Future Combat System FCS Training Integrated Product Team Urban Requirements

1
Future Combat System (FCS) Training Integrated
Product Team Urban Requirements

• James R. Schaefer , Robert M. Cox, Clark D. (Dan)
  Stevens, Edward L. Sears
• James.R.Schaefer_at_saic.com
• 407-243-3633
• Robert.M.Cox_at_saic.com
• 407-243-3609

2
Overview

• Background on problem
• Requirements Study
• Methodology of the Study
• Results of Study
• Summary
• Next Steps

3
Background on Problem

• FCS GBE WG defined geospatial as
  Mission-relevant, earth-referenced data
  pertaining to air, land, sea, and space--
  including urban environment
• Urban environment least understood in MS for
  Training and Enhanced Mission Planning and
  Rehearsal (TEMPR)
• MS systems have urban requirements but usually
  no pedigree of the requirements

4
Requirements Study

• RDECOM (Mr. Todd Kohler) under SVDR contract
  funded first Urban Requirements Analysis (URA)
• Goal was to develop URA that included
  requirements not captured in existing MS urban
  requirements
• Example US troops in Iraq using broken glass as
  early warning device
• Example US troops in Iraq using sledgehammers to
  break down doors
• Full report available from RDECOM (Mr. Julio De
  La Cruz)
• FCS Training IPT decided to greatly expand the
  URA study and use to add urban requirements to
  their Environmental Representation (ER)
  requirements

5
Methodology of Study

• URA set up MS Access database of urban
  requirements each with a documented sourcei.e.
  pedigree
• Searched though any unclassified sources of
  information
• Army and Joint Field Manuals
• Emphasis on TRADOC but also intelligence, C4ISR,
  etc.
• Official and unofficial after-action reports
• Newspaper reports and interviews
• Decision to include URA requirements that some
  users may not include
• We used liberal interpretation of ER vs. non-ER
• Some in URA may be too general to be a
  requirement

6
Methodology of Study
7
Methodology of Study

• Expanded URA using new information
• Reviewed previous documents for any revisions
• Reviewed new information from war
• Gathered new requirements from various FCS
  documents
• Took some of the too general requirements and
  decomposed them into more specific requirements

8
Methodology of Study

• Compared results to FCS Training IPT
  Environmental Representation (ER) requirements
• FCS Training IPT ER requirements did not contain
  urban specific requirements
• Compared results to OneSAF Objective System
  (OOS) Environmental Data Models (EDMs) with
  emphasis on Ultra-High Resolution Buildings
  (UHRB)
• We used EDMs as a quasi-requirements list as per
  Dobey and Eirich (SIW paper 04S-SIW-114)

9
Results of Study

• As expected the FCS Training IPT ER requirements
  were lacking any significant urban requirements
• Results of comparison of URA to OOS EDMs with
  emphasis on UHRB
• Found requirements in expanded URA but not in
  UHRB and found requirements in UHRB not in URA
• Determined reasons for mismatches but final
  results await FCS adjudication
• Vast majority of mismatches had valid reasons

10
Results of Study

• Many URA requirements too general compared to
  UHRB
• Example Door breaching implies numerous
  requirements we are just now deriving such as
  door strength, hinge placement/strength, etc.
• Some UHRB requirements are valid for simulation,
  but not mentioned in training manuals
• Example Curb height not explicit in any manuals,
  but obviously necessary for simulation

11
Results of Study

• Since URA used liberal rules, some URA
  requirements need to be adjudicated to determine
  if valid requirements
• URA rules of engagement were that ER included all
  elements not brought to battlefield by combatants
• Example Weapons and camouflage brought by
  soldiers is not ER, but curtains, wire screens,
  furniture, and sand used to create sniper
  position are considered ER
• URA included many ER effects requirements
• Revisited the comparison of UHRB to the new
  expanded URA
• Most of the UHRB features were mapped and given
  pedigree
• Did not have time to go below feature level

12
Summary

• We now have a documented, but not validated, set
  of urban requirements
• Some came from the original URA study
• Some came from expanding the URA to include new
  information and FCS documents
• Some came from mapping to UHRB
• All requirements now have pedigree to some
  document

13
Next Steps

• Need to take expanded URA to next level of detail
• Expand to beyond feature level
• Need to determine fidelity requirementswill the
  modeled door react correctly to the simulated
  shotgun blast?
• Need to adjudicate the few remaining differences
  between the three
• Adjudication will be done by FCS Geospatial
  Battlespace Environment Working Group
• Final result will be validated urban requirements
  that will be added to the FCS ER requirements