IS THE MODELING AND SIMULATION COMMUNITY READY FOR INDIVIDUAL COMBATANTS (IC)??

Brian R. McEnany

Science Applications International Corporation
McLean, Virginia, 22102
brian_mcenany@cpqm.saic.com

ABSTRACT

The modeling and simulation community faces an increasingly difficult task in representing individual combatant (IC) in joint and combined arms models and simulations and in the virtual environment. Questions relating to user needs and community capabilities are raised in this paper based on a task based process recently applied to identify user needs for individual combatants in virtual environments.

A PROBLEM FACING THE COMMUNITY

While current DIS training simulations provide the opportunity for dismounted leaders to exercise their skills (e.g., Close Combat Tactical Trainer (CCTT) Dismounted Infantry (DI) module), individual soldiers have limited opportunity to train or conduct developmental evaluations in an immersive environment The U.S. Army Infantry Center and School (USAICS) at Ft. Benning, Georgia, has repeatedly stated the requirement for the individual soldier to a be a player in the synthetic battlefield. Not only is there a need for individual soldier training in a combined arms battlefield, but there is also a need for modeling and simulation (M&S) of the individual soldier in virtual test beds to support cost-effective decisions regarding concept development, technology evaluation, materiel evaluation, doctrine, tactics, combat techniques, and force structure. The Land Warrior Test Bed (LWTB) and the Dismounted Battlespace Battle Lab (DBBL) have provided the basic test bed for representing the individual combatant (IC) in a virtual environment to date. However, the infantry user community is hampered by the fact that no virtual IC simulation technologies are available at a sufficient level of maturity to analyze current or proposed IC materiel needs.

THE REAL WORLD OF THE DISMOUNTED INFANTRY

Let's take a look at a hypothetical scenario located in one of several countries U.S. soldiers are currently deployed to. The time frame is the not-to-distant future.

A squad leader is located near a small village consisting of several single story buildings. Open doors gape in the gathering twilight - a typical village seen in many countries around the world. His squad is ordered to approach and enter the first building in the village. His Integrated Helmet Assembly System (IHAS), a helmet-mounted display device, has just provided him with the order from his platoon leader. He checks the digital map stored in his Land Warrior software, pulls his armored vest tighter and speaks softly into his helmet microphone, passing instructions to his two fire team leaders - the latest intelligence on what to expect in the village - graphics of the planned assault by the platoon into the village -- where his squad will be in relation to other moving elements -- and its objective. Using his AIM-1 laser pointer, he makes sure that every soldier in his squad knows the right location of the entry point. He sweeps the area with his thermal sight to see if any IC or vehicle signatures are present and switches to the video camera attached to his Modular Weapon System (MWS) to transmit black and white pictures of the objective area to his platoon leader. He and his squad go to radio silence as they each know where the others are at all times by checking their head-mounted display devices. He moves his fire teams into position quickly using hand and arm signals. Two bursts of static in his ear piece or a signal flare and the assault is on!

The other squads in the platoon provide supporting fire as his squad moves to their first objective. He sprints across a small open area and goes prone near the first building. He quickly aims his MWS at the entry point selected for his squad to enter the building. As the supporting automatic weapons fire builds to a crescendo, his red dot laser aiming system moves to a window, locating targets to receive accurate and deadly fire. The final assault is made by a buddy team of two soldiers. They run quickly to the entry point selected, place explosives in position and quickly move back to covered positions nearby. A few seconds later, an explosion opens a hole in the wall of the building and the assault element pours in. Grenade and automatic weapons fire are heard. The remainder of the squad quickly follow, and within a few minutes the building is cleared. The squad leader toggles his mike and notifies the platoon leader that his objective is secure. He quickly checks the location of the squad on his IHAS, determines the status of his soldiers, any ammunition shortages, casualties, and sends a quick SITREP to the platoon leader over his squad radio. He positions his squad to support the next assault and peers into the darkening twilight ....!

ASSESSMENT

Sound implausible? Not on your life! A simple enough scenario -- a squad attack and clearance of a building. It followed Battle Drill 6A to the letter, but was conducted with the use of advanced equipment -- equipment that is currently being tested and will be in the hands of soldiers in the next few years. The scenario is one that U.S. soldiers find themselves in all too frequently. 21st Century Land Warrior equipment will be fielded before the turn of the century, and acquisition decisions involving advanced equipment for dismounted infantry are being made today. But soldiers are now being asked to perform missions that they have not done before in parts of the world that the U.S. has not trained for or sent forces to before. The multi-polar realities of the post-Cold War world have created many new and interesting situations. The old Chinese philosopher who cursed his enemy with " May you live in interesting times" sure knew what he was saying.

How do we model the IC and its use of new equipment to acquire and locate targets, aim and provide covering fire, communicate, survive detection by threat forces, and, if wounded, be rapidly provided immediate care and evacuated to the rear in such a scenario? By itself, the combat activities outlined in the scenario are not currently represented in current M&S used to support decision- making. The bottom line is, this is "definitely not your father's Oldsmobile" type M$S problem.

OK, OK, I know the M&S community has been modeling ICs for years -- true! Analysts like John O'Keefe at Soldier System Command's Natick Labs evaluate the soldier as a system (weapons, equipment, and physiological attributes) conducting individual and small unit operations under various conditions with Integrated Unit Simulation System (IUSS). Jan Chervanek and his crew at the Dismounted Battlespace Battle Lab and the Land Warrior Testbed evaluate ICs with a virtual test bed. Similarly, analysts like Shirley Pratt and John Galloway at TRAC-White Sands, represent the ICs with a Soldier Station, a modification of the Janus simulation. The Marines at 29 Palms use the Tactical Training and Engagement System (TTES) to train individual members of fire teams in a virtual environment. Major Tom Coffman and Traci Jones at STRICOM have the mission to pull it all together under the Dismounted Warrior Network program.

Several commercial firms have produced Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT) simulations and high-resolution terrain data bases that support ICs. Various technologies are being developed to translate live IC movement and visual and aural capabilities into a virtual immersive environment. A mixture of live, virtual and constructive simulations are being brought to bear on soldier problems. The promise of the virtual environment offers much for the civilian scientist or military analyst to gather data and test new concepts under realistic conditions of environment and threat. A lot of work is being done, but as I helped build requirements for ICs, I was struck by how great a gap existed between existing simulations and what was actually needed.

Recently, I helped conduct a task-based, front end analysis for the U.S. Army's Simulation Training, and Instrumentation Command (STRICOM). The purpose of the analysis was to develop a set of user requirements for individual combatant level simulations to support training and advanced concept evaluations. We used a methodology that had been developed previously by PM-CATT and we modified it to develop functional definitions, functional fidelity for equipment, and requirements for a simulation environment to represent ICs. This hasn't been the first time a task-based approach has been tried, but it is the first time that a significant amount of detail has been generated for IC level tasks, supporting computer generated forces, and the synthetic environment.

The development of the requirements will be based upon a large amount of detailed information that was gathered for the Dismounted Warrior Network (DWN), the STRICOM program. As the requirements generation phase is drawing to an end, I was struck by the number of questions arising in my mind about how the M&S community will react to the level of detailed understanding and representation needed to place ICs in an immersive environment.

Just a few examples may illustrate why such questions will arise in the community. Let's generate a few user requirements based on the scenario I described earlier --- and then consider some questions about the modeling and simulation of specific behaviors. Then you tell me if you think the M&S community is ready for simulating the 21st Century soldier!

BEHAVIORS TO BE REPRESENTED

Battle Drill 6A, the entry and clearance of a building by an infantry squad, is a collective task laid out in ARTEP 7-11-DRILL, the basic infantry platoon and squad battle drill training plan. It contains 20 standards or sub-tasks that the squad must accomplish in sequence to successfully perform the task. Within these 20 standards are 32 performance measures that can be measured. The task is supported by 27 individual tasks for the basic infantryman 11B or 11M (skill level 10), his fire team leader (skill level 20), and his squad leader (skill level 30). In general, the individual tasks involve: the movement of the IC in a MOUT environment or as a fire team or a squad; communication; calls for indirect fire; grenades and demolition's; use of signal rockets and hand and arm signals, etc. Additionally, there are 40 common tasks that deal with NBC measures (do the scenario when chemical agents are present), aiming and firing of the basic weapons (M16A1, M4, SAW, and will include the MWS in the future) and various target acquisition devices (do the scenario at night using Thermal Weapon Sights or Image Intensification (I2) devices), move around the area using basic map reading and navigation skills. Indirect fire provided in support of the assault requires the availability of the infantry battalion's mortars or habitually associated artillery unit. Engineer elements may be required to perform the demolition tasks. The list of tasks and the number and types of units needed to support the squad executing just a single battle drill is large, but finite. It is a simple illustration of the use of task based analysis to generate tasks and units required to support ICs on the battlefield.

COMPUTER GENERATED FORCES

What are the other parts of the puzzle that must be represented? The threat is obviously present and occupying the buildings as enemy ICs. What about the villagers? What do we do about representing them? OPFOR entities needs to be present as well as a GRAYFOR to provide both hostile and no-hostile mission opportunities and evaluation environments for the IC. Computer Generated Forces (CGF) entities need to be defined to provide OPFOR and GRAYFOR capability.

WHAT ABOUT THE SYSTEMS USED?

Consider the equipment carried by the IC into the building. The 21st Century Land Warrior will carry an impressive array of weapons, integrated target acquisition and location devices, and computer and communication gear built into his load carrying capability on the battlefield. All must be represented to some extent since the integration of the information acquired and lethality provided is the crux of the Land Warrior's improvements. The fidelity of each item of equipment is an important part of the development puzzle. The developer and government must agree on key features to be represented and linked to visual, terrain, and synthetic environments. For example, the integrated target acquisition and location devices need visual signatures presented to the IC in the virtual environment. There needs to be thermal signatures for natural terrain and man-made objects as well as targets of military significance. The thermal signatures must represent future generation technology available to the IC. We can generate the visual signatures, but do we have the basic data sets for the devices being represented? Consider the use of image intensification (I2) devices under moonlight - do we have sufficient information on current and projected models to generate I2 signatures too?

WHAT ABOUT TACTICAL USE OF THE SYSTEMS?

What about line of sight between the squad leader and the building? If it is not blocked by intervening terrain, then observation and acquisition can take place. In the scenario, it was not said if he was using direct vision optics to observe the objective - his IHAS has a 3X magnification capability. His Thermal Weapon Sight mounted on the MWS provides thermal vision to the IHAS through an umbilical cable. Use of thermal devices also requires line-of-sight calculation for that device. He used his laser aiming device (AN/PAQ-4, now currently fielded) that, when properly zeroed to the weapon system, provides greater accuracy on the target. However, some terrain and vegetation can deflect or absorb laser beams. We need to include terrain objects with attributes that are sensitive to thermal, I2, aiming device red dot beams, and the density and opacity of the vegetation through which the beams must pass.

TERRAIN

ICs operate as buddy teams. They move forward in short rushes of 10 to 20 meters (1-5 seconds at a time), throw themselves down into a prone position, take up aimed fire and cover the movement of the next buddy team forward. In the process of throwing themselves down on the ground into a prone position, they search the terrain forward of their location for the next covered and concealed position behind which they know they can either bring fire on the enemy or support the movement of the rest of the squad.

What is a covered and concealed position for an IC? In current armored distributed interactive simulations (DIS), one can define a covered and concealed position as that which is related to hull or turret defilade and a search can be made to determine the next position that meets selected criteria for that particular vehicle. For the IC, cover can be obtained behind a rock, a log, or a multitude of natural and man-made objects from 12 to 18 inches in height.

Robert McIntyre and Victor Middleton of STI, Inc. recently presented a paper entitled "Behavioral Approach to Fidelity Requirements for Simulation of Dismounted Combatants". Both of these analysts have been heavily involved in the development and maintenance of the IUSS simulation used at Natick Labs. One question they raised was "how fine a terrain grid was needed to represent a valid battlefield for the dismounted combatant?" Do we have to include rocks and trees for him to hide behind? What about the height of the grass through which he must crawl? And even if we populate the forest with trees and rocks, do we know which one the IC will pick for protection?

The use of task-based analysis to determine terrain requirements begs an increase in the density of objects in the terrain data base that far exceeds that of current vehicular level simulations. There is a need for different types of trees (deciduous and coniferous) to be represented, elevation of at least one meter is now a stated Army requirement, and differing types of vegetation and underbrush that provide both aural and visual cues as threat forces pass through it as well as sufficient density and cover for each IC is required. Now re-consider the simple execution of line-of-sight calculations over our digital dirt patch, plus the density of the objects added to the terrain skin, and you will come to the conclusion that we have an order of magnitude problem greater than current vehicular- level simulations. Do we possess the capability to model cover and concealment for the IC under these conditions? If so, how and to what level of detail or fidelity is needed?

QUESTION,QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS?

As you might expect, the list of questions keeps getting longer. Some additional ones involve movement on the battlefield. Can we convert existing DIS simulation movement routines into IC level simulations? Movement in a virtual environment for ICs is not the same as vehicular movement -- ICs are not "little tanks" as one analyst put it. Can we include ICs within existing high resolution terrain data bases? How much detail do we need to add? Will the existing detection algorithms used in vehicular simulations like MODSAF and CCTT work for ICs? Do we have the data available for the new Land Warrior equipment? The number of questions raised is enough to make one's head spin and wake up at night in a cold sweat.

Are we in the M$S community ready to undertake the task of representing individual combatants with sufficient fidelity that credible training and evaluation of IC programs can be accomplished? Will the resulting representations help improve the impact of dismounted infantry on the combined arms battle field? The Land Warrior program will field its initial increments before the turn of the century. The dismounted infantryman will perceive an enormous increase in situational awareness and an ability to utilize integrated target acquisition and location devices to bring highly lethal amounts of ammunition upon targets that previously could not be seen or hit. Can we represent the integration of multiple elements of information sufficiently to provide a clear picture of how and what the IC must do to improve his performance with the new equipment? If we can't answer the questions I raised in a simple scenario, then we need to find a new line of work. I suggest that the community must provide credible and realistic representations of individual combatants and needs to do it fast!

Mr. Brian R. McEnany, AVP/Senior Scientist, Science Applications International Corporation, and Past President, Military Operations Research Society. Manager and practitioner in the application of analysis in the solution of defense problems for over 26 years. Recent experience in conversion of tactical knowledge into combat instruction sets; validation of combat behaviors; and task based requirements analysis for various programs (Close Combat Tactical Trainer SAF, Dismounted Warrior Network).