Transcript No Slide Title

The use of scenarios to develop Concepts
of Operation for unmanned vehicles
19 ISMOR
30th August
Michael Tulip
Structure

The challenge in analysing Unmanned Vehicles

Example 1 - Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUVs)

Example 2 - Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAVs)

Conclusions
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
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
Scenario
System Mix
CONOPS and
Military Worth

Wargame
Vignettes
Vignette analysis
Search
algorithms
Military Worth
Physics
Expert opinion
Level of scenario detail
TF1
Sub
Sub
Country X
Country Y
UUV
TF2
UUV
TF1
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
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 C2 net

The use of a variable payload
– Deployable sensors
– Expendable mini-UUVs
– UAVs?
Vignette analysis
Barrier search
Sub
Detection radius
of UUV versus
Sub
Barrier
Coast
Vignette analysis
Barrier search
Area search
Sub
Sub
Detection
radius of
UUV
versus Sub
Coast
Barrier
UUV patrol
Mine clearance
UUV
Host
Detection Range
Safe area
Area to be cleared
Host
Vignette analysis / wargame iteration
Wargame
Vignettes
Vignette
analysis
Military worth
of system mix
The value of UAV to AH effectiveness
Scenario
Workshop
Vignettes
Simulation
CONOPS
Concept Options
Military Worth

Customer - UK MoD

The study scope was restricted
– Only interested in the
value of UAV to AH
– Defined ingress and
egress routes
Level of scenario detail
AH + UAV
Ingress route
BASE
Egress route
Low threat

Med threat High threat
Limited scope of study reduces scenario complexity
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
Example CONOPS

Vignette 5 - Rendezvous point to Area of Operations
General
AH CONOPS
General
AH + UAV
CONOPS
AH / AH
+ UAV
CONOPS
versus
threat A
AH / AH
+ UAV
CONOPS
versus
threat B
“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”
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”
Node based stochastic simulation
Ingress route
Egress route
Attack Helicopt er Losses
Results from simulation
AH only

Concept
Option 1
Concept
Option 2
Concept
Option 3
Other MoEs
– UAV losses
– Mission time
– Hellfire used in Area of Operations
Comparison of methods

Wargame
– Helps establish military
worth
– Analysis over whole
scenario
– Wide scenario scope
– Significant time and effort
to set up

Workshop
– Little indication of
military worth
– Analysis on a vignette
by vignette basis
– Limited scenario scope
– Straightforward to set
up

Analytical techniques
– Variety of techniques
– Analysis on a vignette
by vignette basis
– Evaluates military worth
for comparison with
Wargame

Simulation
– Single technique
– Analysis over whole
scenario
– Evaluates military worth
of concepts
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