USMA Department of Systems Engineering
1

Tactical Command and Control
Data Requirements Team
Cadet Michael Chun
Operations Research
Michael.Chun@usma.edu
Cadet Christopher Grevious
Engineering Management
Christopher.Grevious@usma.edu
Cadet Guillermo Guandique
Systems Engineering
Guillermo.Guandique@usma.edu
Cadet Eugene Page
Engineering Management
Eugene.Page@usma.edu
LTC Rob Kewley
Advisor
Robert.Kewley@usma.edu
Left to right: Mike Chun, Guillermo
Guandique, Chris Grevious, Gene Page
USMA Department of Systems Engineering
2

• Problem Overview
• Clients
• Stakeholder Analysis
• Data Layers
• Simulation
• Findings
• Conclusions
• Recommendations
• Future Work
USMA Department of Systems Engineering
3

• 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
4
USMA Department of Systems Engineering

• 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 Engineering
5

• 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.
6
USMA Department of Systems Engineering

• 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 Engineering
7

Image Taken From http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/fcs.htm
USMA Department of Systems Engineering
8

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 Engineering
10

• 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
11
USMA Department of Systems Engineering

Command and Control
Terrain Analysis
System to Plan and
Execute Missions
Provide Terrain
Data
(2)
Provide Current
Situation Analysis
(2)
Analyze Feature
Data
(3)
Assess Soil
Conditions/
Trafficability
(3)
Asses Elevation /
LOS
(3)
Assess Light/
Weather
(1)
Assess Enemy
Situation
(4)
Assess Friendly
Situation
(3)
Analyze Area
Traffic
(2)
Conduct Mission
Analysis
(1)
USMA Department of Systems Engineering
Provide Terrain
Imagery
(6)
Viewing Manmade Map
(2)
Viewing 3D
Imagery
(1)
Viewing Satellite
Imagery
(6)
Viewing
Topographical
Imagery
(1)
12

• 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
13
USMA Department of Systems Engineering

• 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 Engineering
14

Low
4 Meter Image Roads
DTED2
Levels of Terrain Layers
Medium High
Key Features (Cultural, Landmarks)
Railroads
Bridges
Vertical Obstruction Points
Information Page
Runways Ground Photos
Water Features (Lines and Polygons) Buildings of Interest
Forested Areas
Open Urban Areas
Residential Built-up Terrain Zones
Commercial Built-up Terrain Zones
Institutional Built-up Terrain Zones
.6 Meter Image (Quickbird view)
DTED 2 Elevation
1:50K Military Overview Map
4 Meter Image
Roads
Railroads
Bridges
Runways
Water Features (Lines and Polygons)
Forested Areas
Open Urban Areas
Residential Built-up Terrain Zones
Commercial Built-up Terrain Zones
Institutional Built-up Terrain Zones
4 Meter Image
DTED 2 Elevation
1:50K Military Overview Map
.6 Meter Image
LIDAR (Laser Imaging Detection and Ranging)
Slide Taken from Terrain Generation Team
15
USMA Department of Systems Engineering

• 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 Engineering
16

Layers
DTED 1
DTED 2
DTED 3
DTED 4
DTED 5
Operational
Pre-deployment
Pre-deployment
Pre-deployment
Airspace Superiority
Airspace with ground support
Collection Equipment
Satellite
SRTM 1 and 2 (Satellite)
Satellite
Stereo ICONUS (space)
Gator/LIDAR
Analyst Hours
0hrs
0hrs
8hrs
16hrs
24hrs
Storage
5 MB
54 MB
583 MB
6,927 MB
Data Description
100m
30m
10m
3m
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 Engineering
17

• 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 Engineering
18

USMA Department of Systems Engineering
19

1 st 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 Engineering
20

USMA Department of Systems Engineering
21

USMA Department of Systems Engineering
22

USMA Department of Systems Engineering
23

USMA Department of Systems Engineering
24

USMA Department of Systems Engineering
25

USMA Department of Systems Engineering
26

USMA Department of Systems Engineering
27

USMA Department of Systems Engineering
28

USMA Department of Systems Engineering
29

• 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 Engineering
30

• 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 Engineering
31

– 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 Engineering
32

– 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 Engineering
33

Layer 1
Terrain Data Layer vs. Mission Planning Effectiveness
100
90
80
70
60
Mission Planning
Effectiveness
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
Exercise Level of Detail
2
3
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
1
Exercise level of Detail
Elevation Data
4M Imagery
USMA Department of Systems Engineering
34

D et ai l Level 2
D et ai l Level 3
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
1
T r af f i c abi l i t y
St r uc t ur e Dat a
. 6m i mager y
E l ev at i on
V eget at i on
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
USMA Department of Systems Engineering
T r af f i c abi l i t y
St r uc t ur e Dat a
V eget at i on
. 6m i mager y
Gr ound P hot ogr aphy
E l ev at i on
LI DA R
35

• 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 Engineering
36

• Elevation DataUse 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
37
USMA Department of Systems Engineering

• 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
38
USMA Department of Systems Engineering

USMA Department of Systems Engineering
39