MAV Study Focus Group Post

[a_majoor]

Slight tangent here:

KevinB is right about having lots of high speed kit strapped to our bodies, stuffed in Tacvest pouches etc. Looking at the device strapped to the soldiers wrist in the picture, it occurred to me that instead of having a separate MAV controller, combine it into a next generation "soldier interface" (for want of a better term).

Since we already assume the ability to display maps, transmit and receive video feed and so on, then this device would also be able to serve as the section level radio/GPS/SAS system etc. The GARMIN RINO is a FRS (Family Radio Service) device which can download maps from the Internet, act as a GPS receiver (displaying waypoints and location on the downloaded map), a short range radio, and gives situational awareness since it displays the location of any similar GARMIN RINO that is transmitting to you. All this in a $400 package you can buy at Radio Shack. The soldier interface would do all these things as well as act as the MAV controller. As a sort of bonus, if we assume the section commander has one and uses it as the "radio", and a separate soldier is the MAV operator, then each section has two of the devices, so there is a level of backup built into the system.

Most of the time the soldier interface would be in a pouch or pocket. If the user needs the map display, or is using a MAV on the move, it could be clipped to the front of the Tacvest so the user can quickly look at the screen, and taken off and held in the lap when stopped.

The use of a stylus on a touch screen is a potential weakness, perhaps issuing combat gloves with a "fingernail" that can be used as a stylus (but then, the guy will loose his gloves....), touch screens offer faster interfaces than any joystick, cursor and mouse or knobs and switches approach that I know of.

Ideally the MAV can be initialized, launched and tracked while the section is safely out of sight, but more realistically, they will be using the MAV to scout the next bound, flying overhead while they are on a patrol, or during a firefight to locate the enemy and place the support weapons fire on him. If you make prototypes and trial them, make sure the test section(s) are using the interface under those conditions to see what "really" works.

 

[Andyboy]

Sorry, I didn't make my point very well, it was late, I was tired and it is frigging hot here.

People want toast, not toasters. Infantry soldiers don't want MAVs they want the information that a MAV, amongst other things, might provide. The physical details of the instrument that gathers that information is irrelevant provided the information is reliable and accessable. As an infantry section commander the airspeed, altitude, heading, etc is of no use to me. What I want is to be able to se what I need to in order to make my plan. Let someone else figuire out how the device gathers that info, just let me see it.

Personally I think the control of the MAV should be under the control of someone outside of the section, the infantry section has enough on their plate without having to consider the MAV and the phyiscal space it is occupying. I think that at some level, PL?, Coy? there is going to have to be a warm body controlling and coordinating the information gathering systems that the sharp end relies upon to make their plans. I think that autonomous flight is of course a given and perhaps it is as simple as racetracking above (or near) a designated sub call sign who has priority over what information the device gathers. It really isn't all that different from how we employ recce assets (in the infantry at least), just at a lower level. I think the relationship between the lead section(s) and the operator will be key. The operator will have to anticipate the section's move and interpret the section's requests for info and direct the MAV (or whatever device is appropriate) to gather that info. This may sound cumbersome but it isn't any different that how we employ signallers in the infantry now and perhaps the mav controller would be colocated with the infantry section or slightly behind. 

The key will be in designing a system to link the end user of the information to the operator so that the information exchange will be as natural as speaking. The end user should be able to "point" and verbally request information on a target, just like we do now. "Pointing" could include physically pointing, designating with weapon sight, clicking on a map, etc, It's going to vary by task and by the user. Once it is understood what exactly the end user needs it would be up tot he operator to gather that info and relay it to the end user.

The information should be available to the end user in the format that is most useful to him. For example a c-6 gunner will want to see the target from his perspective so that he can judge the fall of shot/effects of his shooting and adjust accordingly without having to think (ie left is left, up is up). A section commander might want to see it on a heads up display of some kind or in his weapon sight or both. The question is not what sort of device the end user will carry around with him to control the MAV, the question is as a_majoor alluded to, what OTHER devices are we going to be carrying?

We already carry weapon sights, radios, gps, maps, binos etc etc. Personally I think adding yet another "thing" is going to get people killed. We should be concentrating on a systems approach to data and how we convey it. Will it be a screen? Probably, but like you said, at this point who cares?

I think I forgot my point except to say that all I want from the MAV is what it can see and an intuitive method to give input into what it sees. What does the operator want to see? I don't know, I'm not an operator, but from my very limited experience in the matter the operator will want a few different things.
First will be a systems screen that details the devices systems and status, this will be crucial for take off and recovery as well as assessing battle damage.
Next will be a nav screen so the operator can input/monitor nav data. We found that a top down scalable map centered on the veh was most useful, with the ability to change the map to be North-to-the-top versus rotating with the heading of the A/C was also useful. We found that a touchsceen was easiest to manipulate with all the controls being on the sceen. Many touch screens can be used with any pointed object as a stylus so sticks, pens, rocks whatever could be used.
Next would be a camera view. The UAV we worked on was signifigantly larger than the one we are discussing here and had a separate turret mounted system of observation devices.
Next a front facing view was used for us for inclement take of and landing. This view included all the info found in a typical pilots HUD.I think that allowing the option to toggle the HUD on or off  wold be good, or perhaps delivering the picture without the HUD data as it isn't useful for the end user.

FInally the ability to set your screen up with any of the above combinations. IE Nav and camera, camera and systems, systems and nav etc etc.

At any rate sorry for the long post Ihave to get backto work now. If youa re interested I can dig up some of the work we did to try and give you a better idea of how the screen system worked.

 

[a_majoor]

I'm with Andyboy here, but would even go so far as to strip out the "control", systems and takeoff/landing information by building it into the MAV or making it irrelevant.

By making it irrelevant I mean launching disposable MAVs from M-72 style tubes. One the control unit gives you the green "initial" light the soldier carrying the tube extends and fires it. The MAV jumps into the air and begins transmitting.

By stripping out control, If the soldier has enough time (i.e. preparing for a patrol), then he inputs the waypoints at leasure and lets the MAV do most of the thinking after that. In an advance to contact scenario, the MAV could be preprogrammed to fly an irregular orbit based on the position of the control unit (irregular so the enemy can't just pinpoint the controller by watching the MAV). The only time the MAV is under direct human control is when the operator identifies a target and uses the touch screen/data glove/telepathic implant to change the MAVs course to put the target in the center of view (this should be stressed in operator training).

Once the target is centred on the screen, the gunner can "walk" busts onto target, section commander can make his quick estimate, engineer can decide what tools or vehicles are needed to deal with the obstacle, tanker (excuse me, MGSer, MMEVer etc.) can select a round for the main gun etc. For me, the primary use of the MAV is to allow me to see "one bound ahead" or "around the corner". High definition video or Thermal Imaging is what I want from a MAV, and if the HQ, Int, Sigs etc. wienies have other potential uses for a MAV, then great, they can slide in the appropriate payloads and operate them on their own.

 

[Andyboy]

I agree that the takeoff/landing portion would be automated, witht he project I worked on the UAV was large, expensive nad expensive so they wanted ta backup option to land the A/C in the off chance that there would be inclement weather on the east coast. ha ha.

I thikn htat depending on the manouverability and "intelligence" of hte veh plus hte ability of hte operator the MAV could be used in urban ops as well for pieing corners and the like. I imagine the comd could designate the room that he wanted the MAV to enter and the operator could fly it in there. while the comd and entry team watches. 

That is an example of what I would want it to be able to do, not necessarily what will be designed into the system.

 

[48Highlander]

There's no point to taking control of the MAV away from the section/platoon as Andyboy suggested - the whole idea behind having a MAV is so that the people on the ground can have an information gathering resource which doesn't rely on personnel who may be dozens or hundreds of miles away.  So we don't want the section commander being burdened by more stuff?  Make it a platoon resource and put the signaler in sharge of it.  He's generaly a glorified secretary, so since he doesn't have much to do, and since he's always right beside the platoon commander, he'd be in the perfet position for gathering intel through the MAV and getting it immediately to the platoon commander to be distributed through the chain.  Anyway that's more of an organizational problem, and it can always be solved once we have the equipment.  Right now we're focusing more on design.

I also don't like the wrist interface - it's either too bulky, or if it's small enough it'll have shit resolution.  A PDA sized device that fits in a pouch on the TacVest sounds like a good idea.  A laptop sized device might be better if it's a platoon resource being controlled by the signaler, or an individual tasked solely to controling the MAV.

And as for the controls, I'd say we deffinitely need to be able to set simple way-points (doubleclick on a map for instance), as well as being able to fine tune the controls.  If it was only one or the other, I'd go with the waypoints.  To an infanteer, simplicity would be more important since, as has been pointed out, we have enough to worry about in the field without having to stop for 10 minutes in order to dick around with dials and buttons.

 

[ZipperHead]

The idea of an M72-style launcher sounds about the best to me so far. Maybe even similar to a comet para-flare. Something similar would remove the "hey, shoot me because I'm carrying something important" factor would be removed (or force the enemy to shoot everybody carrying M72 or para-flare tubes.......).

That xybernaut console, while being somewhat bulky (remember cell phones from 6 or 7 years ago, compared to now??? the size would probably be tiny when developed for the future, compared to what it is now.....) is along the idea that would keep ones hands free for other things (shooting bad guys) but allow the controller to be readily available. The graphics resolution could be an issue, along with ambient light, but I'm sure something could be done about that. I use a red piece of clear red film for my Garmin GPS to cut down on white light "leakage" at night, so low-tech works pretty good sometimes.

A flip down visor idea (sort of like what pilots have on their flight helmets) that has a HUD to display it on the inside of the visor might be an idea, though it would cut down on vision. An easy/obvious solution would be that the operator would have to have local security while employing this, but that more or less goes without saying: you're going to be pre-occupied as it is, so that would neccesitate a "wing-man" for protection while employing this bad-boy (only Rambo can drive, command, load and gun a tank by himself.......)

Al

 

[a_majoor]

In organizational terms, a MAV should ideally be under the command and control of the end user: the section commander/2I/C. A Pl HQ MAV would be useful for setting up the platoon attack and support weapons fire, although rather cold comfort for the survivors of the lead section.

As well, if you read LCol Bank's paper in the latest CAJ: http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_08/iss_1/CAJ_vol8.1_05_e.pdf you will see platoons and even sections are becoming widely dispersed, "Squads were working 5-30km from their platoon headquarters" so sections will have to have the means directly attached.

Adding an extra person in each section to fly the MAV may be a viable idea, we accept having HUMINT and CIMIC pers on patrols, and have long had engineers and other arms and services attached to various units and formations, so having the Sergeant yell "scope out the third floor of that house on the end of the street", then looking at his screen while the MAV operator flys the MAV into position isn't a big streach.

 

[MarkR]

(hmm...snazzy colour scheme for this Canada Day.  Plays havoc with the eyes though)

Hello everyone.

Because of time pressure, today is where I will officially "stop" the discussion, although I think there's some other great comments waiting in the wings.  But please feel free to carry on if you wish.

For your interest, here's my way ahead:

1.  I may attempt to run one more focus group to bring my numbers up from 7 to 12 - we'll see if time permits...
2.  Use this data, combined with information gleaned from my literature review, to develop a MAV Design Specification that reflects user needs as much as possible.
3.  Model a simulated MAV using the flightsim package X-Plane.  This flightsim allows a user to build just about any aircraft they want, provided they know it's dimensions.  For this round I'll likely keep the MAV simple - i.e.: a WASP type device without the ability to hover.  Perhaps later if there is interest at DRDC I'll remodel it into a hovering vehicle.
4.  Develop a flexible user-centered interface for the MAV using LabView software and trying to incorporate as much of your discussion points as I can.  I've got about 25 days (if that) to model and code the interface, so I likely won't get all the bells and whistles in.
5.  Perform user trials on the interface.  Ideally I would like to use CF Soldiers for this, but seeing as I'm all the way over in the UK I don't think that will be feasible.  So I'll use local college students.  Again, maybe when I get back to Canada I can continue with this research and make it far more relevant to the CF.
6.  Write it all up, hand it in by Sept 14, then defend it in front of a panel of Uni PhD's.
7.  Try to drum up interest/funding to expand this research when I get home again.

Ideally I would've liked to have had your involvement from beginning to end.  And if I was running this study in Canada, that's what I would have pushed for. If anyone want's to see any part of what I do from here on out for interest sake (i.e.: the design specification, or JPGs of the final interface, etc.) let me know.  I'll also in the next week be forwarding you the details of the remuneration we discussed.

So thank you very much for your time and input.  I've got a lot of great comments to work with here, and a lot of new directions in which to take my literature review (ie: integration with this SAS device you mentioned). 

Cheers
Mark

 

[Infanteer]

Ok folks, this was very interesting to watch - I hope we can do things like this again, as it increases the role Army.ca can play in critical discussions and idea sharing on the profession of arms.

Thanks for honouring Mark's request to not post unless part of the team (you made the mod's job easy).  Now that it is over, the rest of the membership should feel free to contribute.

Cheers,
Infanteer

 

[Andyboy]

48Highlander :

I'm not suggesting that the control of the MAV be out of the section commanders hands, I saying that the physical flying should be left to someone who is capable of devoting their concentration on flying the AC.

"Anyway that's more of an organizational problem, and it can always be solved once we have the equipment.  Right now we're focusing more on design."

How can you design something without understanding how it is going to be used? 

 

[48Highlander]

48Highlander :

I'm not suggesting that the control of the MAV be out of the section commanders hands, I saying that the physical flying should be left to someone who is capable of devoting their concentration on flying the AC.

"Anyway that's more of an organizational problem, and it can always be solved once we have the equipment.   Right now we're focusing more on design."

How can you design something without understanding how it is going to be used?  

Well, SOMEONE is going to have to use it.  Chances are they'll be human, with all the abilities and limitations that implies.  So a common interface can be designed which can be used by all humans, nay?

Seriously, I like your idea of someone else controling it, I'm just saying it can't be someone outside the immediate organization.  If it's a section resource, someone in the section operates it.  If it's a platoon resource, someone in the platoon operates it.  There's no point in having them controlled from batallion HQ - those guys should have their own UAV's to play with.  The MAV's are meant to be used by much smaller units.  So wether the MAV is controled by someone at the section level or at the platoon level, it has little to no impact on the actual controls for the aircraft, which is what I was trying to say.  Wether we want to have it controlled by the section commander, his 2ic, or the platoon signaler, the interface will be very similar.

 

[Andyboy]

" So a common interface can be designed which can be used by all humans, nay?"

Nay. It isn't being deisgned for all humans, it is being designed for a specific application that has specific requirements. The interface required for someone familiar with aircraft (say a fixed wing pilot) will be different for a person who has no familiarity with an aircraft (say an infantry soldier). The interface is also going to vary depending on what information that particular user requires. That is the point. The section member who is going to be using the information that the veh gathers will not require the same information that the member who is "flying" it will. Additionally the person who is "flying" the veh is going to need a different set of input and output devices than the person the veh is "reporting" to. For example the person viewing the data may not need a throttle control, the person "flying" the vehicle probably will. What physical form those requirements form will depend on where the personis, what other tasks he has to perfom, threat, weight, complexity, power, etc etc, etc. Further more what is appropriate for flying the MAV may not be appropriate for interfacing with a map, or a writing orders, or requesting supplies, etc, etc. That's why it is futile to approach army transformation in patches. It has to be decided beforehand what exactly we want our future soldier to be able to do and then design his kit from there.

I agree that the person controlling the device has to be a member of the section, I am just concerned that as long as that person is "flying" the device he is a liability to the section. If his eyes are somewhere else he has to be protected. Which is why he may or may not be physically beside the sect commander, but maybe a tactical bound behind the section,, maybe even pooled at the PL like you suggested. Both are two very different environments.

The bottom line here is that this "focus group" is not a particulary effective way to find the answers he is looking for. If you want to find out what controls would be required to fly a device as described you need to find someone with experience flying such a device or something close. Asking an infantry soldier what he needs to fly a non-existant a/c that he has zero experience with is pointless. Do you really know what you need to fly a MAV? I don't, I could take an educated guess but that would be about it. The only way to find out is to mock one up (virtually or physically) and try it out, which I think he is doing right now.

   

 

[Andyboy]

Sorry, I meant to include this in my reply:

"Wether we want to have it controlled by the section commander, his 2ic, or the platoon signaler, the interface will be very similar."

Maybe, maybe not.

Here are a few questions that spring to mind: How long is the operator's course? How much time will be devoted to training? How about keeping current? What is the demographic of the average operator? Gaming experience? Flight experience? What specific skill set will be required to operate the device? What is their proximity to a power source? Is is possible to make it so simple to operate that anyone could do it? How much time and money can be invested in the development of the device? What are the size/weight limitations?

And so on. You might think these are trivial matters, but good design is all about detail and "triviality". If you take a look at 99% of the kit you have been issued you would see that few people in the Canadian defence industry understand that. 

 

[48Highlander]

Eh I'm pretty sure that's why we were dsicussing a point-and-click interface.  Waypoints sound familiar?  I've met a lot of dumb/slow people in the infantry, but most of them can handle looking at a map and selecting a point they want monitored, or a circuit they want the plane to fly.  Smart technology for dumb soldiers   I could see your arguments being valid if someone had to literaly sit at the controls and move the thing around manualy.  When it's flying itself most of the time, the interface becomes much less of a problem.

 

[Andyboy]

48th,

Well as long as you are "pretty sure" then that is good enough I guess, I mean after all, why would we want to bother to investigate a system that has the potential to revolutionize how we fight? It would be far better to make assumptions and push the system into service and cross our fingers and hope for the best, right?

The design process is a formal series of steps that must be taken to ensure #1 the problem is well defined, #2 the solution solves the problem. Seeing as we have never employed an air vehicle at the section level there may be more to the problem than "point and click interface". Then again what would I know, you seem to know more about it than I do.

 

[48Highlander]

48th,

Well as long as you are "pretty sure" then that is good enough I guess, I mean after all, why would we want to bother to investigate a system that has the potential to revolutionize how we fight? It would be far better to make assumptions and push the system into service and cross our fingers and hope for the best, right?

The design process is a formal series of steps that must be taken to ensure #1 the problem is well defined, #2 the solution solves the problem. Seeing as we have never employed an air vehicle at the section level there may be more to the problem than "point and click interface". Then again what would I know, you seem to know more about it than I do.

Well as long as there "may be a problem" I guess we better start spinning   There's always the possibility of a proble, but you gotta start somewhere.  All I'm saying is there's no reason why we can't start off with a simple, universal interface that can be operated by any member of the platoon.  If we find it doesn't work, sure, make the changes that are needed.  Worry about operators courses and other nonsense later.  I've never had an "operators course" for the piece of crap GPS unit we use, but I can still employ it when I need to, and I'm pretty sure we can come up with a much simpler interface for the MAV.

 

[Andyboy]

Look 48th, I'm trying to give you the benefit of my experience and education in product design, GUI design, and uav design. If your experiences in those areas tells a different story, lets hear it. If not then keep your snarky comments to yourself.

Product design, no matter what the product, is a FORMAL PROCESS to solve a problem. The way you are describing accomplishes nothing except wasted time, money, effort and capital and results in inferior product. That method you propose is the exact frigging reason why we have been repeatedly saddled with the garbage kit that we have been. This "lets just do it and hope it all works out" is incredibly shortsighted and wasteful but unfortunately is not uncommon.

It's pretty obvious that you have zero experience working with budgets, business plans or project management, if you had you would know better than to suggest that if we don't get it right we'll just fix the problem. The army doesn't work that way, not in Canada anyway. You only get one shot at a project, if it is shit, we're stuck with it. That is just a fact of life and therefore it behooves us to put as much thought into the front end development as we can. It costs virtually nothing to think a problem through but it is very expensive to fix a mistake afterwards.

With that ends my attempt to share the knowledge I have worked to gain over the past decade or so. I guess there's some men you just can't reach.

Regards.
 

 

[Britney Spears]

Israeli M-203 launched Camera/Probe: Rafael Firefly

Israeli "Mosquito" Micro UAV, weighs 250g and flies for 40 min. Newer models will be heavier, have better cameras and fly longer.

 

[KevinB]

FWIW - I don't think the PL signaller is the person for this - operationally our signaller was run ragged.  Secondly you have 1 signaller alloacted for the PL - with 3 sections - when we where in Afghanistan we had some sections 30+ km from the rest of the PL.  

W/O the ability to hover We wlose thew bality to enter homes - which personally in the close combat environment is something I would as an 031 like to have.

Secondly I KNOW ANDYBOY has a lot of involvement in some DND projects ontop of his activities he has alluded to here - so I'd bank on his knowledge in how projects make ti or break it.


Cheers

 

[Andyboy]

Kevin,

The more I think about army transformation the more I think the Signal corps needs to evolve. They need to get away from "communications" and think about "information". Sounds like splitting hairs and it might be but it seems (from my worms eye view anyway) that there is lot of time energy and ewffort dedicated to voice communication and not enough dedicated to information communication.

Personally I think there has to be a section level member dedicated to managing information. In the corporate world every team has a systems specialist who runs and maintains the computers and applications (software) needed for the team to do it's work, I think the section is no different. If we approach the need for information from a systems standpoint rather than a patchwork of individual items then we can eliminate a lot of duplication. As A_Majoor mentioned earlier the Rhino is a good example of combining like products. Add a few features like text messaging, email, and the ability to expand and it starts to look like something everyone should be issued.

Britney,

Any more info on that 203 launched deal? Looks very interesting. Are those in service or experiemental?

Andrew