation's civil and environmental initiatives. This mission is accomplished through research, development, and the application of expertise in the topographic and related sciences. Primary Client –Supporting TEC by providing feedback and studies on cost and value analysis in C2 Systems. Concern –If FCS is based on perfect data, that is not how it will perform in theater

11. 11 USMA Department of Systems Engineering Stakeholder Analysis Findings –Detailed 3D imagery was greatly desired –Up to date (FBCB2 style) tracking and situation data was critical –Difficult to replace recon, but could aid in recon –Lack of comfort with digital systems Conclusions –Current platforms could be improved on –Training and Education were necessary –Company level needs easy access to timely situation data –A common operational picture is more effective than systems running in parallel

12. 12 USMA Department of Systems Engineering Functional Analysis

13. 13 USMA Department of Systems Engineering Overall Capstone Design Terrain Generation Team –Assess the cost of data –Build terrain layers for command control simulation –Identify the realistic features of terrain data to be used in operational testing Command and Control Team –Assess the value of data –Conduct simulation and analysis –Identify critical features of terrain data to be incorporated into FCS

14. 14 USMA Department of Systems Engineering Levels of Detail Designed three different scenarios to test terrain data sufficiency: –Low Level (basic “off-the-shelf” data) –Medium Level (basic data plus significant analysis) –High Level (extensive analysis, additional intelligence)

15. 15 USMA Department of Systems Engineering Levels of Detail Slide Taken from Terrain Generation Team

16. 16 USMA Department of Systems Engineering Data Layers In order to make a working database there are a few things that we will have to consider. Each level of resolution is dependent on how much time notice we have and how much control we have in the area or interest. All data was obtained from off the shelf data from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) or other commercial sources. Layer 1 (Low) – Least time available – 4 Meter Resolution. Layer 2 (Medium) – Week(s) Notice. DTED Layer 2 (Quickbird) – –Limited Airspace control/No ground control. Layer 3 (High) – All Technically Possible (LIDAR) –Full Air/Ground Control Slide Taken from Terrain Generation Team

17. 17 USMA Department of Systems Engineering Digital Terrain Elevation Data LayersOperationalCollection EquipmentAnalyst HoursStorageData Description DTED 1Pre-deploymentSatellite0hrs5 MB100m DTED 2Pre-deploymentSRTM 1 and 2 (Satellite)0hrs54 MB30m DTED 3Pre-deploymentSatellite8hrs583 MB10m DTED 4Airspace SuperiorityStereo ICONUS (space)16hrs6,927 MB3m DTED 5Airspace with ground supportGator/LIDAR24hrs68,001 MB1m From DTED 5 to 1 the storage space required decreases to between 8-10% of the previous level. Only about a 24 hour difference in man hours between best and worst. Biggest concern is Operational status pre-deployment to boots on ground. Slide Taken from Terrain Generation Team

18. 18 USMA Department of Systems Engineering Design of Experiment Critical to identify what is most important to warfighter in a resource intensive environment Live simulation of the planning phase of an operation Utilized 3 levels of terrain data: low, medium, and high detail Convoy and Raid Operations Planned System Users: –Army Engineer Officer –Army Cavalry NCO Maneuver Control System

19. 19 USMA Department of Systems Engineering Simulation Purpose -Analyze value of available terrain data -Plan mission with varying levels of detail -Determine necessity of features -Provide feedback and suggestions

20. 20 USMA Department of Systems Engineering Mission 1 st Platoon, Alpha Company, TF 1-1 will depart from FOB Eagle at VQ81513789 and conduct raid operations at OBJ Raptor (VQ88554139) NLT 0900 02APR2007 to support stability operations. -Known enemy activity along major built up MSR’s. -Area of operations at OBJ Raptor known to be very hostile.

21. 21 USMA Department of Systems Engineering Area of Operations

22. 22 USMA Department of Systems Engineering OBJ Raptor

23. 23 USMA Department of Systems Engineering Detail Level 1: Area of Operations

24. 24 USMA Department of Systems Engineering Detail Level 1: Objective Raptor

25. 25 USMA Department of Systems Engineering Detail Level 2: Area of Operations

26. 26 USMA Department of Systems Engineering Detail Level 2: Objective Raptor

27. 27 USMA Department of Systems Engineering Detail Level 3: Area of Operations

28. 28 USMA Department of Systems Engineering Detail Level 3: Objective Raptor

29. 29 USMA Department of Systems Engineering Detail Level 3: Objective Raptor

30. 30 USMA Department of Systems Engineering Simulation Findings Raid Operations increased in complexity with level of detail Avenues of approach were easily identified at Medium layer Initial convoy route did not change but initial raid planning did. Most Commonly used features: Line of Sight (Military Analyst).6 Meter Imagery Elevation Road Conditions

31. 31 USMA Department of Systems Engineering Low Level Findings Low Level Data –Too many uncertainties due to low level resolution –Limited info on route –Unfamiliar with area of operations –Unable to anticipate enemy attacks –Unable to efficiently plan entrance routes –Unable to visualize obstacles Most Useful Features –Roads, villages, very limited identification Most Needed Features –Vegetation, elevation, village photography.

32. 32 USMA Department of Systems Engineering Medium Level Findings –Able to identify several routes in/out of village –Well identified assault and support positions –Able to anticipate possible enemy attack positions –Able to plan entrance route –Able to plan exit route –Able to identify obstacles Most Useful Features –Building data –Line of Sight using vegetation data –Routes Most Needed Features –Updated Vegetation –Updated imagery

33. 33 USMA Department of Systems Engineering High Level Findings –Able to identify “areas of concern” –Emplaced overwatch position, support by fire, and assault position. –Able to estimate enemy exit route –Able to anticipate enemy attack –Easily identified exit and entrance routes –Easily identified possible obstacles Most Used Features –Line of Sight tool –Route trafficability –Aerial/Ground photography –LIDAR data Most Needed Features –Building structure information

34. 34 USMA Department of Systems Engineering Results Compiled

35. 35 USMA Department of Systems Engineering Results Compiled

36. 36 USMA Department of Systems Engineering Conclusion Data Development –Collected by space based assets DTED 1, 2, and 3.6 meter imagery Must focus on a specific area –Feature layers are manpower intensive Roads, vegetation, and urban areas are easiest to create Marshes, streams, and rivers are most difficult to create Categorization of urban areas requires human intelligence Ground Photography Data Value –Need at least.6 meter imagery for effective mission planning –Need at least DTED 2 elevation data to accurately incorporate terrain features into planning –Roads, bridges, and trafficability are critical features –Vegetation can be easily seen on imagery –Photographs taken on the ground facilitate detailed planning –LIDAR data is useful but not critical to mission planning

37. 37 USMA Department of Systems Engineering Recommendations Elevation Data- Use DTED 2 elevation data (without LIDAR) in conjunction with Line of Sight tools Aerial Photography- Use Quickbird.6 meter resolution for FCS testing Feature Data- Utilize general feature data ie roads, bridges, water, buildings Tactical Situation-Assume limited airspace/no ground control, adjust available data based on progress of operations/terrain build time

38. 38 USMA Department of Systems Engineering Future Work Continue to Analyze the Cost versus Value –Individual attributes at varying levels of detail –Individual cost for varying attributes Replicate the simulation at Fort Bliss for FCS Operational Testing with the same types of terrain data Work at Fort Bliss will be used for conclusions for same types of testing, but equipment and soldiers will be incorporated to increase complexity

39. 39 USMA Department of Systems Engineering Questions