1 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

JOINT UNMANNED AIR VEHICLE (JUAV) JOINT TEST AND EVALUATION (JT&E) VIRTUAL REHEARSALS

John Auborn* and Grant Rickard†

Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) Weapons Division China Lake, California

Cindy Snow‡

SENTEL Corporation Fallon, Nevada

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. * Electronics Engineer. † Computer Scientist.

‡ Senior Analyst.

ABSTRACT In mid November 2002, the Integrated Battlespace Arena (IBAR) at the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) Weapons Division, China Lake, California, was the site of a virtual rehearsal for the Joint Unmanned Air Vehicle (JUAV) Joint Test and Evaluation (JT&E) Program, based at the Naval Air Station, Fallon, Nevada. The rehearsal, the third under the direction of CAPT Dave “Roy” Rogers, Test Director, was conducted in preparation for a live field event scheduled for March 2003 at the National Training Center (NTC), Fort Irwin. Simulated entities included manned virtual aircraft, a virtual unmanned air vehicle (UAV), a brigade-level tactical operations center (TOC), a joint air operations center, a forward observer (FO) position for artillery, and a forward air controller position for close air support (CAS). The program test team practiced test data collection methods and coordination procedures, examined audio and video recording equipment, and became familiar with the geography of the anticipated operational areas. In addition, the virtual rehearsal provided a perfect opportunity for warfighter feedback. The United Kingdom's Royal Navy, Royal Air Force, and Royal Army, as well as the U.S. Air Force, Army, Navy, and Marine Corps all participated. Members of the Canadian Defense Forces and the Joint Close Air Support JT&E program observed the exercise.

NOMENCLATURE ADRG Arc Digitized Raster Graphics BWF battle watch function BWO battle watch officer

C2 command and control C4I command control communications

computers and intelligence CAS close air support CIB controlled image base COTS commercial-off-the-shelf CSS control station surrogate DLNIF Data Link Network Integration Facility DIA Defense Intelligence Agency DIS distributed interactive simulation DNet defense network DOD Department of Defense DOF degree of freedom DTED digital terrain elevation data FS fire support FO forward observer GCS ground control station HLA high-level architecture HPCDC High Performance Computing

Distributed Center IBAR Integrated Battlespace Arena IR infrared JSF Joint Strike Fighter JTC/SIL Joint Technology Center/Systems

Integration Lab JT&E Joint Test and Evaluation JTF Joint Test Force JTTP joint tactics, techniques, and procedures JUAV Joint Unmanned Aerial Vehicle M&S modeling and simulation MUSE Multiple Unified Simulation

Environment NAVAIR Naval Air Systems Command NIMA National Imagery and Mapping Agency

2nd AIAA "Unmanned Unlimited" Systems, Technologies, and Operations — Aerospac15 - 18 September 2003, San Diego, California

AIAA 2003-6586

This material is declared a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States.

2 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

NTC National Training Center PEC Precision Engagement Center ROE rules of engagement SDREN secret defense research and

engineering network TAI target area of interest TOC tactical operations center TTPs tactics, techniques and procedures UAV unmanned air vehicle VISLAB Visual Presentation Laboratory VPF Virtual Prototype Facility VR-3 Virtual Rehearsal #3 WDP weapon delivery platform

JOINT UNMANNED AIR VEHICLE (JUAV) OVERVIEW

The primary objectives of the JUAV Joint Test and Evaluation (JT&E) Program are to examine alternative command and control (C2) architectures and to develop joint tactics, techniques, and procedures (JTTPs) to more effectively integrate unmanned air vehicles (UAVs) into joint time-sensitive operations. As a basis for the evaluation, the Joint Test Force (JTF) will use three C2 architectures, which were developed in coordination with the warfighters on the Joint Warfighter Advisory Group and which will serve as the test articles. No JTTPs exist to incorporate UAVs into joint force operations. As such, there are no baselines for the test and the architectures will collectively serve as a substitute. Each will be considered equally and be tested to determine its utility and vulnerabilities. In addition, none will be considered a priori as an improvement over another. After each test, the architectures may be refined as JTTPs are developed and enhanced. All three alternative C2 architectures contain four basic elements:

• A central or joint C2 node, such as a joint air operations center.

• A forward tactical C2 node, such as an E-2, an E-3, or a forward air controller.

• A ground control station (GCS) for the UAV.

• One or more weapon delivery platforms (WDPs) or rescue platforms.

The major differences in the architectures are the location of the decision-making authority in relation to engagements on a tactical level. As such, to simplify discussion, the following two terms apply.

• The battle watch functions (BWFs) are those associated with the decision-making and target engagement authority. These include

asset management, engagement prioritization, airspace management, target area airspace integration, and engagement decisions. The functions of airspace integration and engagement decisions occur at three different locations within the alternative C2 architectures for the pertinent evaluation.

• The battle watch officer (BWO) is the senior officer or commander on station who has the authority to engage a target and who performs the BWFs. The BWO must possess highly developed skills and experience; must have completed extensive training; must understand the commander’s intent and the rules of engagement (ROE); and must have the requisite situational awareness to comprehend the entire common operating picture. The skills and training of each BWO will be identified to determine how they affect the performance and execution of the BWFs. The BWO training is a service responsibility that the JUAV JT&E will not address; however, the JTF will note any particular skills or training that may better prepare the BWO to perform the BWFs.

Brief descriptions of the three alternative C2 architectures follow; Reference 1 provides more detailed information. 1. Alternative C2 Architecture A (Figure 1) is structured with the BWFs at the joint C2 node. Video from the UAV is transmitted to that node, where all processing and analysis occurs. Engagement decisions from the joint C2 node are then sent to the tactical C2 node, which controls the WDP.

Alternative C2 Architecture A

C2 Links

UAV Sensor Data

UAV Flight Control

Engagement DecisionsAirspace IntegrationAirspace Management

Asset ManagementEngagement Priorities

UAV Product Distribution

GCS

EngagementExecution

WDPUAV

Target Area

Target

Joint C2BWF

Tactical C2Note: Each Service physically controls their respective UAV.

FIGURE 1. Alternative C2 Architecture A.

3 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

2. Alternative C2 Architecture B (Figure 2) is structured with the BWFs at the tactical C2 node, which controls the WDP. This node may receive intelligence and guidance from the joint C2 node and will inform that node of BWO decisions. The BWO does not necessarily have engagement authority over the entire battlespace but does oversee a limited area.

Alternative C2 Architecture B

Airspace ManagementAsset Management

Engagement Priorities

Engagement Decisions Airspace Integration

WDPUAV

Target Area

Joint C2

Tactical C2BWF

Note: Each Service physically controls their respective UAV.

C2 Links

UAV Sensor Data

UAV Flight Control

GCS

FIGURE 2. Alternative C2 Architecture B. 3. Alternative C2 Architecture C (Figure 3) is structured with the UAV control and BWF co-located at the GCS. This configuration provides tightly coupled C2 of both the UAV and the WDP. The joint C2 node is informed of BWO decisions and retains ultimate authority. As in Architecture B, the BWO does not necessarily have engagement authority over the entire battlespace.

Alternative C2 Architecture C

Airspace/Asset MgmtEngagement Priorities

UAV Product Dissemination

Engagement DecisionsAirspace Integration

Tightly coupled, closed loop between UAV GCS and WDP.

UAV

Joint C2

GCS/BWF

Note: Each Service physically controls their respective UAV.

C2 Links

UAV Sensor Data

UAV Flight Control

Target Area

WDP

FIGURE 3. Alternative C2 Architecture C. The JTF will tailor and test the three alternative C2 architectures to address nuances that result from

various mission needs, UAV payloads, weapon systems and delivery methodologies, communication systems and platforms, control relationships, and command structures. In the field tests, the architectures will undergo realistic operational conditions and the data required to develop JTTP revisions will be generated. The tests will be conducted under a scenario approved by the Department of Defense (DOD), with threat data authorized by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). Also included are options for various levels of blue (friendly) force response and DOD-approved ROE, as well as objectives for both blue and threat forces.

INTEGRATED BATTLESPACE ARENA (IBAR)

The IBAR is a collection of several laboratories and facilities linked to create many combinations of virtual and live elements that duplicate nearly every aspect of naval warfare. Its elements are interconnected through various high-bandwidth computer networks and radio frequency links with ranges and facilities throughout the U.S., as well as worldwide—a versatility that facilitates unique combinations of Fleet-representative elements and distributed simulation capabilities. The IBAR’s ability to support subcomponent- to theater-level research, development, test, and evaluation provides unparalleled flexibility and functionality. The IBAR, a high-fidelity distributed simulation centered in the Virtual Prototype Facility (VPF), provides a general-purpose virtual reality environment for human–machine interaction. The IBAR is an active participant in the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) Defense Network (DNet) and utilizes the nationwide Secret Defense Research and Engineering Network (SDREN). Of special interest to the JUAV JT&E are the following:

• The command infrastructure capabilities supporting the UAV, sensor payload, and GCS simulations.

• The VPF reconfigurable cockpit. The UAV simulation is a platform-generic, distributed simulation incorporating the Multiple Unified Simulation Environment (MUSE) (see Figure 4) to emulate a wide variety of payload configurations. The reconfigurable aircraft cockpit can represent a variety of current and future strike aircraft, such as the F-15E, AV-8B, Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), and the F-18C/D and F-18E/F models. The IBAR provides a unique opportunity to evaluate UAV and strike aircraft TTPs and the C2 architectures that support them.

4 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

FIGURE 4. MUSE UAV Simulation Work Area Staffed by U.S. Army UAV Crew With Observer From Royal Artillery. The elements of the IBAR are linked and are connected with ranges and facilities throughout the U.S. and worldwide through various media (fiber optic, Secret Internet Protocol Router Network, ethernet, microwave, telecommunication). The IBAR, which is one of nine laboratories in the NAVAIR DNet that uses SDREN, is compliant with both high-level architecture (HLA) and distributed interactive simulation (DIS). Table I provides the pertinent capabilities that support the JUAV. Depending on the nature of the simulation requirements, a single IBAR laboratory/system, a combination, or a national integrated network of simulation capabilities is available. Figure 5, which illustrates the laboratory floor plan of the IBAR, indicates the location of the simulation systems/facilities of specific interest for the JUAV. Virtual Prototype Facility (VPF) For the JUAV JT&E, the VPF provides man-in-the-loop simulation of fixed-wing strike aircraft, such as the F-15E, FA-18, and AV-8B, and the launching of air-to-surface weapons. The VPF is an all-digital, readily configurable cockpit environment in which naval strike warfare technology is tested and evaluated.2 Developed to help weapon designers address critical system interactions, the VPF treats the weapon system as a system of systems: surveillance, off-board

communications, mission planning, advanced weapons guidance, and bomb damage assessment. At the heart of the VPF is a stand-alone cockpit that can be reconfigured in minutes to emulate a variety of military aircraft, including the F/A-18, AV-8B, and F-15. The out-the-window display is created by draping high-resolution satellite images over a three-dimensional grid of the terrain derived from Level I and II digital terrain elevation data (DTED). Both air- and surface-launched weapons can be simulated. A highly flexib le facility, the VPF offers one-on-one and one-on-many aircraft engagements for manned and unmanned aircraft. The VPF bridges the gap between conceptual studies and hardware-in-the-loop simulations and can be networked with a growing number of similar facilities around the country. Precision Engagement Center (PEC) Two specialized laboratories make up the PEC, the Imagery Exploitation and Support Laboratory and the Strike Planning and Rapid Targeting Laboratory. The former, as its name implies, provides imagery and intelligence expertise and products to the NAVAIR Weapons Division China Lake community and its customers. The laboratory provides the following:

• Intelligence collection management services.

• Controlled image archives.

• Mapping.

• Charting.

• Geodesy data.

• Expert image exploitation and manipulation. The Strike Planning and Rapid Targeting Laboratory represents a Navy command control communications computers and intelligence (C4I) mission planning and targeting facility and replicates many support systems within the Aircraft Carrier Intelligence Center. During JUAV JT&E virtual rehearsals at the IBAR, the PEC will simulate a joint C2/targeting node, or a tactical C2 node. The Imagery Exploitation Laboratory will provide target imagery and simulate targeting functions of a joint C2 targeting node. Visual Presentation Laboratory (VISLAB) The VISLAB’s scene generation and injection capabilities will provide area and target scenes for the MUSE and the VPF.

5 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

TABLE I. IBAR Capabilit ies Supporting JUAV.

Systems/Laboratories Within IBAR Functions

VPF F-18, F-15, and AV-8B attack aircraft Digital reconfigurable cockpit environment

VPF2 F-18, F-15, and AV-8B attack aircraft Forward observer (FO) Attack Helo (near future) Digital reconfigurable cockpit environment

UAV simulation (MUSE) GCS and aerial vehicle

Precision Engagement Center (PEC) Targeting, C2

Data Link Network Integration Facility (DLNIF) Link 16 and voice data link communications between nodes. Tactical C2 (tactical operations center [TOC])

Visual Presentation Laboratory (VISLAB) Three-dimensional target models, scene generation Terrain databases and imagery

High Performance Computing Distributed Center (HPCDC) and networking

Computing support

FIGURE 5. Floor Plan of IBAR, Highlighting Areas for JUAV Use.

6 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Data Link Network Integration Facility (DLNIF) The DLNIF affords a variety of actual and simulated data links. This laboratory also provides simulated and actual Link-16 and Link-11 connectivity and traffic. The DLNIF will support JUAV JT&E virtual rehearsals by providing Link-16 communications paths between the joint and tactical C2 nodes. In addition, IBAR personnel have developed a local capability to incorporate GCS position reports for the UAV on the Link-16 tactical display in the PEC. High Performance Computing Distributed Center (HPCDC) and Networking Additional computational horsepower for the IBAR is supplied by the on-site HPCDC. This facility contains more than $4 million in state-of-the-art computing resources, including two Silicon Graphics Reality Monster Bases (a total of 32 processors) and an Amherst Systems digital output processor and the associated software. The HPCDC, which supports graphic-intensive real-time and multi-processing computing, is linked to the DOD high performance computing community. The IBAR offers national connectivity via the Defense Research and Engineering Network (DREN) and SDREN. In addition, NAVAIR-wide networking links the IBAR to nine NAVAIR laboratories and facilities. Unmanned Air Vehicle (UAV) Simulation/Multiple Unified Simulation Environment (MUSE) The IBAR incorporates an adapted MUSE as its local UAV simulation, including the laser designator enhancement for the Predator UAV simulation. The GCS operators’ workstation controls the UAV with the proper data link. The UAV simulation provides a human–controller interface plus a 6-degree-of-freedom (DOF) simulation of several UAVs and simulated infrared surveillance targeting. The JTF will employ the MUSE to simulate UAV flight and sensor performance, as well as GCS functionality, in addition to related C2 communications paths. The IBAR is one of several MUSE users for UAV simulation. For example, the MUSE simulation system is the primary UAV training method utilized within DOD for command- and staff-level personnel. The Joint Technology Center/Systems Integration Laboratory (JTC/SIL) at the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, developed the MUSE and manages it as part of the Air Force Synthetic Environment for Reconnaissance

and Surveillance.3 JTC/SIL’s objective is to provide a cost-effective test bed for UAV technology assessment, insertion, demonstration, and transfer. The MUSE includes a generic UAV GCS, an air vehicle and data link simulation, and a visualization system to generate payload and sensor scenes of ground search. The MUSE air vehicle and visualization system can be tied directly into tactical UAV ground stations when military units want to train with pertinent organic equipment. Standard National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) products, such as DTED and controlled image base (CIB), provide the visualization system database. The UAV ground station simulation can communicate with a variety of joint C4I systems. The elements of the MUSE system are usually tailored for specific organizations and the applicable operational environment, as is the case within the IBAR. For example, IBAR personnel modified their MUSE workstation to support the use of a laser designator for the Predator model. Some users employ the MUSE in a fixed laboratory; others utilize a mobile configuration to support field exercises. The JTF will employ the MUSE as an integrated component system in the IBAR laboratory. The MUSE is prima rily a command- and staff-level trainer for UAVs. Originally developed in early 1994 as a demonstration Hunter UAV simulation suite, the MUSE has evolved into a broad-based simulation suite that has been upgraded to include new UAV models, tactical communications, synthetic aperture radar payload, and mission planning. The MUSE, which has supported a variety of users in diverse military exercises and demonstrations, generally uses DIS Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standard 1278-1.a-1998 for distributed simulations, but can also utilize the Aggregate Level Simulation Protocol for interoperability with dissimilar service and joint constructive simulations. The MUSE is DIS and HLA compliant and can receive entity data from other DIS simulations, such as the IBAR’s VPF. The MUSE can act as a stand-alone UAV simulation or, for more complicated scenarios, can be integrated into a complex simulation laboratory, such as the IBAR or the Advanced Prototype and Experimentation facility. The JUAV JT&E will use the MUSE as one of the component systems within the IBAR, as shown in Figure 6. The MUSE consists of three primary components:

• Payload visualization system.

• Control station surrogate (CSS).

• MUSE driver.

7 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

FIGURE 6. MUSE Architecture. The payload visualization system generates pertinent synthetic scene video and imagery of the three-dimensional battlefield with simulated target entities. The MUSE visualization system is a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) product that generates an electro-optical/infrared (IR) payload scene with overlays for the platform being flown. Presentation of the UAV ground search is accomplished via COTS visualization products and a terrain database either developed with high-resolution imagery or made synthetically. Limitations exist in the IBAR’s MUSE video IR presentation. For example, while the MUSE can create the effect of IR by allowing the operator to select a “white hot” or “black hot” display, the change occurs only on the video presentation. No simulation or modeling of the actual IR sensor collection or characterization appears in the scene presentation. In other words, only the “look” of an IR scene is presented. The UAV CSS simulates an applicable tactical or generic platform in which air vehicle and mission payload operators perform pertinent control functions. Graphical user interfaces provide the capability to conduct mission planning and to generate tactical messages and imagery products for dissemination to tactical C4I systems. The mapping segment enables the operator to display standard NIMA products, such as arc digitized raster graphics (ADRG), compressed ADRG, Digital Chart of the World, DTED, and CIB, and provides a MIL-STD-2525 symbology overlay capability. The MUSE driver, which simulates the data links and autopilot flight dynamics, receives flight control, mission planning, and payload pointing commands via telemetry data from a tactical or simulated GCS. This device also flies the UAV in autopilot mode and

relays sensor-pointing information to the payload visualization system, as well as simulating tactical interfaces to facilitate communication with tactical UAV GCS. This mechanism also provides a 6-DOF air vehicle flight model with an autopilot. By modifying the air vehicle data configuration files, personnel can change the flight models for different air vehicles, including Hunter, Pioneer, and Predator. Typical entries in the data configuration files are minimum/maximum air speeds, climb and turn rates, and field-of-view pointing information for the sensor or platform of interest.

VIRTUAL REHEARSALS The JUAV JT&E conducts virtual rehearsals before scheduled live field tests and exercises to practice data collection procedures, familiarize the test team with the operational area, examine data recording equipment, and obtain feedback from warfighter participants who play various roles in the simulation sessions. The virtual rehearsals provide a forum within which the JUAV JT&E team members can speak directly with the warfighters regarding specific mission areas. The ultimate objective is to optimize the time and resources needed to conduct live events.

VIRTUAL REHEARSAL #3 (VR-3) In November 2002, the JUAV JT&E conducted a modeling and simulation (M&S) exercise that entailed utilizing a UAV in observed indirect fires. This week-long event, designated VR -3 on the JUAV JT&E program schedule, was conducted at the IBAR. VR-3 was the first opportunity for the JUAV JT&E program to virtually rehearse artillery fire support (FS) missions integrated with a UAV. The operational area for the simulation was the National Training Center (NTC), Fort Irwin, California. The terrain and the battle scenarios were based on an actual force-on-force prior-training rotation at the NTC. For VR-3, the JUAV was part of the opposing force. In addition to the artillery fire missions, the event included CAS and air interdiction missions. VR-3 incorporated simulation missions and tactical situations similar to those that JUAV JT&E could implement for future live events at venues such as Fort Hood or NTC at Fort Irwin. Exercise Configuration Two elements are essential to accomplishing the JUAV JT&E virtual rehearsals —securing the M&S architecture to support the missions and incorporating the warfighters’ expertise into the role playing. Prior to VR-3, announcements of the event were sent to various U.S. and United Kingdom military organizations.

8 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

As a result, members from the Royal Air Force, Royal Navy, and Royal Army and from all four branches of the U.S. military services participated. Therefore, the VR-3 warfighters represented a very diverse cross section of different services. Moreover, the military and civilian staff members of the JUAV JT&E, IBAR engineering staff, and observer–participants from the Joint Close Air Support JT&E afforded a wide range of experience. The M&S architecture (see Figure 7) for VR-3 included elements from earlier virtual rehearsals, as well as artillery fire missions. The resultant scenario, of course, required adequate simulation of the fire mission from the call for fire to the actual engagement of the target. IBAR’s history is that of a research and development laboratory for air-delivered ordnance. The technical staff of IBAR applied their considerable expertise in simulated weapons delivery, terrain databases, and simulated sensors to create an effective ground observer’s position (which became known by its exercise call sign Groundhog) and an artillery simulator capable of demonstrating the adjust-fire process, as well as the fire for effect. Additions and enhancements to IBAR for the field artillery fire mission included the following: 1. Modeling of a field artillery battery as the weapon platform. For VR-3, the model was based on Russian-style 152-mm field artillery as part of the NTC opposing force. Grant Rickard and other members of IBAR Engineering then worked on building an artillery simulation program that mathematically calculated the data for fire mission processing, time of flight, and all the targeting and trajectory errors to determine when and where each round impacted. By the end of VR-3, the fire power simulated was approximately that of two 152-mm eight-gun batteries. 2. Communication networks for support of a ground observer position and a brigade-level TOC. 3. Simulation of a forward/ground observer’s observation post position and its functions. The IBAR Engineering staff generated the ground observer’s position (Groundhog) (see Figure 8) by adapting the large screen display originally designed for a simulated out-the-window view from a fighter-attack aircraft cockpit to support a ground level view. UAV video display feeds were set up so that the FO had them available for some missions and not for others.

FIGURE 7. Exercise Configuration.

FIGURE 8. Simulated Ground Observer’s Position (Groundhog). Note: The warfighters’ feedback led to refinements in the look and feel of this simulation. Each artillery simulation utilization (each fire mission in the exercise) provided additional warfighter feedback; so, the tool was continuously refined throughout VR -3. In fact, by the final session, the simulator could support simultaneous fire missions against multiple targets. One of the variables for each session’s reconfiguration was the availability of UAV video to the FO (see Table II).

9 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

TABLE II. UAV Video Availability.

Session Label

Mission Video Provided to Ground Observer,

yes/no

4 FS/artillery No

14 FS/artillery No

16 FS/artillery Yes

20 FS/artillery Yes

22 FS/artillery Yes

23 FS/artillery and CAS Yes

While significantly fewer warfighters were involved in this exercise than in actual field operations and even though field artillery was limited to a maximum of two batteries, the experience and resourcefulness of the warfighters and the functions available from the M&S proved more than adequate for the VR-3 objectives. Five dedicated FS engagements were simulated, and the exercise culminated in a dynamic scenario incorporating both CAS and FS (see Figure 9).

FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS Warfighters, IBAR staff, and JT&E personnel were all involved in the debriefing of the simulation events. In addition, audio and video recordings of the exercise sessions fostered a wide range of discussions and observations. Some of the findings follow. 1. Using the UAV for intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance to locate and identify a target and to adjust fire appropriately could require a shift in techniques, tactics, and procedures. Field of View In the first fire missions, the UAV payload was zoomed in while trying to locate and identify a target. However, when the adjust fire operation starts, a zoomed-out perspective, or broader field of view, might be a more effective alternative. To maximize the UAV’s capabilities during the adjust fire stage, coordination was necessary to advise the UAV crew of when the fire mission started. As such, the UAV could miss the first shots of the adjust fire phase if the field of view were too restricted. Fortunately, the warfighter participants quickly compensated for this situation. As such, having the UAV zoom out before the adjust fire operation began became routine, almost automatic.

Video Mode The optical display’s IR mode could be more effective during the adjust fire process because factors such as terrain topography, the caliber of pertinent artillery, and weather influence its effectiveness. Yet, this mode became the one of choice as the warfighters became more experienced in incorporating the UAV in the fire missions. Unmanned Air Vehicle (UAV) Positioning Is there an optimal vantage point for the UAV during the adjust fire phase? If so, where is it? Is it 180 degrees opposite or directly overhead the FO’s perspective? On flat, open terrain, this aspect is probably irrelevant, and certainly the UAV’s elevation immediately enhances the vantage point. Nonetheless, the position of the UAV during the adjust fire stage, much like that for a UAV used for bomb hit assessment for air strikes, is a factor that warrants consideration. Most of the shots during VR-3 were on flat, open terrain where the FO had clear fields of view. However, during one session, the target was a multiple -launch rocket system parked atop a hill with sloping terrain on all sides—the “really tough shot,” as one of the officers in the TOC described it. In this scenario, the position of the UAV could have made a significant difference during the adjust fire stage because the terrain interfered with the observer’s ability to spot the initial impact of the first shot. When engaging targets on uneven terrain, the UAV’s angle to the object relative to the FO’s line of sight might be factor. Accurate situational awareness within the TOC could be critical. For example, will the TOC always possess the appropriate amount of awareness to correctly determine the correct angle? Would the TOC be able to see the UAV’s sensor point of interest to make the appropriate decision? Would, at a minimum, a single situational awareness display of the target, FO position, and UAV position be available? 2. Keeping the UAV crew in the loop maximizes their effectiveness. For example, at first, the UAV was not always advised by the TOC of when the fire mission had started. However, this situation was quickly rectified. In fact, the coordination between the UAV and TOC became almost automatic by the end of exercise. Then, as soon as the UAV crew became aware that the fire mission had begun, they adjusted the field of view by zooming out, switching to IR, etc. 3. The simulation sessions showed that an experienced FO could effectively utilize the UAV to achieve

10 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

successful results and that the UAV significantly improved the FS outcome.

• In a partially obstructed field of view, the FO used the UAV to make a positive identification. For example, the FO was able to confirm what the target was or, in the case of vehicles and equipment, to determine the number, type, and dispersion. In addition, the FO could ascertain if the object was friend or foe.

• For target maneuvers outside the field of view, the FO utilized UAV video of the target to continue tracking. As such, the fire mission could proceed by the FO announcing to the fire direction center that he/she was making an adjustment via the gun target line targeting and that the gun line would be utilized instead of his/her actual position. One significant comment that arose as a direct result was that “the tactics, techniques, and procedures used to successfully exploit the target in this scenario during VR-3 need to be explored for integration of UAVs with other ‘eyes’ on the battlefield.”

• Based on the UAV’s detection capabilities, the FO received an advanced indication that the pertinent objects might be moving into

the targeted area of interest (TAI). As a result, the FO was able to look in the correct direction, as well as accurately determine the target’s identity. So, no time was lost in the identification process; the FO merely had to confirm the object had moved into the TAI.

SUMMARY

The JUAV JTF was chartered to “employ multi-service and other DOD agency support, personnel, and equipment to investigate, evaluate, and make recommendations to improve the operational effectiveness” of UAVs. The M&S architecture within the IBAR provides a highly favorable environment to effectively exercise and demonstrate potential roles and operational issues related to incorporating UAVs in fire missions. However, an exercise like VR-3 touches on only a few of the factors that must be considered when developing TTPs for UAV operations. Real world operations, such as combat in Afghanistan and Iraq, contribute more to the improvement and development of TTPs than any exercise, live or simulated. Nonetheless, the lessons and observations gained from VR-3 will serve the JUAV team well in planning and preparing live test events that may influence the development of future TTPs for integrating UAVs into joint operations.

FIGURE 9. Illustration of Modeling and Simulation Architecture for Fire Missions and Close Air Support During VR-3.

11 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

REFERENCES 1. D. A. Rogers. Joint Unmanned Aerial Vehicle in Time

Sensitive Operations (JUAV-TSO) Joint Test and Evaluation (JT&E) Program Test Plan, Naval Air Station, Fallon, Nevada, JUAV JT&E, September 2002. (Publication UNCLASSIFIED.)

2. A. Corzine and J. Auborn. “Modeling and Simulation of Weapon Systems in the Virtual Prototype Facility;” presented at 7th Annual Joint Aerospace Weapon Systems, Support, Sensors, and Simulation Symposium (JAWS S3), San Diego, California, July 2001. (Paper UNCLASSIFIED.)

3. S McClung and J. Perillat. “Multiple Unified Simulation Environment (MUSE)/Air Force Synthetic Environment for Reconnaissance and Surveillance (AFSERS),” presented at Joint Technology Center Systems Integration Laboratory, U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM), Advanced Simulation and Technology Conference, San Diego, California, April 1999. (Paper UNCLASSIFIED.)