FCS Changing the Face of Live Training

FCS Changing the Face of Live Training Deborah A. Ratliff US Army, PEO STRI Orlando, FL Debbie.Ratliff@us.army.mil Oxana S. Fedak Boeing Philadelphia, PA Oxana.S.Fedak@boeing.com Abstract. The Future Combat Systems (FCS) program is revolutionizing the way the United States Army conducts live training. The need for an Embedded Tactical Engagement Simulation System (E-TESS) has been expressed over the past decade; however it was not capable of being fully realized on the System of Systems scale until the introduction of FCS. This paper will focus on the innovative approaches to E-TESS requirements development, capability design and collaboration with a multitude of stakeholders: Army programs, the training and operational user communities, and platform developers. The paper will address lessons learned and provide best practices recommendations based on the authors experiences collaborating across multiple program participants. The FCS program is pioneering the effort to evolve the E-TESS vision by designing in the training capabilities on the platforms upfront, vice engineering an appended training system on the back end. The suite of FCS platforms is size, weight, and power constrained, limiting the ability to embed training-unique components. This is driving the E-TESS developers to capitalize on the concept of dual use hardware for both operations and training. By utilizing the FCS Brigade Combat Team (BCT) operational assets, such as the tactical network, radios, sensors and processors, the Soldier can be ready for a live training exercise within minutes of arrival at a homestation, combat training center or a deployed location. The E-TESS capabilities will consist of current and future tactical engagement simulation technologies, which will enable the FCS BCT to train against both current force Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement Simulation (MILES) -equipped vehicles and the future One Tactical Engagement Simulation System (OneTESS) -enabled platforms. FCS will be the first warfighting system to provide the Army an embedded live training capability that supports individual, crew, collective, unit, and leader training anywhere, anytime. 1. OVERVIEW OF FCS EMBEDDED TRAINING The Army is in the midst of an ongoing process of transformation with a broad mandate to change across many domains. Future Combat Systems (Brigade Combat Team) (FCS (BCT)) is a key materiel solution for the future force. FCS (BCT) is the Army s modernization program consisting of a family of manned and unmanned systems, connected by a common network that enables the modular force providing our Soldiers and leaders with leading edge technologies and capabilities allowing them to dominate in complex environments. It will operate as a System of Systems (SoS) that will network existing systems, systems already under development, and systems to be developed to meet the requirements of the Army s Future Force. The FCS network facilitates the Soldier s ability to train anywhere, anytime. Technology has matured to a level that supports these requirements. Unlike historical programs, Embedded Training (ET) will be developed as an integral part of the FCS manned platform and command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) architectures. ET must be designed-in at the start of the program to ensure it is developed in conjunction with the other FCS System of Systems (SoS) components. To do otherwise would lead to needless duplication of software development, potential negative training as a result of inevitable baseline divergence (as training tries to keep pace with operational software functionality) and additional space, weight and power (SWAP) claims for training. To fulfill the operational and organizational concepts, the SoS must be capable of supporting operations, mission rehearsal and training of separate audiences (Soldiers, units, leader/staff teams) simultaneously. (FCS Fact Files, 2007) ET is defined as the user s requirement for Future Combat Systems (FCS) training in the institution, at the Combat Training Centers (CTCs), at homestation, while deployed, and for self development. All FCS platforms, manned and unmanned, will have embedded training capability. Unmanned platforms will be able to train the operator and maintainer through the use of technology hosted on the manned FCS platform or through the basic kit which comes with the FCS unmanned platform. All FCS variants have the embedded capability to train the operation, maintenance, and employment of the FCS. FCS embedded training is a requirement that is technically feasible, but represents an integration challenge. Over the past three decades, the Army has developed systems including platforms, information management, weapons, communications, command and control (C2), and Soldier systems to address a specific threat and support the then-relevant warfighting doctrine. Today, the Army trains as

branches, but then task organizes and fights as multiple systems. As the Army's systems have evolved, horizontal integration between functional entities has become more difficult. This has proven to be a time-consuming approach to training and resulted in a very difficult transition to warfighting. As demonstrated in Figure 1, the FCS SoS must have a networked, embedded, virtual, Full Task Training resource allocation, subcontract implementation and coordination, and programmatic responsibilities: the Lead Systems Integrator (LSI). The LSI is not a prime contractor, but rather a true partner with the Government in delivering the FCS SoS. The LSI operates at the direction of the Government and is a trusted member of the FCS Team (Figure 2). Figure 2. The FCS One Team Figure 1. Embedded Training Concept (FTT) capability to support individual, crew, and multi-echelon training without reconfiguration of the equipment. The FCS SoS embedded training systems must provide a capability to simulate faults and errors in degraded modes of operation. The FCS SoS ET systems must simulate, replicate, or access tactical, target, threat and other operational data received and processed by the system. The FCS ET system must provide interfaces that allow it to interoperate within the FCS SoS, with Training Aids Devices, Simulators, and Simulations (TADSS), and with the current synthetic training environment that includes live, virtual, and constructive simulators/simulations (e.g. range instrumentation, Close Combat Tactical Trainer (CCTT), Warfighter Simulation (WARSIM), and One Semi-Automated Forces (OneSAF)). 2. STAKEHOLDERS The FCS program is the Army s first large scale system of systems development which will be integrated across many platforms and disciplines, and therefore requires a dedicated organization to be successful. Since the FCS program is a system of systems and not a collection of platforms, any trades being identified will span across multiple platforms and not be limited to a single system. As such, the FCS program requires a General Contractor for The Training Integrated Product Team (IPT) is coled by PEO STRI and the LSI and is composed of members from each platform development team, Complementary Systems, and the User Community. The Training customers include the Army Training Support Center (ATSC), the Future Force Integration Directorate (FFID), and ultimately, the Soldier. All stakeholders are involved throughout the entire phase of the development cycle, providing concurrence on all decisions, analyses, and capability demonstrations. Through this close relationship with the User community, the materiel developers not only get exposure to the current practices in live training, but also receive instantaneous feedback on FCS-specific requirements and design strategies. 3. SHORTCOMINGS OF CURRENT LIVE TRAINING SOLUTIONS Commanders today cannot use on-board battle command systems to train the troops to fight while they are still at their headquarters or homestation. The commander must either use artificial response cells in a static simulation center or must plan for months and spend a large amount of money to establish interfaces between the battle command systems and simulations. Without an embedded battle command training and mission rehearsal capability, commanders cannot realistically train their staff, prepare for the mission, or wargame courses of action. Today s Army lacks an approach that will develop Soldiers through educational decision-making tools and experiential learning that prepares them for operational experiences. The ability of units to train collectively today is significantly limited by the

availability of resources to execute training (e.g. time, terrain, enablers, and infrastructure). Today s training environment requires the physical presence of all units of the combined arms team. A deployable instrumentation package does not exist to support unit training at homestation or while deployed. A standard training feedback system does not exist to perform exercise control, After Action Review (AAR) preparation, AAR delivery, and take home package preparation functions from platoon through brigade/combat team levels. Current tactical engagement simulation capabilities do not replicate the full range of weapons effects (e.g. Non Line of Sight (NLOS) mounted/dismounted platforms) or realistically replicate air-to-air, air-to-ground, and ground-to-air systems. They are cumbersome and require a substantial amount of time to install, calibrate and test. Additionally, current engagement simulation systems have inherent limitations that impact realism (e.g. inability to shoot through obscurants). Today s instrumentation packages do not meet FCS s objective to train anytime, anywhere. 4. E-TESS REQUIREMENTS Embedded TESS (E-TESS) capability provides the means to replicate the Operational Environment (OE). This capability must be able to interface with the Combat Training Centers (CTC)/Joint National Training Capability (JNTC), and homestation/deployed range and instrumentation systems. This capability allows training integration with current forces across all training environments. This ability to have engagement data collection facilitates the development of AARs, which enhances individual and collective experiential learning and sustaining higher levels of task proficiency. Embedded TESS reduces the time required for live tactical engagement training. The customer-defined requirements documents and performance parameters are the foundation of the E- TESS requirements structure (Figure 3). E-TESS Trade Study E-TESS risk mitigation plan and critical technologies One Team Partners SOW Customer-defined requirements Figure 3. E-TESS Requirements Structure Requirements at this level flow into each of the One Team Partner (OTP) Statements of Work (SOWs). Technological integration challenges are managed in a risk plan and E-TESS technology readiness levels (TRL). Development and maturation of geometric pairing and pointing accuracy capabilities are tracked via the critical technology mitigation plan. The implementation strategies for the solution are guided by the program TESS Trade Studies, both at the SoS and individual platform levels. There are five core capabilities that the E-TESS design must fulfill: (1) Fully embedded solution that is readily available for use The requirement to have a readily available and immediately accessible (i.e. embedded) Tactical Engagement Simulation System stems from the Army s priority: tough, realistic, and challenging training against an established standard, in peace and in war. To accomplish this, Army training doctrine advocates that training plans, preparation, and execution will be developed with a "train as you fight" mentality. (2) Interoperable with current and future Army TESS With the Army transition from current TESS (Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System (MILES)) to future TESS (One Tactical Engagement Simulation System (OneTESS)), FCS platforms need to have the ability to train against a mixed opposing force (OPFOR). The critical requirement is that FCS E-TESS be interoperable with current and future systems, so that the platform can engage and be engaged by MILES- and OneTESS- equipped entities. Battlefield effects are essential to a live exercise, therefore target and shooter platforms will account for hit/kill audio and visual feedback, as well as appropriate weapons signatures.

(3) Interoperable with CTC-OIS Interoperability between FCS and the Combat Training Center-Objective Instrumentation System (CTC-OIS) is presently being defined by the FCS Training and C4ISR Integrated Product Teams (IPTs). Figure 4 outlines the required data exchange at a Combat Training Center (CTC)-based live training event. Figure 4. E-TESS Data Exchange at a CTC The following interoperability challenges have been identified:! Ability to allow the exercise Observer/Controller (OC) to listen to the tactical network, to include monitoring of video, digital and voice data received by the OC s counterpart, i.e. individual being observed! Ability to allow the OC to store tactical data for an After Action Review (AAR) at the platoon level and below! Ability to transmit FCS company, brigade and battalion level tactical data to the Instrumentation System to be stored for the AAR (4) Support the CTIA architecture The Common Training Instrumentation Architecture (CTIA) is a component-based, client-server architecture, which allows for plug and play components to interact through the CTIA infrastructure. E-TESS must be compliant with CTIA in order to ensure message interoperability. (5) Implementable in Joint exercises Since FCS will participate in Joint training activities, it must adhere to the proper security protocols, and thus incorporate appropriate communication and Information Assurance (IA) guards. 5. CAPABILITY DESIGN During the early phase of E-TESS requirements decomposition, participants discovered that it would be difficult to meet the embedded requirement without affecting vehicle SWAP. A team of FCS LSI, U.S. Army/Government, and OTP Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) conducted a trade study to identify, evaluate, and recommend an E-TESS design strategy for FCS to enable individual and collective training in a Live training environment. Three technical alternatives and three levels of embeddedness were evaluated using a comprehensive analytical process model. One alternative, the Appended Training Hardware TESS solution, employing the current MILES capabilities coupled with appended components from the OneTESS program, provided a hybrid appended solution that would employ Laser Pairing and Geometric Pairing. This solution was the least desirable due to initial development and total life cycle costs, and the negative impacts on training realism and effectiveness. The second alternative, the Embedded Hybrid Training Unique Hardware solution, involved a geometric pairing capability and a MILES laser transmission from an embedded dedicated training laser, in addition to the operational laser system, and other training-unique hardware and software that needed to be designed into the platform. This training-unique installation implies that the components are designed as part of the operational platform, and therefore are not dismounted during non-training activities. The major disadvantage of this option was that the space and weight claims of the embedded training-unique hardware had to be accounted for in the platform design, thus further burdening SWAP. The third alternative, an Embedded Hybrid Dual Use Operational Hardware TESS, was the recommended solution based on the trade study criteria scores. Using this approach, all training functionality is accomplished through the stimulation of operational platform hardware by training software that becomes an integral part of the platform s configuration and remains on the platform at all times. The advantage of hardware reuse is that it eliminates transportation, installation, calibration and logistics cost burdens typical of an appended TESS. It also eliminates cumbersome appended hardware and cable components, and requires minimal space or weight claims to the platform design. The Trade Study focused on the Manned Ground Vehicles (MGVs) and did not address the unique design configuration of the unmanned systems. Unlike MGVs, many unmanned systems have limited dual-use opportunities and will require training unique hardware to be embedded on the platform for use in Live Training, which is the second preferred design alternative to the full dual-use hardware

approach. Upon completion of the trade study, the E-TESS stakeholders began defining and documenting the architecture for the solution that would be common across the SoS. The E-TESS solution will include components that will enable the shooter to engage targets and the target to be engaged by shooters. A target platform will have detectors and decoders, a Real Time Casualty Assessment (RTCA) / Battle Damage Assessment (BDA) processor, a radio, a Global Positioning System (GPS) and a kill indicator. A shooter will have detectors and decoders, a laser transmitter (for every onboard weapon), a RTCA/BDA processor, a radio, GPS, a kill indicator and a weapons effects visual/audible simulator. Larger FCS platforms, with extensive sensor suites, will be used for the detector/decoder functionality. For example, the MGV will dual-use the Active Protection System (APS) sensors which are components of the Hit Avoidance System (HAS). Sensors will be augmented to detect MILES laser pulses. Operational laser transmitters will include a training laser, which will transmit MILES encoded energy. The vehicles Integrated Computer System (ICS) will encompass the RTCA and BDA computing. Larger systems will utilize the onboard processor, thus performing adjudication locally while smaller systems will host the adjudication capability offboard on either the controlling devices or the MGVs. A tactical network, onboard Ground Mobile Radio (GMR) and tactical data and voice waveforms, are planned for transmittal of training data. Information from the onboard GPS will be used in shot pairing calculations. Many platforms are researching innovative methods to achieve the traditional queues, such as using onboard marker lights, headlights and landing lights for kill indicator and/or battlefield effects. FCS platforms will use a common RTCA software module, which will be reused from the OneTESS program, thus minimizing the interoperability risk within the family of systems. Because the OneTESS software supports both the lower fidelity MILES mode as well as a higher fidelity OneTESS mode, FCS will be able to successfully train against a mixed current and future OPFOR. 6. CHALLENGES FACING E-TESS 6.1 Bandwidth and Latency The concept of network and radio dual-use poses a significant challenge. Engagement latency is a critical component of Live Training, requiring real time engagement feedback. Sharing bandwidth with the tactical traffic increases the chance of added latency. Ongoing network load analysis shows that Live training throughput exceeds operational estimates particularly in the area of the OC monitoring functionality. Simulation results show that peak effective bandwidth for continuous data flow at the division, brigade and battalion levels can range from 2.5 and 4 Mbps (DeMara, R. F., Leon- Barth, C., Marshall, H., 2006). Training communication needs will drive network improvement initiatives to include tailoring network management plans, channel allocation for training use and routing optimization analysis. Limited spectrum at the CTCs and Homestations may drive additions or changes to the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) or Warfighter Information Network- Tactical (WIN-T) waveforms, allowing access to higher frequency bands not used for tactical voice, data, image and video transmittal. 6.2 Complex Network Topology Changes to the network topology that may help minimize the number of node hops from shooter to target must also be considered. A hierarchical subnetwork structure of the FCS network (Figure 5) Figure 5. Example of the Logical Network Topology does not provide for optimized routing, particularly in close range engagements where latency cannot be tolerated. This potentially diminishes the platform s ability to use geometric pairing for direct fire engagements and poses the risk of reverting to MILES laser methodology. One of the optimized routing protocols being implemented by the OneTESS program is called tiered geocast, which transmits messages between network tiers using decision rules for bridging packets between transport tiers; while each tier operates at a characteristic range. Using this concept, a packet is transmitted between nodes until it reaches a long range capable node, which can then send it to a node close to the geocast region (Auzins, J., Hall, R. J., 2006). Although at a first glance this multicast method is not easily implemented within the FCS Internet Protocol (IP)- based network and the subnetwork structure, the program needs to review potential applicability of the methodology and architecture.

6.3 Additional Hardware for Training Use Several smaller, unmanned systems will not be able to only utilize dual-use hardware due to the limited operational functionality available on the platforms. In order to participate in Live Training exercises, these systems will embed training unique components including MILES-compatible detectors, decoders and kill indicators. Keeping in mind the overall vehicle weight, training unique hardware cannot account for a significant percentage of the overall component weight. In the case of small systems such as the Unmanned Air System (UAS) Class I, training component weight cannot exceed several ounces. Primary and secondary weapons effects are challenging to embed due to many safety issues inherent to pyrotechnics. Non-pyrotechnic approaches are often viewed as degradation to training realism; however, they must be evaluated as alternatives for FCS platforms given the embedded requirements. REFERENCES 1. Auzins, J., Hall, R. J. (2006). A Tiered Geocast Protocol for Long Range Mobile Ad Hoc Networking. [Electronic Version] Military Communications Conference. Retrieved April 23, 2007, from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresult.jsp?isnumbe r=4043248&isyear=2006&count=578&page=15& ResultStart=375 2. DeMara, R. F., Leon-Barth, C., Marshall, H. (2006). Communication Modeling of Training and Simulation Traffic in a Tactical Internet. MSIAC S M&S Journal Online. Volume 1. 3. FCS Fact Files web site, Retrieved 2007 from http://www.army.mil/fcs/whitepaper/fcswhitepap er07.pdf 7. SUMMARY FCS Live Training capabilities will be first demonstrated during the FCS Limited User Test (LUT) in 2013. Capability development is progressing as the program approaches design milestones, however, much of the modeling and integration analysis remains to be completed in the years leading to the demonstration. Because of the technological and network improvements over time, we will continue to evaluate training network usage and search for ways to optimize throughput and decrease latency associated with training engagement traffic. E-TESS component requirements are forcing FCS materiel developers to think outside the box in terms of TESS components, opening the door for innovative solutions such as integrated dual-use kill indication and laser detection hardware. One of the key lessons learned from the E-TESS trade studies and analyses is that not all systems can capitalize on the dual-use hardware, therefore design trade-offs must be made in order to bring state- of-the-art live training capabilities to the warfighter. Working closely with the LSI, Army User community, OTPs and Complementary programs, FCS is exploiting the industry s best practices to deliver the first fully embedded TESS capability: a true success story in the Training and Simulation community. 8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors wish to thank the FCS Training IPT (LSI, PEO STRI and OneTeam Partners) and C4ISR IPT for their continued support. The authors also wish to acknowledge ATSC, FFID and Operational Test Command (OTC) for their contributions to E- TESS.