An Analysis of the Effects of Orientation Sensing Errors on Geometric Pairing

1
An Analysis of the Effects of Orientation Sensing
Errors on Geometric Pairing

• Bradley C. Schricker
• ATT Government Solutions, Inc.
• Louis Ford
• Icon Systems, Inc.
• Matthew Janisz
• Applied Research Associates

2
Presentation Agenda

• Introduction
• One Tactical Engagement Simulation System
• Orientation Sensing Equipment
• Mathematical Analysis
• Summary and Conclusion
• Questions
• Contact Information

3
Introduction

• Tactical Engagement Simulation (TES)
• Combat tactics
• Instrumented weapons, vehicles, personnel, and
  materiel
• Logical pairing between shooter and target(s)
• Pairing historically done by laser
• Perhaps most well known example is the Multiple
  Integrated Laser Engagement System (MILES)

4
Intro, cont
X
5
Intro, cont

• Laser has several disadvantages pertaining to
  pairing

6
Intro, cont

• Laser has several disadvantages pertaining to
  pairing
• For the most part, its trajectory is a straight
  path, negligibly affected by gravity and magnetism

7
Intro, cont

• Laser has several disadvantages pertaining to
  pairing
• For the most part, its trajectory is a straight
  path, negligibly affected by gravity and
  magnetism
• Dispersal

8
Intro, cont

• Laser has several disadvantages pertaining to
  pairing
• For the most part, its trajectory is a straight
  path, negligibly affected by gravity and
  magnetism
• Dispersal
• Inability to penetrate opaque surfaces

9
Intro, cont

• Geometric Pairing
• Potential solution to the issues associated with
  laser pairing
• However, like lasers, it also has potential
  sources of error
• Todays presentation addresses sources of error
  stemming from weapon orientation sensors

10
OneTESS

• U.S. Armys next generation TES solution
• Support Force-on-Force and Force-on-Target
  testing and training operations
• Brigade level and below
• Homestation, maneuver Combat Training Centers,
  and deployed sites
• Will use geometric pairing

11
Orientation Sensing Equipment

• Geometric pairing takes into account
• Location of the shooter
• Location of the target
• Time of trigger pull
• Characteristics of the weapon and its ammunition
• Orientation vector of the weapon
• Atmospheric conditions
• Terrain data

12
Equipment, cont

• OneTESS ORD states
• The system determines the miss distance or the
  relationship of where the projectile passed
  through a vertical plane relative to the optimum
  aim point at the target for each type of
  ammunition simulated.

13
Equipment, cont

• Technology for orientation sensing is the
  Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU)
• OneTESS Demonstration of Technology and System
  Team conducted trade study on industry IMUs
• Thus far, no product has been shown to provide
  navigation-grade accuracy while still fitting
  within the specified size

14
Equipment, cont
15
Mathematical Analysis

• Modeling Sensor Accuracy
• Model sensors error distributions and weapon
  dispersion

16
Mathematical Analysis

• Modeling Sensor Accuracy
• Model sensors error distributions and weapon
  dispersion
• Use those models in a computational tool to
  determine the performance of a sensor with
  respect to a specific weapon

17
Mathematical Analysis, cont

• Shot resolution concerned with four parameters
• Azimuth of shot
• Elevation of shot
• Height of the target
• Width of the target
• Assuming that the weapon is aimed perfectly at
  the target in a direct fire engagement, these
  parameters are used with the error distributions
  to derive shot vectors

18
Mathematical Analysis, cont

• System performance is determined by comparing the
  variation in performance of the sensor versus
  that of the weapon it models
• Probability of correct outcome is computed by
• Evaluating every possible error combination
• Applying it to the appropriate engagement model
• Determining if the correct outcome occurred
• The resulting value is the probability of correct
  outcome for the sensor-based or physical weapon
  with the given error distributions

19
Mathematical Analysis, cont

• Results
• Takes into account an amalgamated version of the
  previously presented IMUs
• Error distributions are discretized into 80 bins
• Calculated for both direct fire and indirect fire

20
Mathematical Analysis, cont

• Results for direct fire
• The probability of correct outcome is abbreviated
  as Pco
• Average rifle
• Accuracy of about 3 inches at 100 yards

21
Mathematical Analysis, cont

• Results for direct fire

22
Mathematical Analysis, cont

• Results for indirect fire
• Crew served weapon
• Accuracy of about 25 meters at 2000 meters
• Same procedure was used

23
Mathematical Analysis, cont

• Results for indirect fire

24
Summary and Conclusion

• As with all measuring hardware, limitations in
  accuracy exist in the IMUs
• Created a fictional weapon orientation sensor
  based upon a collection of actual sensors
• This study revealed two additional factors that
  impact the effectiveness of the IMUs
• Range of engagement
• Type of engagement

25
Summary and Conclusion, cont

• Brute force-type method could be used to
  address accuracy issues
• Better solution might be to use different IMUs on
  different weapon platforms
• Crew-served weapons could likely use more
  accurate IMU that weighs more, as an example
• More study will be necessary to optimize
  performance with constraining requirements

26
(No Transcript)
27
Contact Information

• Bradley C. Schricker
• ATT Government Solutions, Inc.
• 11301 Corporate Blvd.
• Suite 110
• Orlando, FL 32817
• [phone]
• bschricker_at_att.com

28
Contact Information, cont

• Louis Ford
• Icon Systems, Inc.
• 3505 Lake Lynda Dr.
• Suite 119
• Orlando, FL 32817
• [phone]
• lford_at_iconsystems.net

29
Contact Information, cont

• Matthew Janisz
• Applied Research Associates, Inc.
• 3452 Lake Lynda Dr.
• Suite 250
• Orlando, FL 32817
• [phone]
• mjanisz_at_ara.com