Upload
aron-perkins
View
218
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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 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