ABEL ISMOR Presentation Slide 1 Examining Soldier Performance Throughout A 48 Hour Battlefield Mission Development of the ABEL Model in Support of the Future Infantry Soldier Technology (FIST) Programme Martin Caunt, Rick Atkinson and Peter Page HVR Consulting Services Limited

ABEL ISMOR Presentation Slide 2 Acknowledgement The authors would like to thank Dismounted Close Combat (DCC) Integrated Project Team (IPT), Thales FIST Prime Contract Management Office (PCMO) and Dstl Land Systems Department for giving permission to present this paper Whilst authors are employees of HVR Consulting Services Limited, the model described in the following presentation was developed on behalf of Thales FIST PCMO for the DCC IPT in the FIST Assessment Phase HVR Consulting Services Ltd led development of the model with expertise and assistance provided by Dstl Land Systems Department, other members of the Thales PCMO and the DCC IPT

ABEL ISMOR Presentation Slide 3 Presentation Agenda Background Solution Detailed Design Summary

ABEL ISMOR Presentation Slide 4 FIST Programme FIST in the Assessment Phase (AP) of CADMID cycle Delivered by a partnership between Thales PCMO, DPA (DCC IPT), HQ Infantry, DEC(GM) and Dstl Programme of requirements definition followed by trials, modelling, judgement panels, ILS assessment, cost and risk analysis and, more recently, detailed design and integration Looked at variety of system options over past 2 years coming up to selection of a preferred FIST system Final trials of preferred system compared to baseline in Oct/Nov 2005 Main Gate approval planned for late 2006 Start of demonstration and manufacture phase planned for 2007 Planned FIST IOC – introduction into service - by 2010

ABEL ISMOR Presentation Slide 5 FIST Requirement Provide light role (non mechanised) infantry with a totally integrated fighting system for dismounted close combat Areas for improvement on DCC infantry baseline capability identified at Initial Gate were: C4I – communications, situational awareness (both enemy and own forces), planning and orders Lethality – weapons, sighting systems, target acquisition, hand-off of targets (with C4I) Mobility – weight, navigation Survivability – protection, stealth Sustainability – logistics, power sources Integration of all of above Immature analysis of the following at Initial Gate: Situational awareness, planning, human factors, (e.g. morale, fatigue, leadership), movement over distance, communications, logistics and navigation

ABEL ISMOR Presentation Slide 6 Model Background Prior to Assessment Phase (AP) contract award, the Thales team identified need for additional modelling tools Recognised that many of the major benefits of FIST are likely to accrue outside the combat battle Benefits of non combat performance on combat performance could be significant and not captured in the current model tool set None of the primary assessment tools available throughout AP examine capability in both combat and non-combat Areas for improvement on baseline capability included aspects that the combat model (CAEn) are unable to fully model Need to encapsulate both combat and non-combat phases and cover all improvement areas within a single assessment tool Provide an assessment of potential FIST solutions against four Measures Of Effectiveness (MOE) over a full 48 hour BFM: Readiness for Next Mission, Time Taken to Complete Mission, Amount of Consumables Used and BLUE Casualties Led to the concept of the Battlefield Mission (BFM) Model - now referred to as the Aggregate Battlefield Effectiveness Level model (ABEL)

ABEL ISMOR Presentation Slide 7 Modelling Solution Combination of Soft and Hard OA techniques Military SMEs employed within a Judgement Panel framework Utilised / adapted output from CAEn detailed combat modelling Three-phase approach implemented Experience from early phases informing subsequent phases Provided a risk reduction mechanism Level of integration between Soft and Hard Modelling increased with each Phase

ABEL ISMOR Presentation Slide 8 Modelling Solution Overview Judgemental assessment Qualitative benefits of options Non combat activities in 48 hr scenario only Examine soft factors Option ranking Detailed combat modelling Combat activities in 48 hr scenario No conditioning of soldier Blue casualties / Ammo expenditure calculated for options Combines hard and soft OA techniques Assesses all activities in scenario Conditioning of soldier represented in data Interpolation algorithms based on judgement Quantitative values calculated for all 4 MOEs Qualitative benefits of option Encapsulated within a spreadsheet model Phase 1 Phase 2 ABEL v1 TSW MCDA CAEn Data

ABEL ISMOR Presentation Slide 9 Detailed Design - Scenario HQ Infantry DCC BFM scenario used as basis for the option assessment Scenario covered the following: Mission context Overall Battalion plan Company Orders process including broad timings for events throughout mission Relief In Place, Defensive Battle, Deliberate and Hasty Rural Attacks, Recce (Urban and Rural) and Urban vignettes in a temperate environment Decomposed into sets of activities around combat vignettes Allowed examination in ‘bite-sized’ chunks of DCC activity These were referred to as ‘Scoring Zones’ Scoring Zones determined through examination of activity type, activity concurrency and location of combat vignettes Scoring Points at the end of each Scoring Zone determined starting ‘state’ for the company in subsequent Scoring Zones

ABEL ISMOR Presentation Slide 10 Detailed Design - MCDA The assessment of the Company’s ability to undertake the next set of activities (i.e. Readiness for the Next Mission) made against a hierarchy of factors Factors define a level of capability through a set of grading definitions Current condition of Company compared to definitions Overall Company readiness calculated from these factor scores using ideas from Mission Orientated Analysis (MOA) This level of readiness: Was considered in the next set of non-combat activities Informed the outcome of any subsequent combat vignettes Company Readiness value used to: Track Company’s ability to undertake subsequent activities Predict the outcome of subsequent combat vignettes

ABEL ISMOR Presentation Slide 11 Detailed Design – Readiness Hierarchy

ABEL ISMOR Presentation Slide 12 Detailed Design – Combat Modelling Combat activities assessed using CAEn output for each FIST option CAEn runs completed for two states prior to Judgement Panel “Unconditioned” state – full strength, full complement, full capability “Conditioned” state – full strength, full complement but degraded performance Conditioned state performance degradation on CAEn inputs determined by set of workshops: Human Factors, Technology and military SME representatives from Thales PCMO, Dstl and QinetiQ determined degradation amount Discussion based upon agreed minimum score of the low level Readiness sub-factor definitions CAEn output to ABEL provided in terms of: Amount of ammunition expended Number of BLUE casualties Time taken to complete combat

ABEL ISMOR Presentation Slide 13 Detailed Design – Non-Combat Modelling Military Judgement Panel (MJP) examined option performance in non combat activities Determined how soft factors and system capabilities affect MOEs throughout the Battlefield Mission Scenario used as basis for leading MJP through a discussion of the capability of each option A Company’s assets were assessed with the separate concurrent activities of Company elements being tracked Concentrated on an examination of Sections Identified strengths and weaknesses of each option and ability of each system to complete these activities to a broad schedule Level of conditioning of the Company captured, i.e. the Sections ability to undertake the next set of activities Combat activities described but CAEn modelling used to determine the impact of the combat on the Company readiness

ABEL ISMOR Presentation Slide 14 Detailed Design - ABEL Spreadsheet CAEn data for the unconditioned and conditioned states and MJP assessments were combined together in a spreadsheet model Spreadsheet determined option performance in terms of the four MOEs: Individual scores for the Readiness factors are captured for the part of Company involved in an activity Overall Company Readiness level for Sections and Company were calculated from these scores Individual scores and resultant Readiness level for each of the Company elements were tracked over time Outcome of combat vignettes was determined by interpolating the CAEn results for unconditioned and conditioned states Numbers of casualties, time lost / gained against scenario schedule and ammunition consumption are captured and tracked for each Company element over time

ABEL ISMOR Presentation Slide 15 Detailed Design - CAEn Data Interpolation Conditioned and Unconditioned CAEn data generates a relationship between Readiness Level and CAEn output (e.g. Blue Casualties) Trend line generated to determine CAEn output for different Readiness Levels Interpolated points Data points from CAEn runs Readiness Level BLUE Casualties

ABEL ISMOR Presentation Slide 16 Bringing It All Together

ABEL ISMOR Presentation Slide 17 Summary Clear need identified Complex problem Combined soft and hard OA Used available modelling assets Model successfully applied Significant potential

ABEL ISMOR Presentation Slide 18 Questions? HVR Consulting Services Ltd Selborne House Mill Lane Alton Hants GU34 2QJ Tel.: Fax.: Web: