Transcript TSW – Examining System Effectiveness

Examining Soldier Performance Throughout
A 48 Hour Battlefield Mission
Development of the ABEL Model in Support of the
Future Infantry Soldier Technology (FIST) Programme
Martin Caunt, Rick Atkinson and Peter Page
HVR Consulting Services Limited
Slide 1
ABEL ISMOR Presentation
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Dismounted Close Combat (DCC)
Integrated Project Team (IPT), Thales FIST Prime Contract
Management Office (PCMO) and Dstl Land Systems Department for
giving permission to present this paper
Whilst authors are employees of HVR Consulting Services Limited,
the model described in the following presentation was developed on
behalf of Thales FIST PCMO for the DCC IPT in the FIST
Assessment Phase
HVR Consulting Services Ltd led development of the model with
expertise and assistance provided by Dstl Land Systems
Department, other members of the Thales PCMO and the DCC IPT
Slide 2
ABEL ISMOR Presentation
Presentation Agenda
Background
Solution
Detailed Design
Summary
Slide 3
ABEL ISMOR Presentation
FIST Programme
FIST in the Assessment Phase (AP) of CADMID cycle
Delivered by a partnership between Thales PCMO, DPA (DCC IPT),
HQ Infantry, DEC(GM) and Dstl
Programme of requirements definition followed by trials, modelling,
judgement panels, ILS assessment, cost and risk analysis and, more
recently, detailed design and integration
Looked at variety of system options over past 2 years coming up to
selection of a preferred FIST system
Final trials of preferred system compared to baseline in Oct/Nov 2005
Main Gate approval planned for late 2006
Start of demonstration and manufacture phase planned for 2007
Planned FIST IOC – introduction into service - by 2010
Slide 4
ABEL ISMOR Presentation
FIST Requirement
Provide light role (non mechanised) infantry with a totally integrated
fighting system for dismounted close combat
Areas for improvement on DCC infantry baseline capability identified at
Initial Gate were:
C4I – communications, situational awareness (both enemy and own
forces), planning and orders
Lethality – weapons, sighting systems, target acquisition, hand-off of
targets (with C4I)
Mobility – weight, navigation
Survivability – protection, stealth
Sustainability – logistics, power sources
Integration of all of above
Immature analysis of the following at Initial Gate:
Situational awareness, planning, human factors, (e.g. morale, fatigue,
leadership), movement over distance, communications, logistics and
navigation
Slide 5
ABEL ISMOR Presentation
Model Background
Prior to Assessment Phase (AP) contract award, the Thales team
identified need for additional modelling tools
Recognised that many of the major benefits of FIST are likely to accrue
outside the combat battle
Benefits of non combat performance on combat performance could be
significant and not captured in the current model tool set
None of the primary assessment tools available throughout AP
examine capability in both combat and non-combat
Areas for improvement on baseline capability included aspects that
the combat model (CAEn) are unable to fully model
Need to encapsulate both combat and non-combat phases and cover
all improvement areas within a single assessment tool
Provide an assessment of potential FIST solutions against four
Measures Of Effectiveness (MOE) over a full 48 hour BFM:
Readiness for Next Mission, Time Taken to Complete Mission,
Amount of Consumables Used and BLUE Casualties
Led to the concept of the Battlefield Mission (BFM) Model - now referred
to as the Aggregate Battlefield Effectiveness Level model (ABEL)
Slide 6
ABEL ISMOR Presentation
Modelling Solution
Combination of Soft and Hard OA techniques
Military SMEs employed within a Judgement Panel framework
Utilised / adapted output from CAEn detailed combat modelling
Three-phase approach implemented
Experience from early phases informing subsequent phases
Provided a risk reduction mechanism
Level of integration between Soft and Hard Modelling increased
with each Phase
Slide 7
ABEL ISMOR Presentation
Modelling Solution Overview
Phase
Judgemental
assessment
Qualitative benefits
of options
TSW
Non combat
activities in 48 hr
scenario only
Examine soft factors
Option ranking
Phase 2
1
Detailed combat
modelling
Combat activities in CAEn
48 hr scenario
No conditioning of
soldier
Blue casualties /
Ammo expenditure
calculated for options
ABEL v1
ABEL
v1
TSW
MCDA
CAEn Data
Slide 8
Combines hard and
soft OA techniques
Assesses all
activities in
scenario
Conditioning of
soldier represented
in data
Interpolation
algorithms based
on judgement
Quantitative values
calculated for all 4
MOEs
Qualitative benefits
of option
Encapsulated
within a
spreadsheet model
ABEL ISMOR Presentation
Detailed Design - Scenario
HQ Infantry DCC BFM scenario used as basis for the option assessment
Scenario covered the following:
Mission context
Overall Battalion plan
Company Orders process including broad timings for events
throughout mission
Relief In Place, Defensive Battle, Deliberate and Hasty Rural Attacks,
Recce (Urban and Rural) and Urban vignettes in a temperate
environment
Decomposed into sets of activities around combat vignettes
Allowed examination in ‘bite-sized’ chunks of DCC activity
These were referred to as ‘Scoring Zones’
Scoring Zones determined through examination of activity type, activity
concurrency and location of combat vignettes
Scoring Points at the end of each Scoring Zone determined starting
‘state’ for the company in subsequent Scoring Zones
Slide 9
ABEL ISMOR Presentation
Detailed Design - MCDA
The assessment of the Company’s ability to undertake the next set
of activities (i.e. Readiness for the Next Mission) made against a
hierarchy of factors
Factors define a level of capability through a set of grading
definitions
Current condition of Company compared to definitions
Overall Company readiness calculated from these factor scores
using ideas from Mission Orientated Analysis (MOA)
This level of readiness:
Was considered in the next set of non-combat activities
Informed the outcome of any subsequent combat vignettes
Company Readiness value used to:
Track Company’s ability to undertake subsequent activities
Predict the outcome of subsequent combat vignettes
Slide 10
ABEL ISMOR Presentation
Detailed Design – Readiness Hierarchy
Readiness
Spatial and
Situational
Awareness
Decision
Making
Mental and
Physical
Fatigue
Morale
Availability
Knowledge of
Own Forces
Navigation
Sleep, Rest,
Sustenance
Fatigue
Logistic
Supportability
Knowledge of
Enemy Forces
Awareness of
Orders
Mental Demand
Spatial and
Situational
Awareness
Reliability
Terrain /
Geography /
Population
Planning
Physical State
Training
Maintainability
Leadership
Recent History
Judgement Panel
Assessment
ILS SME
Assessment
Assumed Constant
Slide 11
Calculated in model
ABEL ISMOR Presentation
Detailed Design – Combat Modelling
Combat activities assessed using CAEn output for each FIST option
CAEn runs completed for two states prior to Judgement Panel
“Unconditioned” state – full strength, full complement, full capability
“Conditioned” state – full strength, full complement but degraded
performance
Conditioned state performance degradation on CAEn inputs determined
by set of workshops:
Human Factors, Technology and military SME representatives from
Thales PCMO, Dstl and QinetiQ determined degradation amount
Discussion based upon agreed minimum score of the low level
Readiness sub-factor definitions
CAEn output to ABEL provided in terms of:
Amount of ammunition expended
Number of BLUE casualties
Time taken to complete combat
Slide 12
ABEL ISMOR Presentation
Detailed Design – Non-Combat Modelling
Military Judgement Panel (MJP) examined option performance in non
combat activities
Determined how soft factors and system capabilities affect MOEs
throughout the Battlefield Mission
Scenario used as basis for leading MJP through a discussion of the
capability of each option
A Company’s assets were assessed with the separate concurrent
activities of Company elements being tracked
Concentrated on an examination of Sections
Identified strengths and weaknesses of each option and ability of each
system to complete these activities to a broad schedule
Level of conditioning of the Company captured, i.e. the Sections ability
to undertake the next set of activities
Combat activities described but CAEn modelling used to determine the
impact of the combat on the Company readiness
Slide 13
ABEL ISMOR Presentation
Detailed Design - ABEL Spreadsheet
CAEn data for the unconditioned and conditioned states and MJP
assessments were combined together in a spreadsheet model
Spreadsheet determined option performance in terms of the four
MOEs:
Individual scores for the Readiness factors are captured for the
part of Company involved in an activity
Overall Company Readiness level for Sections and Company
were calculated from these scores
Individual scores and resultant Readiness level for each of the
Company elements were tracked over time
Outcome of combat vignettes was determined by interpolating the
CAEn results for unconditioned and conditioned states
Numbers of casualties, time lost / gained against scenario
schedule and ammunition consumption are captured and tracked
for each Company element over time
Slide 14
ABEL ISMOR Presentation
Detailed Design - CAEn Data Interpolation
Vignette 1 Blue Casualties vs Readiness
Vignette 1 Blue Casualties vs Readiness
10
10
BLUE Casualties
8
8
6
Interpolated points
4
6
2
0
4
0
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
Data points from CAEn runs
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Readiness Level
Conditioned and Unconditioned CAEn data generates a relationship
between Readiness Level and CAEn output (e.g. Blue Casualties)
Trend line generated to determine CAEn output for different
Readiness Levels
Slide 15
ABEL ISMOR Presentation
Bringing It All Together
ILLUSTRATIVE
Time
t
t+4
t + 10
t + 16
t + 22
t+?
Location
x0
x1
x3
x4
x5
x7
t + 33
x6
x8
Activities
Sections
Mission analysis,
Orders,
Preparation for
battle
A




START STATE:
Blue Casualties
Consumables
Time Taken
Readiness
...




START STATE:
Blue Casualties
Consumables
Time Taken
Readiness
Deliberate
attack - night /
day
Recce




START STATE:
Blue Casualties
Consumables
Time Taken
Readiness





B
START STATE:
Blue Casualties
Consumables
Time Taken
Readiness
CAEn Data
Reorganisation,
Orders, ...




START STATE:
Blue Casualties
Consumables
Time Taken
Readiness





Hasty attack day
START STATE:
Blue Casualties
Consumables
Time Taken
Readiness
...




START STATE:
Blue Casualties
Consumables
Time Taken
Readiness
CAEn Data
...
...
Slide 16
ABEL ISMOR Presentation
Summary
Clear need identified
Complex problem
Combined soft and hard OA
Used available modelling assets
Model successfully applied
Significant potential
Slide 17
ABEL ISMOR Presentation
Questions?
HVR Consulting Services Ltd
Selborne House
Mill Lane
Alton
Hants
GU34 2QJ
Tel.: 01420 87977
Fax.: 01420 89819
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.HVRGroup.com
Slide 18
ABEL ISMOR Presentation