38
USMA Department of Systems Engineering 1 Plan Your Mission

1 USMA Department of Systems Engineering Plan Your Mission

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

USMA Department of Systems Engineering1

Plan Your Mission

USMA Department of Systems Engineering2

Left to right: Mike Chun, Guillermo Guandique, Chris Grevious, Gene Page

Cadet Michael ChunOperations [email protected]

Cadet Christopher GreviousEngineering [email protected]

Cadet Guillermo GuandiqueSystems [email protected]

Cadet Eugene PageEngineering [email protected]

LTC Rob [email protected]

Tactical Command and Control Data Requirements Team

USMA Department of Systems Engineering3

Agenda

• Problem Overview• Clients• Stakeholder Analysis• Data Layers• Simulation• Findings• Conclusions• Recommendations• Future Work

USMA Department of Systems Engineering4

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

USMA Department of Systems Engineering5

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.

USMA Department of Systems Engineering6

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.

USMA Department of Systems Engineering7

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)

USMA Department of Systems Engineering8

Future Combat Systems (FCS)

Image Taken From http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/fcs.htm

USMA Department of Systems Engineering10

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

USMA Department of Systems Engineering11

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

USMA Department of Systems Engineering12

Functional Analysis

Provide Terrain Imagery

(6)

Viewing 3D Imagery

(1)

Viewing Satellite Imagery

(6)

Viewing Topographical

Imagery(1)

Viewing Man-made Map

(2)

Provide Current Situation Analysis

(2)

Assess Friendly Situation

(3)

Assess Enemy Situation

(4)

Analyze Area Traffic

(2)

Provide Terrain Data(2)

Assess Soil Conditions/ Trafficability

(3)

Asses Elevation /LOS(3)

Conduct Mission Analysis

(1)

Assess Light/Weather

(1)

Analyze Feature Data(3)

Command and Control Terrain Analysis

System to Plan and Execute Missions

USMA Department of Systems Engineering13

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

USMA Department of Systems Engineering14

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)

USMA Department of Systems Engineering15

Levels of Detail

Low Medium High4 Meter Image Roads Key Features (Cultural, Landmarks)DTED2 Railroads Vertical Obstruction Points

Bridges Information PageRunways Ground PhotosWater Features (Lines and Polygons) Buildings of InterestForested Areas RoadsOpen Urban Areas RailroadsResidential Built-up Terrain Zones BridgesCommercial Built-up Terrain Zones RunwaysInstitutional Built-up Terrain Zones Water Features (Lines and Polygons).6 Meter Image (Quickbird view) Forested AreasDTED 2 Elevation Open Urban Areas1:50K Military Overview Map Residential Built-up Terrain Zones4 Meter Image Commercial Built-up Terrain Zones

Institutional Built-up Terrain Zones4 Meter ImageDTED 2 Elevation1:50K Military Overview Map.6 Meter ImageLIDAR (Laser Imaging Detection and Ranging)

Levels of Terrain Layers

Lay

ers

of

Det

ail

Wit

hin

th

e D

iffe

ren

t L

evel

s

Slide Taken from Terrain Generation Team

USMA Department of Systems Engineering16

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

USMA Department of Systems Engineering17

Digital Terrain Elevation Data

Layers Operational Collection Equipment Analyst Hours Storage Data Description

DTED 1 Pre-deployment Satellite 0hrs 5 MB 100m

DTED 2 Pre-deployment SRTM 1 and 2 (Satellite) 0hrs 54 MB 30m

DTED 3 Pre-deployment Satellite 8hrs 583 MB 10m

DTED 4 Airspace Superiority Stereo ICONUS (space) 16hrs 6,927 MB 3m

DTED 5 Airspace with ground support Gator/LIDAR 24hrs 68,001 MB 1m

• 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

USMA Department of Systems Engineering18

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

USMA Department of Systems Engineering19

Simulation Purpose

- Analyze value of available terrain data

- Plan mission with varying levels of detail

- Determine necessity of features

- Provide feedback and suggestions

USMA Department of Systems Engineering20

Mission

1st 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.

USMA Department of Systems Engineering21

Area of Operations

USMA Department of Systems Engineering22

OBJ Raptor

USMA Department of Systems Engineering23

Detail Level 1: Area of Operations

USMA Department of Systems Engineering24

Detail Level 1: Objective Raptor

USMA Department of Systems Engineering25

Detail Level 2: Area of Operations

USMA Department of Systems Engineering26

Detail Level 2: Objective Raptor

USMA Department of Systems Engineering27

Detail Level 3: Area of Operations

USMA Department of Systems Engineering28

Detail Level 3: Objective Raptor

USMA Department of Systems Engineering29

Detail Level 3: Objective Raptor

USMA Department of Systems Engineering30

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

USMA Department of Systems Engineering31

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.

USMA Department of Systems Engineering32

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

USMA Department of Systems Engineering33

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

USMA Department of Systems Engineering34

Results Compiled

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1

Exercise level of Detail

Layer 1

Elevation Data

4M Imagery

12

3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Mission Planning Effectiveness

Exercise Level of Detail

Terrain Data Layer vs. Mission Planning Effectiveness

USMA Department of Systems Engineering35

Results Compiled

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1

Detail Level 2

Traffi cability

Structure Data

.6m imagery

Elevation

Vegetation

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1

Detail Level 3

Traffi cability

Structure Data

Vegetation

.6m imagery

Ground Photography

Elevation

LIDAR

USMA Department of Systems Engineering36

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

USMA Department of Systems Engineering37

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

USMA Department of Systems Engineering38

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

USMA Department of Systems Engineering39

Questions