Higher Fidelity Operational Metrics

5m ago
29 Views
0 Downloads
1.14 MB
16 Pages
Transcription

Higher FidelityOperational MetricsLTC Tom HenthornChief, Small Arms BranchSRD, USAIC1

35 3535 ?

Small Arms CBAPriority FindingsRequirements for improving small arms analyses Adopt an effects based standard (Probability ofIncapacitation, Pi ) Develop higher fidelity, operationally relevant metricsto enable effective analysis of the performance of specificcurrent (and projected) non-materiel and materielcombinations Develop the modeling and simulation base that enablessensitivity analyses of Soldier and small unit performanceto add quantitative and qualitative value to threshold andobjective requirements3

Effects Based Standard “Stopping” or “Knockdown” Power are ambiguous and not measurable Hits on a target do not guarantee an inability to shoot back A human target is complex and requires an understanding of– Where a hit occurs– What part of the body is impacted by bullet / fragment– How much damage is produced by the bullet / fragment– Whether the damage is relevant to the target’s task performance– When effect occurs or is realized Must consider both delivery and terminal performance Probability of Incapacitation facilitates evaluating Soldier Systemperformance from bullet delivery through terminal effectSoldier Training Weapon Enablers (Optics) Ammo Effect4

Assessment / Evaluation Facilities Maneuver Battle Lab (POC: Mr. Jerry Barricks, [email protected])– US Army Infantry Center, Ft Benning, GA– Weapon and Systems capabilities assessment– Weapon Assessments with Soldiers in an operational context Gruntworks Facility (Mr. Mark Richter, [email protected])– US Marine Corps, Quantico, VA– Provide configuration management of current Marine Rifle Squadequipment– Determine optimum integration of all Marine Rifle Squad equipment– Determine best areas to modernize the Marine Rifle Squad for thefuture Asymmetric Battle Lab (POC: Mr. Joe Vega, [email protected])– Asymmetric Warfare Group, Ft Meade, MD– Rapid Asymmetric Non-Materiel and Materiel Solution Development

Individual Performance AssessmentSoldier Weapon Evaluation and Test (SWEAT)– Generate capability comparisons– Any Soldier Training Weapon Optic Ammo combo– Performance as a function of time and range– Relevant operational ng”Not“Testing”

Soldier Weapon Evaluation and Test CourseSWEATUnderstand terminal performance through barrier at range .Defines: Soft target performance Hard target performanceStatic Dynamic Frameworkevaluates target performancebased on system launchconsidering factors thatinfluence terminal effect . Simple Measurable Repeatable .and ORCA modeltranslates shot location anddamage into incapacitationof target based on ammoand weapon system used

Small Caliber Evaluation Replaced outdated assessment methodologies– Energy deposit methodology– Gelatin block “damage” evaluation– Methods do not account for spatial damage – Joint ARL SLAD/WMRD effort– End to end look at weapon/bullet performance evaluation– Includes statistical variation in systems performance “fleet”yaw– Can be applied to body armor and other types of barrierevaluation0-2-4-20224681012Width (in)Height (in)20New evaluation methodology 41416First study performing comparative P(I) analysis for M855,MK262, and M80 (among others)– Assessments including yaw effects and other considerations– Incapacitation predictions produced by ORCADepth (in) Currently being used for LFT&E of M855LFS (Green BulletProgram)8Slide courtesy of the U.S. Army Research Laboratory

Static/Dynamic FrameworkP(H) f [Warfighter-weapon interface,aerodynamics, weapon & projectiledesign]P(I) f [delivery, terminal effects, hitlocation and shot line, projectile/spall interaction withanatomical features, time]Modeling and simulation in the Static/ DynamicFramework / Operational Requirement-basedCasualty Assessment (ORCA) model used togenerate:Weighted Task Average Impairment (WTAI)Probability of Incapacitation P(I)Empirically Driven System Effectiveness ModelsSlide courtesy of the U.S. Army Research Laboratory9

Soldier Weapon Evaluation and Test CourseSWEATUnderstand terminal performance through barrier at range . .develop incapacitation zones on targets thatrespond to the weapon and threat posture .Defines: Soft target performance Hard target performanceStatic Dynamic Frameworkevaluates target performancebased on system launchconsidering factors thatinfluence terminal effect . Simple Measurable Repeatable .and ORCA modeltranslates shot location anddamage into incapacitationof target based on ammoand weapon system used

Target ResponseOverview: Require targets that ‘understand’ adjustable qualityof hit metrics and provide target feedback given differences intarget posture, location of hit and caliber of round Adjustable target zones (size) Quality of hit scoring Variable time responses Real-time feed-back to Soldier Multiple degrees of freedom for target response Adjustable software Wireless to 1200m (reduce digging on range) Thermal signature (O) for future use Durable to .50 cal Rapid target switch-out Moving targetsNon-incapacitatingshot: target shuddersand returns

Soldier Weapon Evaluation and Test CourseSWEATUnderstand terminal performance through barrier at range . .develop incapacitation zones on targets thatrespond to the weapon and threat posture .Defines: Soft target performance Hard target performance Simple Measurable RepeatableWeapon .and ORCA modeltranslates shot location anddamage into incapacitationof target based on ammoand weapon system usedSoldierStatic Dynamic Frameworkevaluates target performancebased on system launchconsidering factors thatinfluence terminal effect . .evaluate Soldier performancein an operationally realisticenvironment driven by systeminfluence and target ldier in the loop performance evaluatesunder operational conditionsthe weapon and ammunition influence

Course Layout: 1 of 22 Position: 1 Represents: Right handedengagements Firing position: standing Number of engagements: 5 Number of target locations: Bldg3, 5, 6 and 7 Type of engagements: 2 window,1 roofBLD2Course view,birds eyeBLD3BLD115m50m75m200m300m600m8001000mTime1.2 sec3 sec4 sec10 sec15 secP(i)05000BLD8BLD7BLD5CQB-310mBLD6RangeBLD4

SWEAT Scoring MethodologyProduces two resultsOverall Scorefor comparison of capabilityGiven a Soldier,Training, Weapon,Optic AmmocombinationIncapacitation Profilefor comparison of standards741where score is a function of quality hits time burden rounds firedRangeCQB50m200m600m1000mTime1 sec2 sec4 sec7 sec10 secRawScore12/1510/156/152/120/10P(i)806740170

Comparison of System PerformanceSoldier Training Weapon Optic Ammo LRCQB2sec50m3sec200m5sec600m8sec1000m10secRelevant comparisons of capability based on Effect produced15

ClosingExcellent. More Fact. Less Opinion.- SGM Pete Gould Develop and maintain tools for improved capability evaluation SWEAT (Individual) SWEAT (Sniper) SWEAT (Support by Fire) Share and leverage evaluation capability across Joint Services andIndustry Develop understanding of Soldier System Effect .what is required?16