The use of scenarios to develop Concepts of Operation for unmanned vehicles

19 ISMOR

30th August

Michael Tulip

Structure

The challenge in analysing Unmanned Vehicles

Example 1 - Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUVs)

Example 2 - Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAVs)

Conclusions

Why are unmanned vehicles a challenge to analyse?

Equipment at an embryonic stage of development– Concepts of operation undeveloped– A wide variety of potential roles and capabilities

Issues with levels of autonomy

Possible problems with Rules of Engagement

UUVs as a contribution to capability

Maritime Underwater Fighting Capability (MUFC)

– UK MoD designation of capability

– Mix of platforms/systems

Customer - BAE SYSTEMS– UUVs a major component

CONOPS and Military Worth

System Mix Scenario

Wargame

Physics

Vignettes

Search algorithms

Expert opinion

Vignette analysis

Military Worth

Level of scenario detail

TF1TF2

TF1Sub

Sub

UUV

UUV

Country X

Country Y

Manual Wargame

Structured technique– non-probabilistic– adjudication of results by

referee

Output– CONOPS– vignettes e.g. “Interaction

of UUV with Submarine in sea area x”

– qualitative description of military worth

CONOPS

Deployment and recovery– UUVs deployed quickly – Apparent flexibility

Operations versus enemy submarines– Patrol near enemy ports and choke points– Track and trail– Communication of detection to C2 net

The use of a variable payload– Deployable sensors– Expendable mini-UUVs– UAVs?

Vignette analysis

Sub

Coast

Barrier

Detection radius of UUV versus

Sub

Barrier search

Vignette analysis

Sub

Coast

Barrier

Detection radius of

UUV versus Sub

Barrier search

Sub

Area search

Host

Area to be clearedSafe area

UUV

Detection Range

Mine clearanceUUV patrol

Host

Vignette analysis / wargame iteration

Wargame

Vignettes

Vignette analysis

Military worth of system mix

The value of UAV to AH effectiveness

Customer - UK MoD

The study scope was restricted– Only interested in the

value of UAV to AH– Defined ingress and

egress routes

Scenario

Workshop

Simulation

Vignettes Concept Options

CONOPS

Military Worth

Level of scenario detail

Limited scope of study reduces scenario complexity

BASE

Low threat Med threat High threat

AH + UAVIngress route

Egress route

Workshop

Involved military personnel, technologists and analysts

CONOPS– Vignette 1: Base to Refuelling Point– Vignette 2: At Refuelling Point– ……– Vignette 6: In Area of Operations

No assessment of military worth

Example CONOPS

Vignette 5 - Rendezvous point to Area of Operations

“Move forward in steps of distance x, searching for and identifying potential ground threats”

“AH moves forward in steps of distance y, searching for potential ground threats. UAV flys distance z ahead of main force identifying potential threats”

General AH CONOPS

General AH + UAV CONOPS

AH / AH + UAV

CONOPS versus threat A

AH / AH + UAV

CONOPS versus threat B

AH / AH + UAV

CONOPS versus threat C

“If the force detects threat A before threat A detects the force, the force attempts to bypass the threat”

Node based stochastic simulation

Ingress route

Egress route

Results from simulation

Other MoEs– UAV losses– Mission time– Hellfire used in Area of Operations

AH only ConceptOption 1

ConceptOption 2

ConceptOption 3

Att

ac

k H

elic

op

ter

Lo

ss

es

Workshop– Little indication of

military worth– Analysis on a vignette

by vignette basis– Limited scenario scope– Straightforward to set

up

Wargame– Helps establish military

worth– Analysis over whole

scenario– Wide scenario scope– Significant time and effort

to set up

Comparison of methods

Simulation– Single technique– Analysis over whole

scenario– Evaluates military worth

of concepts

Analytical techniques – Variety of techniques– Analysis on a vignette

by vignette basis– Evaluates military worth

for comparison with Wargame

Conclusions

The scope and constraints of the study define the complexity of the scenarios

Appropriate methods are chosen to address the differences in complexity

General method of analysis for unmanned vehicles– ‘softer’ techniques AND ‘harder’ techniques– Analysis of key parts AND Analysis of whole scenario