1. 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”

2. 2 Agenda Unmanned Platforms in FCS Unmanned Combat Demonstrations –Objective –Approach –Virtual Demonstration –Live Demonstrations Results

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

4. 4 “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited” Unmanned Platforms in FCS Unmanned Ground Vehicle Systems Autonomous Navigation System Small 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

5. 5 “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited” Unmanned Combat Demonstration Objective 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

6. 6 “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited” 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

7. 7 “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited” Unmanned Combat Demonstration Approach Scenario Definition Scenario Definition Data Reduction Data Reduction Virtual Man-in-the-loop (UCD SIL) Virtual Man-in-the-loop (UCD SIL) Live Maneuvers (Ft Bliss) Live Maneuvers (Ft Bliss) IMPRINT Modeling IMPRINT Modeling Data Reduction Data Reduction Data Reduction Data Reduction 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 Runs Surveys Exercises Surveys “Validation” “Validation”

8. 8 “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited” Unmanned Combat Demonstration Schedule 2002 2003 DecJanFebMarAprNovMay 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

9. 9 “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited” Unmanned Combat Demonstration Scenario Small Arms Range Cross Country Recon Area Activity 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

10. 10 “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited” Unmanned Combat Demonstration Improved Performance Research Integration Tool 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.

11. 11 “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited” Unmanned Combat Demonstration Crew Station

12. 12 “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited” Unmanned Combat Demonstration Virtual Demonstration System – UCD SIL CAT Virtual Processes OneSAF A-Kit Interface B-Kit (ESS) Ethernet DIS Data (V2.04) PIU Comm Data B-Kit Interface Crewstation 1 Crewstation 2 Control Vehicle (CV) Ethernet A-Kit/B-Kit ICD Video Camera Data Collection/Visualization Video & Audio After Action Review Stealth View Battlefield View SMI Data Embedded Simulation System (B-Kit) Observations Surveys Interviews

13. 13 “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited” ARV-1 Surrogate Unmanned Combat Demonstration Live 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)

14. 14 “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited” Unmanned Combat Demonstration Live Fire Configuration Targets Dismounted - Silhouettes Mounted – M113 ARV-1 Surrogate CV Surrogate Surrogate C3 Network RSTA Target Cueing Weapon Control Common Ops Picture ARV-2a Mobility Surrogate Hunter Killer ARV-2b RSTA Surrogate Control COUGAR Turret Target Acquisition Javelin and M240 Safety Driver Weapon Arm Switches

15. 15 “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited” Unmanned Combat Demonstrations UCD Live Weapon Fire Demo Scenario

16. 16 “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited” Unmanned Combat Demonstration Results – Virtual Environment Significant InsightImplication 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. 17 “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited” Unmanned Combat Demonstration Results – Virtual Environment Significant InsightsImplication 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. 18 “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited” Unmanned Combat Demonstration Results – Live Environment Significant InsightsImplication 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. 19 “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited” Unmanned Combat Demonstration Results – Live Environment Significant InsightsImplication 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. 20 “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited” FCS Risks Mitigated by UCD FCS Risks InsightsImplications 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. 21 “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited” 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

22. 22 “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited” 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 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. 23 “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited” Unmanned Combat Demonstration Summary Demo Phase VirtualLive Maneuver Live Fire Date7-23 Jan 03 17-25 Feb 03 3-7 Mar 03 # of Crews 221 # of Scenarios 2681 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 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

24. 24 “Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited” Unmanned Combat Demonstration Team 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