1. The use of scenarios to develop Concepts of Operation for unmanned vehicles 19 ISMOR 30th August Michael Tulip

2. Structure The challenge in analysing Unmanned Vehicles Example 1 - Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUVs) Example 2 - Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAVs) Conclusions

3. Why are unmanned vehicles a challenge to analyse? Equipment at an embryonic stage of development –Concepts of operation undeveloped –A wide variety of potential roles and capabilities Issues with levels of autonomy Possible problems with Rules of Engagement

4. UUVs as a contribution to capability Maritime Underwater Fighting Capability (MUFC) –UK MoD designation of capability –Mix of platforms/systems Customer - BAE SYSTEMS –UUVs a major component CONOPS and Military Worth System Mix Scenario Wargame Physics Vignettes Search algorithms Expert opinion Vignette analysis Military Worth

5. Level of scenario detail TF1 TF2 TF1 Sub UUV Country X Country Y

6. Manual Wargame Structured technique –non-probabilistic –adjudication of results by referee Output –CONOPS –vignettes e.g. “Interaction of UUV with Submarine in sea area x” –qualitative description of military worth

7. CONOPS Deployment and recovery –UUVs deployed quickly –Apparent flexibility Operations versus enemy submarines –Patrol near enemy ports and choke points –Track and trail –Communication of detection to C 2 net The use of a variable payload –Deployable sensors –Expendable mini-UUVs –UAVs?

8. Vignette analysis Sub Coast Barrier Detection radius of UUV versus Sub Barrier search

9. Vignette analysis Sub Coast Barrier Detection radius of UUV versus Sub Barrier search Sub Area search Host Area to be clearedSafe area UUV Detection Range Mine clearance UUV patrol Host

10. Vignette analysis / wargame iteration Wargame Vignettes Vignette analysis Military worth of system mix

11. The value of UAV to AH effectiveness Customer - UK MoD The study scope was restricted –Only interested in the value of UAV to AH –Defined ingress and egress routes Scenario Workshop Simulation Vignettes Concept Options CONOPS Military Worth

12. Level of scenario detail Limited scope of study reduces scenario complexity BASE Low threatMed threatHigh threat AH + UAV Ingress route Egress route

13. Workshop Involved military personnel, technologists and analysts CONOPS –Vignette 1: Base to Refuelling Point –Vignette 2: At Refuelling Point –…… –Vignette 6: In Area of Operations No assessment of military worth

14. Example CONOPS Vignette 5 - Rendezvous point to Area of Operations “Move forward in steps of distance x, searching for and identifying potential ground threats” “AH moves forward in steps of distance y, searching for potential ground threats. UAV flys distance z ahead of main force identifying potential threats” General AH CONOPS General AH + UAV CONOPS AH / AH + UAV CONOPS versus threat A AH / AH + UAV CONOPS versus threat B AH / AH + UAV CONOPS versus threat C “If the force detects threat A before threat A detects the force, the force attempts to bypass the threat”

15. Node based stochastic simulation Ingress route Egress route

16. Results from simulation Other MoEs –UAV losses –Mission time –Hellfire used in Area of Operations

17. Workshop –Little indication of military worth –Analysis on a vignette by vignette basis –Limited scenario scope –Straightforward to set up Wargame –Helps establish military worth –Analysis over whole scenario –Wide scenario scope –Significant time and effort to set up Comparison of methods Simulation –Single technique –Analysis over whole scenario –Evaluates military worth of concepts Analytical techniques –Variety of techniques –Analysis on a vignette by vignette basis –Evaluates military worth for comparison with Wargame

18. Conclusions The scope and constraints of the study define the complexity of the scenarios Appropriate methods are chosen to address the differences in complexity General method of analysis for unmanned vehicles –‘softer’ techniques AND ‘harder’ techniques –Analysis of key parts AND Analysis of whole scenario