Future Network Testing
Written by Scott R. Gourley
Simulated combat exercises evaluate the integration of
future combat system networks and battle command software.
Key elements of those technology enhancements involve the critical FCS network, which will ultimately link all Army warfighters within a common network on the battlefield.
That vision recently received some important validation when military and industry program participants completed a critical milestone in the FCS network process with the successful conclusion of Integrated Mission Test-1 (IMT-1). In the test, soldiers used the initial build phases of the FCS network in a variety of simulated combat exercises that helped to verify that the integration of FCS systems and battle command software is proceeding as planned.
The FCS program development process is divided into four numbered integration phases, with each of those phases consisting of major objectives along the route toward handing the capability to the soldier, explained Stephen Kreider, executive director for test integration and director of the FCS Combined Test Organization.
“The Integration Phase 1 is what we just completed, and the Integration Mission Test-1 was the main event at the end of that integration period,” he said.
Kreider identified the objectives of Phase 1 as the following: “First of all, to assess the Future Combat Systems network and its ability to create, disseminate and maintain the common operating picture; the capability of the network to perform distributed and limited collaborative planning; for the network to collect and process logistical data; for the network to perform limited network fires engagements; to assess the maturity of the modeling and simulation to support the process of development for the program; to integrate the integration ‘Phase 0’ lessons learned—in other words, to validate that the lessons we learned from the first phase were incorporated in this phase; and finally, to assess the training infrastructure software in terms of where we are in the developmental program.”
FCS lead systems integrator Boeing was heavily involved in the testing process. “During this integrated mission test, soldiers from the Army Evaluation Task Force (AETF) worked with our engineers on the design and functionality of FCS Battle Command software as they executed tactical missions in a simulated, contemporary operational environment cluttered with military and civilian vehicles as well as vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices,” said Rick Greenwell, Boeing FCS director for integrated phases, simulation and test. “Through participation in these exercises and their relevant combat experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, the soldiers provided invaluable recommendations on everything from FCS vehicle ergonomics to how we display and move information within the Battle Command network.”
SOLDIER INTERFACE
The IMT-1, which was the last event at the end of a two-year phase period, was actually composed of four separate tests.
The culminating “Main Event” was conducted at the FCS Common Control Node at White Sands Missile Range, N.M. Involving nearly 400 computers, 30 FCS vehicle mock-ups, more than 45 soldiers, and 120 government and industry engineers, it evaluated the soldier interface with the FCS battle command software in the performance of simulated full spectrum combat operations.
Specific objectives of the Main Event component included providing user feedback on the cognitive issues and warfighter-machine interface assessments, allowing the “user” community to work doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel and facilities development issues, and software maturation assessment. The program is currently at approximately 6 million lines of code out of a total of 17 million lines planned for the program.modeling and simulation to support the process of development for the program; to integrate the integration ‘Phase 0’ lessons learned—in other words, to validate that the lessons we learned from the first phase were incorporated in this phase; and finally, to assess the training infrastructure software in terms of where we are in the developmental program.”
FCS lead systems integrator Boeing was heavily involved in the testing process. “During this integrated mission test, soldiers from the Army Evaluation Task Force (AETF) worked with our engineers on the design and functionality of FCS Battle Command software as they executed tactical missions in a simulated, contemporary operational environment cluttered with military and civilian vehicles as well as vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices,” said Rick Greenwell, Boeing FCS director for integrated phases, simulation and test. “Through participation in these exercises and their relevant combat experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, the soldiers provided invaluable recommendations on everything from FCS vehicle ergonomics to how we display and move information within the Battle Command network.”
SOLDIER INTERFACE
The IMT-1, which was the last event at the end of a two-year phase period, was actually composed of four separate tests.
The culminating “Main Event” was conducted at the FCS Common Control Node at White Sands Missile Range, N.M. Involving nearly 400 computers, 30 FCS vehicle mock-ups, more than 45 soldiers, and 120 government and industry engineers, it evaluated the soldier interface with the FCS battle command software in the performance of simulated full spectrum combat operations.
Specific objectives of the Main Event component included providing user feedback on the cognitive issues and warfighter-machine interface assessments, allowing the “user” community to work doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel and facilities development issues, and software maturation assessment. The program is currently at approximately 6 million lines of code out of a total of 17 million lines planned for the program.
Additional objectives included accreditation of the Common Control Node test facility at White Sands Missile Range, and a desire to create a “leave behind capability” at the Common Control Node that will assist in the continued development of the program in the future. The Main Event test was also supported by three separate test activities, including a common operating picture distributed test conducted at the System of Systems Integration Laboratory (SoSIL) software development facility in Huntington Beach, Calif., and also documented at White Sands. In addition, there was a system-of-systems common operating environment scalability and discovery test, and a system-of-systems framework test that examined the software in terms of stability and development requirements.
“So there were actually four tests, three of which were more laboratory in nature, but the Main Event was the one where we brought the soldiers in,” Kreider said.
“In simple terms, we look at Huntington Beach as the software development and initial testing place. Then we want to take that software and, in essence, beta test it, putting it out at our two Common Control Nodes—one at White Sands and one at Aberdeen—which we then continue to use in the development of our modeling and simulation, in development of our interfaces with our ‘FCS One Team’ partners and other current force systems, and in development of our testing procedures and capabilities of our instrumentation. Meanwhile, Huntington Beach goes back to writing the code and testing the code for the next ‘drop.’”
The process reflects the creation of a significant distributed capability, since both the White Sands and Aberdeen Common Control Nodes are tied into the major components of the Army through the Army Cross Command Collaborative Environment. That is a distributed collaborative environment that exists between the Army’s Research, Development and Engineering Command, the Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC), and the Training and Doctrine Command Battle Labs.
DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT
Lieutenant Colonel Brian C. Cook, commander, 1st Combined Arms Battalion, 5th Brigade, 1st Armor Division (Army Evaluation Task Force), reflected on the FCS doctrinal development already taking place through this testing.
“It is in my directed Mission Essential Task List tasks to evaluate FCS doctrine,” he explained. “There is a group of fine individuals up at the Future Force Integration Directorate, and they have a Doctrine Development Division that provides the battalion level oversight documents for us to develop on.
“As you get into the systems, and you understand the operational pieces, you automatically have a desire, as a leader, to figure out the tactical piece,” Cook continued. “As an example, how do you do beyond-line-ofsight firing when you are getting the image off a Class I unmanned aerial system? Well, using the combat veterans that I have in my unit, and even some non-combat vets, you get them into the ‘wireframes’ [mock-ups] where they can try out different ways. Shifting back to the recent IMT-1 testing, Cook continued, “My mission as a battalion commander inside 5th Brigade, 1st Armor Division, is to execute core FCS events in order to provide battle-command related solutions for the brigade—both my boss and the FCS core program. The key thing about that event participation is that the soldiers provide recommendations on everything they touch. It doesn’t matter if it’s ergonomics inside the wireframes, or how we do display and move information, or how well the network works for them in moving that information.” As part of those extensive processes, the battalion’s activities on IMT-1 started well before the test itself, beginning with a November 2008 battalion leadership visit out to Boeing’s Huntington Beach SoSIL. The purpose of that was to view the development of the Warfighter Machine Interface System (WMIS), which encompasses the monitors and computers that soldiers use to move the data to provide commanders with the information they need to successfully execute operations. “We got out there and got to see [the WMIS equipment] and actually got to play with it and train on it with some of the vignettes and scenarios that we would use for Integrated Mission Test-1,” Cook said. “That was really a great step forward because we also got to meet the leaders who would help execute the test and bring it all together.” That visit was followed the next month by an orientation for just over 100 members of the battalion, including the 57 who would eventually participate directly in the testing in one way or another. “That was another key step in managing expectations of what the soldiers would get,” Cook added. “You’ve got guys who were deployed very recently, and they think they are always going to be shooting at something. But test and evaluation exercises are sometimes not that way. And this helps the smart NCOs to know how they will need to get their business done.” The unit moved into test execution in January 2009, beginning with WMIS familiarization at the AETF at Fort Bliss, Texas, followed by three more days of hands-on training at White Sands before transition into the vignettes. “There’s been a lot of description about ‘tactical operations’ in those vignettes, but not a lot of description about what those operations actually were,” Cook observed. “So, as examples, we had full spectrum operations going on with beyond-line-ofsight fires enabled by Class I [unmanned aerial systems], to really understand the movement of information and who would be the authority to fire. And we also had ‘really simple’ operations like medevacs, part replacements, and what we call Contingency Replenishment Operations [CROs]. “Some of the things seem quite simple. But when you get them into the Battle Command Network, you can do many things concurrently that are currently done sequentially,” he continued. “For example, in the first event, which was a CRO event, in testing, the engineers out at Huntington Beach took about 5 1/2 hours to execute the event under their best time. But after about 12 hours of soldiers being on the network, they had reduced the operation down to about 2 1/2 hours. And it only got more rapid after that. Some of the things that will be done sequentially by engineers are not done that way by soldiers.” Another example offered by Cook involved a medevac mission. “I think the timeline for medevac from time of injury to time of wheels up on the helicopter was 41 minutes,” he said. “But I could not accept that as a battalion commander. So I asked my guys: ‘How can we make that extremely faster?’ When you’re in Iraq or Afghanistan, 41 minutes can cost a life. So we worked on executing that, and I think at the end we had the timeline down to inside of 10 minutes.” COGNITIVE TESTING All of the participating soldiers seemed to display “an intuitive feel for the Battle Command Network,” Cook said, while adding that some soldiers also participated in biometric testing that targeted the cognitive nature of their actions. “They used EEGs and ECGs and a little bit of a ‘sensor helmet’ on their heads for a couple of days to monitor things like heart rate, brainwaves and those types of things. That was exciting because it really provided a baseline for future testing,” he said. “In the end, what we really worked for was the development of those tactics, techniques and procedures,” he noted. “On the tactical side, that included things like Class I unmanned aerial system management, where you do target handoff to different platforms. For example, you might have an Infantry Carrier Vehicle crew who will have their Class I unmanned vehicle ‘up.’ They will ‘see’ the target and decide to prosecute. “It’s pretty exciting when you see that work—because there isn’t anything that can do that right now sitting on the battlefield. Yet smart, young soldiers in the Army are deciding how to do that most effectively and then recording it,” he added. “On April 1, the technical field test integration process started,” Kreider said. “We’ve got a series of three technical field tests, leading to a force development test and evaluation event in July, and then a limited user test from mid-August through mid-September for the spinout/early infantry brigade combat team. Then, overlaid on top of that, we have a separate nonline- of-sight launcher system (NLOS-LS) firing limited user test, which is currently planned in the May time frame.” Summarizing the messages of the IMT-1 test milestone for today’s warfighters, Cook offered this: “The Battle Command system that we currently use is a ‘warfighter function centric’ system. So, when we provide a ‘commander centric’ Battle Command Network we will be much, much more accurate in our effects. Whether we want to be lethal or non-lethal, we will see the battle down to the lowest levels and therefore will be much more accurate in our fires and our effects. We will absolutely save soldiers’ lives in the end of this. There is no doubt in my military mind.” ♦
“These test events provide me with that exact environment where I can see a timeline for my young leaders, and they will provide those tactics, techniques and procedures, in the form of standard operating procedures, to my S3 [operations] shop. So I get my job done, the Army gets feedback, and the Future Force Integration Directorate gets feedback,” he said.
“First they will perform recon/surveillance, acquire the target and decide that’s a target they want to hit,” he continued. “But the nearest guy able to hit that target might be a beyond-line-of-sight Mounted Combat System. So they pass that image to that tank crew. And the tank crew then takes control of the Class I UAS at a point, laser-designates the target, and then engages it.”
Looking toward upcoming milestones, Kreider noted that the next round of testing had already started.
