soldier tracking and performance measurement … · the report provides a detailed description of...

DRDC Toronto CR-2005-067

SOLDIER TRACKING AND PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM (STPMS)

EVALUATION REPORT

by: Philip M. Gaughan

Humansystems® Incorporated 111 Farquhar St., 2nd floor

Guelph, ON N1H 3N4

Project Director: David W. Tack 519-836-5911

PWGSC Contract No. W7711-007685/A HSI SIREQ Item No. 17

On behalf of DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

as represented by

Defence Research and Development Canada - Toronto 1133 Sheppard Avenue West

Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3M 3B9

DRDC Toronto Scientific Authorities LCol Linda Bossi (416) 635-2197

Capt Stephen Boyne (416) 635-2153

July 2005

This document contains information that may not be passed or shared, even in confidence, with

foreign military, research and development representatives or civilian contractors of any nationality without the expressed prior permission of the Exploitation Manager of SIREQ TD.

The scientific or technical validity of this Contract Report is entirely the responsibility of the contractor and the contents do not necessarily have the approval or endorsement of Defence R&D Canada

© Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Minister of National Defence, 2005

© Sa Majesté la Reine, représentée par le ministre de la Défense nationale, 2005

Humansystems® Soldier Tracking & Performance Measurement System i

Abstract

The purpose of this investigation was to test the components of the Soldier Tracking and Performance Measurement System (STPMS) against the statement of requirements as found in the Request for Proposal. Secondary aims of this investigation included gathering data that will allow potential users of the system to understand its capabilities and limitations, as well as allow efficient planning of both time and resources necessary to ensure efficient and productive use of the system for training and experimentation purposes.

Data collection focused on the following functional requirements criteria: System Requirements, Soldier Requirements, Combat Identification, Umpire Requirements, Data Collection Requirements, Monitoring Requirements, and Performance Feedback Requirements. The investigation was performed utilizing 10 Infantry soldiers in LFCATC Meaford under controlled conditions.

Outcomes of the investigation indicate that the System met or exceeded the vast majority of requirements as outlined in the Request for Proposal. Those requirements that were not met were a function of economies realized through extensive discussions with the manufacturer and the Scientific Authority. The report provides a detailed description of system components, comparisons of measured vs. reported soldier position data, an evaluation of performance feedback mechanisms and the results of extensive directed discussions following the participant’s use of the system in a controlled environment.

Humansystems® Soldier Tracking & Performance Measurement System ii

Résumé

Le but de cette étude était de mettre à l’essai les composants du Système de positionnement de soldats et de mesure de la performance (STPS) en rapport avec l’énoncé des besoins présenté dans la demande de proposition. Les buts secondaires de cette étude étaient notamment la collecte de données qui permettront aux utilisateurs potentiels du système de comprendre ses capacités et ses limites, ainsi que de permettre une planification efficace du temps et des ressources nécessaires en vue d’une utilisation optimale du système à des fins d’instruction et d’expérimentation.

La collecte de données avait pris comme critères les besoins fonctionnels liés au système, aux soldats, à l’identification au combat, à l’arbitre, à la collecte de données, au contrôle et à la rétroaction sur la performance. L’étude a été réalisée en milieu conditionné au CI SCFT de Meaford, à l’aide de dix fantassins.

Les résultats de l’étude indiquent que le système satisfait ou dépasse la plupart des besoins déterminés dans la demande de proposition. Pour ce qui est des besoins qui n’ont pas été satisfaits, cela est dû au fait que l’on a réalisé des économies après des discussions approfondies entre le manufacturier et le responsable des questions scientifiques. Le rapport présente une description détaillée des composants du système, des comparaisons entre les données mesurées et les données déclarées concernant la position du soldat, un examen des mécanismes de rétroaction sur la performance et les résultats d’une discussion dirigée approfondie, qui s’est tenue après que les participants ont utilisé le système dans un milieu contrôlé.

Humansystems® Soldier Tracking & Performance Measurement System iii

Executive Summary

The Soldier Information Requirements Technology Demonstration (SIREQ TD) project has identified a requirement for a training and experimentation tool with which to demonstrate and evaluate future concepts, requirements and equipment for soldier systems projects.

The experimental tool, which has been purchased and installed at Land Forces Central Area Training Center (LFCA TC) in Meaford, ON, comprises the Soldier Tracking and Performance Measurement System (STPMS). The system is installed in building M229 in the FIBUA village.

The system utilizes Oerlikon Contraves Combat Simlas (Soldier Integrated Multifunction Laser System) Plus, a combat/training system.

The primary aim of this field trial was to test the components of the FIBUA TS against the statement of requirements as found in the Request for Proposal. Secondary aims of this trial included gathering of data that will allow potential users of the system to understand its capabilities and limitations, as well as allow efficient planning of both time and resources necessary to ensure efficient and productive use of the system for training and experimentation purposes.

A four-day field trial was undertaken at LFCA TC Meaford, ON, over the period of 6-7 and 10-11 September 2001. Ten regular force and militia personnel were required to complete a series of in-building and out-of-building engagement scenarios. Testing was progressive, with scenarios increasing in number of personnel and complexity. Data collection included positional data, performance measures and HF observer assessments.

Ten regular force and militia infantry were recruited. Subjects that had passed their C7A1 Level 3 PWT test and were familiar with CF OBUA doctrine were chosen for the trial.

Overall the system performed well against the requirements as outlined in the Request for Proposal. Those criteria that were not achieved were primarily a result of economies achieved through consultation by the Scientific Authority with the manufacturer.

The participants unanimously agreed that the STPMS and SIMLAS components were a valuable addition to the training aids available at LFCATC Meaford in particular and for the Canadian Forces in general.

The participants added that they would have liked to have more time for the initial training with respect to the use of the SIMLAS components and STPMS. They felt that they could have provided more input to the use and operation of different modes of the system had they had the time.

Overall the participants stated that they would readily accept the system as it was presented to them regardless of potential improvements.

Humansystems® Soldier Tracking & Performance Measurement System iv

Sommaire

Le Projet de démonstration technologique des besoins des soldats en matière d'information (SIREQ-TD) a montré la nécessité de disposer d’un outil d’instruction et d’expérimentation avec lequel démontrer et évaluer les concepts, les besoins et l’équipement pour les projets d’équipement du soldat.

L’outil d’expérimentation qui a été acheté et installé au Centre d’instruction du Secteur du centre de la Force terrestre (CI SCFT) à Meaford en Ontario, englobe le Système de positionnement de soldats et de mesure de la performance (STPS). Le système est installé dans le bâtiment M229, dans le village Op ZB.

Le système utilise Combat Simlas (Soldier Integrated Multifunction Laser System) Plus d’Oerlikon Contraves, un système d’instruction pour le combat.

Le but premier de cet expérimentation en campagne était de mettre à l’essai les composants du SI Op ZB en rapport avec l’énoncé des besoins présenté dans la demande de proposition. Les buts secondaires de cette étude étaient notamment la collecte de données qui permettront aux utilisateurs potentiels du système de comprendre ses capacités et ses limites, ainsi que de permettre une planification efficace du temps et des ressources nécessaires en vue d’une utilisation optimale du système à des fins d’instruction et d’expérimentation.

Un essai de quatre jours a été réalisé au CI SCFT de Meaford en Ontario, respectivement les 6 et 7 et les 10 et 11 septembre 2001. On a demandé à dix membres de la Force régulière et de la Milice d’effectuer des séries de scénarios d’engagements à l’intérieur et à l’extérieur des bâtiments. Les essais se sont fait progressivement, avec des scénarios de plus en plus complexes et faisant intervenir de plus en plus de militaires. La collecte de données incluait entre autres des données de position, des mesures de la performance et des évaluations ergonomiques faites par des observateurs.

On avait recruté dix fantassins de la Force régulière et de la Milice. Les personnes choisies afin de participer à cet essai avaient réussi l’ETAP de niveau 3 pour la carabine C7A1 et connaissaient la doctrine des Op ZB des FC.

Dans l’ensemble, le rendement du système a été bon par rapport aux besoins déterminés dans la demande de proposition. Pour les critères qui n’ont pas été satisfaits, cela est dû essentiellement aux économies réalisées grâce aux discussions que le responsable des questions scientifiques a eues avec le manufacturier.

Les participants ont unanimement confirmé que les composants du STPS et du SIMLAS constituent des ajouts particulièrement importants aux aides à l’instruction disponibles au CI SCFT de Meaford et, de façon générale, pour les FC.

Les participants ont ajouté qu’ils auraient aimé avoir plus de temps pour l’instruction initiale en ce qui concerne l’utilisation des composants du SIMLAS et du STPS. Ils avaient le sentiment qu’ils auraient fourni un plus grand apport pour l’utilisation et l’opération s’ils en avaient eu le temps.

Dans l’ensemble, les participants ont dit qu’ils seraient prêts à accepter le système tel qu’il leur a été présenté, sans égard aux améliorations potentielles.

Humansystems® Soldier Tracking & Performance Measurement System v

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................................... I

RESUME...............................................................................................................................................................II

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................................ III

SOMMAIRE ....................................................................................................................................................... IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................................... V

LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................................................. VI

LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................................................ VI

1. BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................................................1

2. AIM..................................................................................................................................................................2

3. METHOD........................................................................................................................................................3 3.1 OVERVIEW ..............................................................................................................................................3 3.2 TRIAL PARTICIPANTS ..............................................................................................................................3 3.3 TRIAL SCHEDULE....................................................................................................................................3 3.4 DATA COLLECTION.................................................................................................................................4

3.4.1 Scenarios ...........................................................................................................................................5 3.4.2 Statistical Approach ..........................................................................................................................7

4 RESULTS .................................................................................................................................................8 4.1 SOLDIER INTEGRATED MULTIFUNCTION LASER SYSTEM (SIMLAS) AND STPMS TRAINING SYSTEM

DESCRIPTION (ANNEX A) .......................................................................................................................8 4.2 COMPARISON OF MEASURED VS REPORTED POSITIONAL DATA (ANNEX B). ..........................................8 4.3 STPMS PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT EVALUATION (ANNEX C) ........................................................9 4.4 STPMS FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS CRITERION COMPLIANCE (ANNEX D).......................................13 4.5 EXIT FOCUS GROUP RESULTS ...............................................................................................................13

4.5.1 Fit and Adjustment...........................................................................................................................13 4.5.2 Range of Motion ..............................................................................................................................14 4.5.3 Durability.........................................................................................................................................14 4.5.4 Coverage..........................................................................................................................................15 4.5.5 Compatibilty ....................................................................................................................................15 4.5.6 Snagging ..........................................................................................................................................15

4.6 PARTICIPANT RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................15 4.7 OVERALL IMPRESSIONS ........................................................................................................................16

5 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................17

Humansystems® Soldier Tracking & Performance Measurement System vi

ANNEX A: SIMLAS AND STPMS TRAINING SYSTEM DESCRIPTION..............................................A-1 APPENDIX 1 TO ANNEX A: STPMS TRAINING SYSTEMS SENSOR LOCATIONS ............................................. A-1-1

ANNEX B: COMPARISON OF MEASURED VS REPORTED POSITIONAL DATA ...........................B-1

ANNEX C: STPMS PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT EVALUATION ..............................................C-1 APPENDIX 1 TO ANNEX C: PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT EXERCISE SUMMARIES......................................C-1-1

ANNEX D: STPMS FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS CRITERION COMPLIANCE .........................D-1

ANNEX E: EXIT FOCUS GROUP RESULTS..............................................................................................E-1

List of Tables

TABLE 1: TRIAL SCHEDULE ......................................................................................................................................3 TABLE 2: STATISTICAL FRAMEWORK .......................................................................................................................7 TABLE 3: POSITIONAL DIFFERENCES (MANUAL VS REPORTED)...............................................................................8

List of Figures

FIGURE 1: OUT OF BUILDING SCENARIO LOCATIONS (LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE) ..................................................6

Humansystems® Soldier Tracking & Performance Measurement System 1

1. Background

The Soldier Information Requirements Technology Demonstration (SIREQ TD) project has identified a requirement for an experimentation tool with which to demonstrate and evaluate future concepts, requirements and equipment for soldier systems projects.

The experimental tool, which has been purchased and installed at Land Forces Central Area Training Center (LFCA TC) in Meaford, ON, comprises the Soldier Tracking and Performance Measurement System (STPMS). The system is installed in building M229 in the FIBUA village.

The system utilizes Oerlikon Contraves Combat Simlas (Soldier Integrated Multifunction Laser System) Plus, a combat/training system. The system is described in detail in Annex A.


2. Aim

The primary aim of this field trial was to test the components of the FIBUA TS against the statement of requirements as found in the Request for Proposal (Ref A). Secondary aims of this trial included gathering of data that will allow potential users of the system to understand its capabilities and limitations, as well as allow efficient planning of both time and resources necessary to ensure efficient and productive use of the system for training and experimentation purposes.


3. Method

3.1 Overview The following description provides a general overview of the trial method. Further details are provided in subsequent sections.

A four-day field trial was undertaken at LFCA TC Meaford, ON, over the period of 6-7 and 10-11 September 2001. Ten regular force and militia personnel were required to complete a series of in-building and out-of-building engagement scenarios. Testing was progressive, with scenarios increasing in number of personnel and complexity. Data collection included positional data, performance measures and HF observer assessments.

3.2 Trial Participants Ten regular force and militia infantry were recruited. Subjects that had passed their C7A1 Level 3 PWT test and were familiar with CF FIBUA doctrine were chosen for the trial.

3.3 Trial Schedule Table 1 outlines the four-day trial schedule.

Table 1: Trial Schedule Time 6 Sept 7 Sept 10 Sept 11 Sept

0800-1200

- FIBUA TS system familiarization - CS+ setup

- System Set Up - Out of Building Positional data set up and collection

- Briefing - CS+ familiarization - CS+ set up and in building scenario walkthrough

- System Set Up - Out of Building scenario walkthrough - Out of Building data collection

1200-1300

Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch

1300-1700-

- In-Building positional data collection

- Out of Building positional data collection - Set up CS+ for troops

- In-Building data collection

- Out of Building data collection

- Exit Focus Group


The following meetings occurred at the start and end of the trial:

Initial Briefing: Initially, participants were welcomed and introduced to the trial team. Participants were briefed on the trial schedule and data collection methods (i.e. questionnaires, focus groups, etc.). The SIMLAS system was introduced and participants were provided with a demonstration of the system’s assembly, adjustment, and features.

Exit Focus Group: Following the completion of all exercises and data collection scenarios, subjects participated in directed discussions regarding their overall impressions of the system with respect to ease of use, compatibility with existing equipment, durability, fit and adjustment and were asked to make recommendations with respect to enhancing the systems usefulness overall.

3.4 Data Collection

Data collection focussed on the following functional requirements criteria (Ref A).

1. System Requirements;

2. Soldier Requirements;

3. Combat Identification;

4. Umpire Requirements;

5. Data Collection Requirements;

6. Monitoring Requirements; and

7. Performance Feedback Requirements In order to test the STPMS against its specifications, independent scenarios were generated: In-Building (FIBUA) and Out-of-Building (Hasty Section Attack). The scenarios lent themselves well to assessing both positional data as reported by the system and performance data which included data from both the instrumented building and the person worn components of the SIMLAS. The following describes the scenarios used for both positional and performance measurement data collection.

Position Related Data Collection:

In order to generate positional data both within the building and the surrounding area, several data collection scenarios were implemented. The in-building and surrounding area scenarios are described below.

The in-building scenario involved the placement of reference points in each functional space within the instrumented building. Functional space was defined as those areas, which would support soldiers in their TTPs with reference to Urban Operations. These instrumented areas would provide positional data for each soldier set of SIMLAS. Each floor of the building was subdivided into 6 data collection areas. Within each area on each of the three floors, six (6) locations were set and the locations measured from a standardized reference point. The areas and target locations within each are presented in Appendix 2 to Annex B.

With each of the locations measured, SIMLAS sets were initialized and placed within the building on designated spots. Data for locations 1 and 2 in each of the six areas was collected first, followed by locations 3 and 4, with locations 5 and 6 collected during the third iteration. Data collection continued for each of the three floors in a similar manner.


Following the data collection, the STPMS data was compared to manually measured locations and differences were noted.

The surrounding area scenarios were performed utilizing the GPS components of the STPMS. Two sets of SIMLAS were initialized and worn by experimental staff. The systems were placed up to 800 meters away from the data collection station. Initial locations were confirmed with hand held GPS. The staff was then instructed to move in increments of 100 meters (measured with a 100m measuring tape) and report the new grid coordinates by radio and to maintain their position for 120 seconds. The staff would then move an additional 100 meters toward the data collection station reconfirm and report their positions. This method was followed until the staff had returned to within 100 meters of the data collection station. Two iterations of this scenario were run with the first starting in a wooded area northwest of building M229 and the second occurring in an open field area with little overhead cover.

The position of the GPS transceiver was standardized on the top of the left shoulder to increase the reliability of the signal. Two sets of SIMLAS were utilized in each of the iterations.

Performance Related Data Collection:

In order to generate performance data both within the building and the surrounding area, several data collection scenarios were implemented. The in-building and surrounding area scenarios are described below. Prior to the start of each exercise the participants were briefed on the scenario, and the SIMLAS systems were inspected and initialized. The participants were then placed in start positions and on receipt of radioed instructions, completed the scenario. Following the scenario, performance data was downloaded from individual participants and entered into the monitoring station computer.

3.4.1 Scenarios In-Building (FIBUA) Scenarios

In Building 1: The scenario included 1 four-person fire team (Assault Group 1) against 5 enemy which were positioned in various rooms within building M229. The enemy were stationary and were to remain in position until killed or until the order “END EX” was given.

In Building 2: The scenario included 1 four-person fire team (Assault Group 2) against 5 enemy which were positioned in various rooms on all floors of building M229. The enemy were stationary and were to remain in position until killed or until the order “END EX” was given.

In Building 3: The scenario included a section complete (Assault Groups 1 and 2) against 5 enemy which were positioned in various rooms on all floors of building M229. The enemy were stationary and were to remain in position until killed or until the order “END EX” was given.

In Building 4: The scenario included a section complete (Assault Groups 1 and 2) against 2 enemy which were initially located in various rooms on all floors of building M229. The enemy were given instructions to move dynamically between floors and rooms, depending on the tactical situation presented. The scenario was complete when all members of either the section or the enemy force were “killed”. The participants were also instructed to perform combat identification tasks prior to engaging enemy.

Following each of the in building scenarios, the participants were debriefed using the playback feature of the STPMS. The participants reviewed the playback and commented on any


discrepancies that they perceived did not reflect the nature of the events, which had just transpired.

Out of Building (Hasty Section Attack) Scenarios:

General: The enemy force of 5 soldiers was emplaced to simulate a section dug in with trenches in depth. This comprised 2 soldiers in each of two forward trenches and 1 soldier in a trench in depth. The enemy force was positioned prior to the start of the exercise and was instructed to engage the attacking section at approximately 100 m from the trench positions. The attacking section, comprising 8 soldiers, split equally into two assault groups, was instructed to fight through the enemy position and to reorganize and consolidate 20 m past the last enemy trench. The scenario was halted if the attacking section was “killed” prior to reaching the enemy position. The first two of three scenarios required that the friendly force attempt to identify the enemy utilizing the combat identification features of the SIMLAS. The third scenario, in addition to the requirement to identify the enemy, required the use of obscurants (Pains-Wessex Smoke grenades) in the assault. The locations used for each scenario are indicated in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Out of Building Scenario Locations (locations approximate)

Out of Building 1: The scenario included a section complete (Assault Groups 1 and 2) beginning at GR 2256 4650, against 5 enemy which were emplaced at GR 2230 4625.



Out of Building 3: The scenario included a section complete (Assault Groups 1 and 2) beginning at GR 2276 4623, against 5 enemy emplaced at GR 2249 4613. This scenario included the liberal use of obscurants by the attacking section.

3.4.2 Statistical Approach The scenarios and data collection methods proposed resulted in the following sample size and measures for the hypothesized statistical comparisons described in the sections above.

Table 2: Statistical Framework

Statistical Comparison Statistical Measures

Sample Size

Manual vs derived positional data (in-building) Independent 8


4 Results The results for the evaluation are provided in detail in the following Annexes and summarized below:

• Annex A - SIMLAS and STPMS Training System Description;

• Annex B – Comparison of Measured vs Reported Positional Data;

• Annex C – STPMS Performance Measurement Evaluation;

• Annex D – STPMS Functional Requirements Criterion Compliance; and

• Annex E – Exit Focus Group Results.

4.1 Soldier Integrated Multifunction Laser System (SIMLAS) and STPMS Training System Description (Annex A)

The training system in place in LFATC Meaford (Bldg M229) is comprised of person worn equipment (COMBAT SIMLAS +) and associated components, installed equipment (sensors and monitoring station), as well as an independent monitoring station which can be used as a stand-alone system or in conjunction with the installed components.

Each of the components that comprise the overall training system is described in detail in Annex A.

4.2 Comparison of Measured vs Reported Positional Data (Annex B).

In-Building Positional Data Comparison:

The data for the in-building positional comparison is presented in tabular form in Appendix 1 to Annex B. The data is tabulated by position within each functional space for each of the three floors of the building.

All data was entered into a spreadsheet and compared to the reported data. Three data points were removed as they were more than three standard deviations from the mean, these data points are bolded in the tabulated data in Appendix 1 to Annex B. The overall differences between the manually measured positions and the positions reported by the STPMS are tabulated in Table 1 below.

Table 3: Positional Differences (Manual vs Reported)

Difference N Mean s.d. Min Max X Coordinate Differences (cm) –Absolute

value 97 15.7 13.3 0.0 63.0

X Coordinate Differences (cm) 97 4.4 20.2 -38.0 63.0 Y Coordinate Differences (cm) – Absolute

Value 97 15.9 11.4 0.0 50.0

Y Coordinate Differences (cm) 97 1.2 19.6 -49.0 50.0 Distance Difference (cm) 97 24.5 14.3 1.4 72.9


The final average for the difference between the measured data and the reported data is 24.5cm with a standard deviation of 14.3. The near zero means of the X and Y coordinate differences shows no indication of any systematic bias in the location measurements.

A detailed discussion of the results is presented in Annex B.

4.3 STPMS Performance Measurement Evaluation (Annex C)

In-Building (FIBUA) Performance Measurement:

In building 1:

The complete exercise summary from the STPMS for this iteration can be found in Appendix 1 to Annex C.

In general terms, the attacking force achieved their objective, resulting in 3 enemy dead and 1 injured, while incurring casualties of 2 dead and 1 wounded. A total of 253 laser “shots” were recorded by the system during the exercise. As instructed, the participants did not employ the Combat identification function during this iteration.

Performance Feedback Comments: The post exercise review generated the following points.

• The participants indicated that the display did not indicate whether the doors and windows are open or closed during the exercise. They felt that this would be useful in debriefing sessions as their positions within the building could be better evaluated with respect to the tactical situation and level of risk associated with the close quarters combat.

• Subjects picked up through window on ground floor. The playback of the iteration indicated that one subject was inside the building when in fact he had not entered at that point in the iteration. Further questioning revealed that the soldier had walked by a ground floor window with his head above the sill, allowing the sensors in that room to pick up his signal from outside the room. The signal was lost from the ground floor room and picked up again as the soldier entered the building through the ground floor door on the East side of the building.

• Subjects moved to basement first, not into ground floor. Several participants noted that they were indicated on the wrong floor of the building as they entered using the door on the north end of the building. The participants stated that they had proceeded to the basement of the building rather than the ground floor as indicated. The signals from the affected soldiers were subsequently picked up in the correct location as they entered the NorthWest room of the basement.

• Participant number 10 stated that his SIMLAS had indicated to him through the aural indicator, that he had been killed in the basement of the building. The STPMS did not record this “death” in the basement. The participant stated that after hearing the tone, he did not confirm his status using the IOD. Participant 10 was reported “killed” later in the scenario.

• Subject 14 was indicated on the playback as firing through a wall to record a kill on subject 19. The participant stated that this was impossible as the laser is line of sight. Upon questioning the soldier stated that he had quickly peered into the room, engaged the


enemy with a three round burst and quickly returned to a position of cover outside the door. The cycle time for the sensors in this room obviously did not pick up the soldier’s movements within the room and assigned the kill from the last reported position.

• Participant 20 stated that he had engaged participant 11, but that the engagement had not been indicated on the playback. Subject 11 stated that he had indeed been “killed” by subject 20. The “kill” did register on the playback, but not until much later in the scenario.

• Participant 13 stated that he had received an aural indication that he had been killed, and that he had confirmed his status using the IOD. This event was not recorded by the STPMS.

• Similar to a point raised above, participant 12 was shown on the playback to engage participant 14 through a wall. The participant stated that he had performed a similar movement to the previous participant by quickly looking into a room, engaging a target (participant 14) and then recovering to a position of cover outside the door. The STPMS cycle time for querying the room may not have been fast enough to record the engagement or the head of the soldier may not have been sufficiently far enough within the room to be queried by the sensors in that room.

• Subject #12 killed subject #1. Participant 12 stated that he had engaged participant 1. Participant 1 stated that he had been engaged and received a “kill” tone from his system. The STPMS did not record this event.

In building 2:


In general terms, the attacking force did not achieve their objective, suffering 4 dead during the attack. The defending force incurred 1 injured during their successful defence. The STPMS recorded 37 laser “shots” during the iteration. As instructed the participants did not utilize the combat identification function during this exercise.


• Participant 7 stated that the display indicated that he had killed participant 10 through a wall. Similar to the previous iteration, the soldier had quickly leaned into the room to engage the enemy. Participant 10 confirmed that he had indeed been killed by participant but only after engaging participant 7 as he moved around the doorway. The system did record both kills, but indicated that both had fired through walls to kill each other.

• Participant 6 stated that he had been “killed” by participant 10 in the basement of the building, and had confirmed the event using his IOD. The STPMS did not indicate this event, however the data downloaded from his SIMLAS system recorded the event.

• Participant 9 indicated that the STPMS displayed his position and a firing event from the center front room on the ground floor. Participant 9 stated that he had not entered that room at any time during the iteration but had passed the entrance on his way to a different room. The participant surmised that he must have passed close to the door and could have


been picked up in this manner, but was adamant that he had not fired his weapon while doing so.

In building 3:


In general terms the attacking force achieved their objective, incurring 4 dead while the defending force suffered 3 dead. The STPMS recorded 69 laser “shots” fired during the exercise. As instructed the participants did not utilize the combat identification function during this iteration.


• Participant 5 stated that he had received an “injury” tone from his system and confirmed his status utilizing the IOD while on the basement floor. The STPMS display did not indicate this event on the playback.

• Participant 1 stated that the system indicated that he was inside the building in the South West room on the basement floor. The participant stated that he was outside the window of that room but did not enter until later in the scenario. The windows to this room were open during the exercise and the sensors must have picked up his signal from outside the room.

In Building 4:

The exercise summary from the STPMS for this iteration can be found in Appendix 1 to Annex C.

In general terms, the attacking force achieved their objective while suffering 1 dead and no injured soldiers. The defending force incurred 2 dead during the exercise. The STPMS recorded 31 laser “shots” during the iteration. The participants also performed 25 combat identification confirmations as recorded by the STPMS.


• Participant 8 indicated that he was not displayed in the position he had occupied in the SouthEast room on the ground floor. The participant indicated that the STPMS had shown his initial entry into the room but that his icon disappeared when he adopted a crouched posture in the corner of the room. The participants icon was not displayed again until the participant exited the room and into the corridor outside.

• Participant 4 indicated that he had received a “kill” tone while still outside the building adjacent to the stairway on the west side of the building. The participant stated that he had remained in that location until just prior to the end ex command was given by which time he had moved to the front stairs of the building. The STPMS playback indicated that his position changed several times during this period from the stairway on the west to inside the Southwest room on the basement floor, to the front of the building and back again.

• Participant 14 stated that he had fired at and killed subject 10 from outside the building into the SouthWest room on the third floor. The STPMS display indicated that participant 10 had been killed but did not indicate by whom and from where the shot had been fired.


• Participant 10 indicated that the playback showed him moving from the NW room on the top floor to the balcony on the south side of the building. The participant was certain that he had not moved to the balcony during that portion of the exercise.

Out of Building (Hasty Section Attack) Performance Measurement:

General Comments: The STPMS playback of scenarios performed outside of the instrumented building indicate positional data only. The engagement and status data is provided by downloading the data from the individual SIMLAS systems. Therefore comments by participants reflect only the positional data recorded by the system through the GPS components of the system.

Out of Building 1:


In general terms, the attacking force achieved their objective, suffering 2 dead and no injured soldiers. The defending force incurred 4 dead and 1 injured during this iteration. The STPMS recorded 703 laser “shots” during the exercise. The STPMS also recorded a total of 5 combat identification confirmations, 3 for the attacking force and 2 for the defending force.


• While initially recorded as being at the start position of the attacking force, participant 10 did not appear on the display after the section moved from the start position. The participant stated that he did in fact participate in the attack and should have been shown on the display.

• Participant 6 indicated that he was shown to be out of position with respect to his assault group when in fact his section commander verified that he had been in position the entire attack. The display icon for participant 6 was sporadic and not updated to the same extent as the other section members.

• Participants’ indicated that the icons used to represent them were too large, and obscured each other when the section was performing section skirmish movement. This made it difficult to assess the accuracy of the display due to the inability to see their own icon.

• An icon was present on the display for SIMLAS system “0”. There was no system identified as “0” present during the exercise. The icon was represented in a green colour. No explanation could be found for this anomaly.

Out of Building 2:


In general terms the attacking force achieved their objective while suffering 5 dead and 1 injured soldiers. The defending force suffered 2 dead during this iteration. The STPMS recorded a total of 164 laser “shots” during this iteration. The STPMS also recorded 21 combat identification confirmations by the attacking force.



• Participants indicated that the display, in the form of a hand drawn sketch that had been subsequently scanned into the computer, did not accurately reflect the area surrounding the instrumented building or the FIBUA village as a whole. The found great difficulty in determining if their positioning was correct based on a flawed display.

• The enemy force indicated that their position was indicated on the display as being west of the road running North-South beside building M229, when in fact they were located on the East side of that road.

Out of Building 3:


In general terms the attacking force achieved their objective, incurring 4 dead and no injured soldiers. The defending force suffered 5 dead during this iteration. The STPMS recorded a total of 268 laser “shots” during this exercise. The STPMS also recorded a total of 1 combat identification confirmation by the attacking force.


• Comments by participants regarding the accuracy of the scanned sketch used to indicate positional data were numerous. Participants felt that they could not accurately assess their positional data relative to the ground that they had actually covered.

• Participants stated that when they were performing group and team skirmishing, that the system accurately represented the relative movement of groups and teams during the approach phase of the attack.

4.4 STPMS Functional Requirements Criterion Compliance (Annex D)

The STPMS functional requirements criterion compliance is provided in tabular form in Annex D.

4.5 Exit Focus Group Results

The focus groups included directed discussions on all aspects of the STPMS in a controlled setting. Comments and recommendations made by the participants are discussed below in general or by specific category when warranted.

4.5.1 Fit and Adjustment Participants generally agreed that the current configuration of SIMLAS components, specifically the integrated harness unit (IHU), flexible sensor straps (FSS) and universal head unit (UHU), were easily configured and worn with existing equipment (Fighting Order). In particular they noted that the clips provided on the IHU worked well when attaching the system to the web belt.


Some participants noted that the adjustment mechanisms on the IHU were difficult to use when trying to shorten or lengthen the straps that attached to the web belt. They suggested that the adjustment mechanism be replaced with an adjustment buckle similar to the one currently in use on the 84 pattern webbing.

Some participants noted problems with the fit of the audio communication unit (ACU) as it tended to fall out of the ear during vigorous physical activity. As the speaker located in the IHU is disabled while the ACU is in use, the aural tones to indicate significant events could not be heard in these instances.

Most participants noted that the IHU tended to slip off the shoulders during vigorous physical activity, requiring that the subject stop and adjust the IHU prior to continuing in the exercise. The participants suggested including a clip, which would secure the IHU to the material of the uniform to prevent such occurrences.

Participants that used a large sized combat helmet also noted that the UHU was not large enough to remain securely attached to their helmets. The velcro closure was felt to be too short to provide a secure attachment. In addition to increasing the length of the velcro closure the soldiers suggested that clips which could attach to the brim of the helmet be added to ensure a robust attachment.

4.5.2 Range of Motion In general the participants were satisfied with the range of motion of the arms and shoulders while wearing the SIMLAS components. Some however noted that to obtain the required degree of range of motion, they deliberately left some play in the tension with which they attached the flexible sensor straps on the arms. With the FSS taut, some participants perceived that the full range of motion of the arms and shoulders were restricted to some degree.

4.5.3 Durability Participants generally expressed some concerns with respect to the durability of the person worn SIMLAS components.

Water resistance was continually raised as a concern. The participants noted that the electronic components would most likely not function when immersed in water, and since their training was not weather dependant, they suggested that increased water resistance would improve the systems reliability overall. No problems due to moisture were encountered during the evaluation however.

Some participants expressed concerns regarding the robustness of the harness and the attached sensors. They felt that the likelihood of damage to both was increased due to the nature of tasks within the building as frequent contact with concrete walls and floors, as well as points of entry were common. The single stitching of the harness was also suspect as several of the harnesses showed evidence of the stitching having given way.

While there was no apparent catastrophic damage to any of the sets in use, the soldiers suggested increasing the robustness of the stitching on the harness to alleviate this concern.


4.5.4 Coverage Participants unanimously agreed that the coverage of the IHU and FSS should be increased to include sensor straps that cover the legs to the height of the knees. All agreed that to increase the realism of the performance data, the legs should be included as frequently the enemy force saw the legs of the attacking force through windows or mouse holes but were not able to inflict injuries to them, as there were no sensors in that area. Participants agreed that an injury to the legs, which would significantly reduce the mobility of the affected soldiers, would be an important variable to include in the exercises.

4.5.5 Compatibilty Participants based their comments on compatibility on the equipment worn during the exercises which included 84 pattern webbing, combat tunic and pants, CG 634 combat helmet and C7A1 rifle.

Participants noted that in general the person worn SIMLAS component were compatible with the webbing and combat clothing. As mentioned previously the UHU was found to be too small when fitted on a large sized helmet. Participants suggested that the velcro should be increase in length by 10 centimeters.

Some of the participants noted compatibility with the C7A1 rifle. They noted that the shoulder straps of the IHU impeded the correct placement of the rifle butt into the shoulder. The participants suggested that the over the shoulder padding thickness of the IHU be reduced to alleviate this concern.

4.5.6 Snagging Participants stated that while they had not experienced any snagging problems while performing the scenarios, both in the building and in the surrounding area, they recognized the potential for snagging that the person worn SIMLAS components presented. They stated that the exercises were performed in a building that did not have furniture or impediments of any kind and that the terrain for the section attacks was generally open ground. They felt that in a closely wooded environment or in a building with obstacles the potential existed for the IHU and ACU attachment cord to become snagged and potentially damage the equipment.

4.6 Participant Recommendations

The exit focus group concluded with participants making suggestions for use of the SIMLAS person worn components.

The participants felt that although the current configuration for the integrated harness unit was workable, economies in setup and use could be achieved through alternate configurations.

The first configuration for person worn SIMLAS components included a system in which the sensors and harness be integrated into a purpose built coverall. The participants suggested that this coverall could be worn over the combat clothing and under the load carriage components (webbing or tactical vest). They believed that this configuration would significantly reduce the setup time and would reduce the adjustment difficulties they experienced with the buckles on the current IHU.

The participants suggested that the sensors be mounted in sleeves sewn into the coveralls such that the garment could be laundered. They also realized that the coveralls would have to be provided in several sizes to accommodate the variety of body shapes that would be encountered.


The participants unanimously agreed that a better option for either the current configuration or the coveralls would be the inclusion of the sensor package into dedicated tactical vests. They felt that the vest option would have a number of advantages. They felt that setup would be enhanced, as they would only be required to transfer the contents of their webbing into the vest, put it on and begin the exercise. The equipment would be familiar to them and would allow them to perform this specialized training in kit with which they would be familiar. They also stated that the sensors would be better standardized as to location without extensive adjustment.

4.7 Overall Impressions

The participants unanimously agreed that the STPMS and SIMLAS components were a valuable addition to the training aids available at LFCATC Meaford in particular and for the Canadian Forces in general.




5 References

A. PWGSC 2001. Soldier Tracking and Performance Measurement System: Request for Proposal (Solicitation No. W7711-007682/A)

B. PWGSC. 2001. Soldier Tracking and Performance Measurement System: Contract (Contract No. W7711-007682)

C. MAP MCE 131 Series A702 Edition 4: Meaford Range and Training Area, 1:50 000, 1991

D. Chamberland, et al, 1998. Anthropometric Survey of the Land Forces. Department of National Defence (98-CR-15)

E. Boyne, 2000. FIBUA TS Functional Requirement Specification. (DCIEM)

Humansystems® Soldier Tracking & Performance Measurement System Page A-1

Annex A: SIMLAS and STPMS

Training System Description


1. Introduction

The training system in place in LFCA ATC Meaford (Bldg M229) is comprised of person worn equipment (COMBAT SIMLAS +) and associated components, installed equipment (sensors and monitoring station), as well as an independent monitoring station which can be used as a stand-alone system or in conjunction with the installed components.

Each of the components that comprise the overall training system is described in subsequent sections.

1.1 Combat Simlas + and Associated Equipment General Information:

SIMLAS (Soldier Integrated Multifunction Laser System) is a lightweight laser based simulation training system for the instruction of personnel in infantry and special forces tactics.

The system has an integral combat identification and target pointing capability. The man worn components are designed for easy integration into existing or future soldier system equipment, either as stand-alone units or in component form. Additional clip-on sensor straps can be used to enhance the system performance in the simulation mode.

The system has all weather Combat ID capability, effective through fog, glass, dust, foliage and other obscurants. In addition to its ID capability, SIMLAS can also be used as a laser target pointer. This obviates the need to carry a separate target pointing device, thus giving the potential for a substantial weight saving.

In its simulation mode, the system can be inter-operated with other simulation systems, using the US MILES protocol.

The Combat and Training Equipment is used by every soldier and is structured the following way:

Combat Equipment

- Integrated Laser Unit (ILU)

- Integrated Harness Unit (IHU)

- Input Output Device (IOD), integrated into IHU

- Universal Head Unit (UHU)

- Laser Trigger Button (LTB)

- Audio Communication Unit (ACU)

Training Equipment

Flexible Sensor Straps (FSS), integrated into IHU

Associated Equipment

- Code Setter Unit (CSU)

- Adjusting and Aiming Unit


- Carrying Bag

- Combat Evaluation Software

The components of the person worn system are shown in Figure 1 (below). Each component is described below.

Figure 1: Soldier worn components of Combat SIMLAS +

1.1.1 Universal Head Unit (UHU) Description and Function

The Universal Head Unit (UHU) provides a 360-degree all round hit detection on the head of the soldier.

Six IR detectors and four movement sensors are integrated into a flexible headband strap, which can be worn on its own or fitted to a helmet or a soft cap. The construction is ruggedized with electronic parts being shielded and encapsulated to withstand adverse electromagnetic and climatic conditions.

The UHU has, in addition to the sensors, its own power source and an intra-soldier transceiver for communication with the IHU. Over this link, Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) requests and received laser shot information are received and transmitted. Additionally, the Built in Test command and their result are transmitted through this link.


When used in an instrumented building the UHU also provides the information that allows the monitoring station to track positional information for each soldier. The components of the UHU are presented in Figure 2 (below).

Figure 2: Universal Head Unit Components

1.1.2 Integrated Harness Unit (IHU) Description and Function

The Integrated Harness Unit (IHU) is used as a processor unit in both Combat and Simulation Mode.

Components are designed and built to withstand hard usage. Electronic elements are shielded and encapsulated to withstand adverse electromagnetic and climatic conditions. The harness unit can withstand laundering to the normal recommended conditions for military fabrics.

The lightweight design and construction of the component elements ensures that the weight of the unit (including batteries) on the harness is limited to approximately 250 grams.

Main parts of the Integrated Harness Unit are presented in Figure 3.


Figure 3: Integrated Harness Unit

The IHU is the systems main sensor and operation unit. It is integrated into a harness and the soldier can fix it to existing webbing systems through the use of hooks and Velcro loops. The IHU acts as the carrier for the SIMLAS system master computer, the intra-soldier RF2 transceiver, the extra-soldier RF1 transceiver, system interfaces, the Input / Output Device and the battery pack.

There are three possible IR inputs to the IHU:

Combat Identification (CID) request;

Laser simulated shot; and

Code Setting Unit (CSU) command input.

These inputs received on any of the soldier’s IR detectors are then decoded, evaluated and finally cause an action depending on the type of IR input. Direct impact of laser energy onto a sensor is not needed for a hit to be recorded. The low threshold for reception of pulse coded laser energy (4mW/m 2 ) means that a laser impact within a few centimeters of the detector can be sensed (Splash effect). It also means that the system has an improved performance through glass, smoke, rain and fog.

The system software is designed so those hits on or near laser detectors on specific parts of the harness can be distinguished. This open architecture allows considerable flexibility in the development of wound assessment models.

Function of ILU and IHU in Combat Identification Mode (CID)


The system uses an infrared laser beam, time coded with user identity and other operational information, for interrogation and a RF response.

Interrogation Process

- Interrogator initiates the laser beam by wired Laser Trigger Button (optionally with RF )

- The laser emits a coded infrared beam for as long as the trigger button is depressed.

- The sensors of a target equipped with the SIMLAS system detect the laser beam.

- The processor unit on the target SIMLAS system decodes the detected signal and commands a friendly response by RF to the interrogator.

- A red LED on his laser unit and an audible tone in his acoustic earpiece signals receipt of the friendly RF response at the interrogator.

1.1.3 Input/Output Device (IOD): Description and Function

The Input Output Device (IOD) is used as a communication unit. Through a display and a keypad the user is able to communicate with the other SIMLAS System Components of his system.

The IOD is integrated into the Integrated Harness Unit (IHU). It is fixed to the IHU with a Velcro strap on one side. If needed, it can be pulled down and operated (Figure 4).

Figure 4: IOD Flip-down operation.


Data to the IOD is entered via a four-way keyboard and additional menu command buttons.

The IOD is the system control unit and controls the other elements of SIMLAS. With it, the IHU is switched on and off. Within the IOD, engagement information is shown and some parameters ( e.g. Unit Number, Weapon ID, Piezo sensitivity ) of the system can be changed through the soldier.

The IOD is hardwired with the IHU. Data and information concerning the other components are transmitted via IHU and by RF. The IOD display is shown in Figure 5 (below).

Figure 5: IOD Display Components

1.1.4 Integrated Laser Unit (ILU) Description and Function

The Integrated Laser Transmitter Unit (ILU) is used in both, combat and simulation training roles.

The laser unit has a rectangular housing shape and is designed so that it can be fitted separately to an infantry weapon or be integrated into other weapon equipment (integrated sighting assembly). To fit it on the C6 an angled weapon interface is used. On this interface the ILU is mounted with grabber rails. The ILU is shown in Figure 6.


Figure 6: Integrated Laser Unit

The Integrated Laser Transmitter Unit is mounted on the soldier’s weapon with a weapon interface. It is self-contained and is assigned electronically to its weapon upon initialization of an exercise.

In Combat Mode the Integrated Laser Transmitter Unit transmits a narrow 860nm laser-interrogation beam. This beam is time / frequency coded, rather than power modulated and has an allowable message of 32 Bit. This allows sending identification details of the interrogator like name, unit and weapon-ID.

Additionally the laser performance will be far less dependent on range and has better performance through foliage, glass, dust, smoke, spray and adverse weather. In this mode, the laser is triggered by a wired Laser Trigger Button ( possible option -> remote trigger button with RF transmission ). The interrogation beam can be widened for short-range identification by a grating assembly. Figure 7 shows the laser beam width at varying distances.


Figure 7: ILU beam width at varying distances.

In Simulation Mode, an internal piezoelectric trigger, activated by either trigger pull or the firing of blank ammunition operates the laser unit. The piezoelectric trigger has 20 different levels of sensitivity. This adjustment possibility allows the unit to operate successfully with all weapons commonly in service. For each blank fired by the weapon (in single shot or automatic fire modes), the laser unit issues a laser pulse (or ‘bullet’), coded with specific information. This information includes soldier number, unit code, weapon type, and ammunition type.

1.1.5 Flexible Sensor Strap (FSS) Description and Function

The Flexible Sensor Straps (FSS) give additional target coverage. Depending of the configuration there is a possibility to fix arm and leg extensions.

The FSS for the arms are directly integrated into the IHU. FSS for the legs are not used in this configuration, but can be adapted optionally, since the wiring is laid. (for strap on units, which are attached over electrical connectors to the main detector unit, the IHU)

The FSS are used to expand the sensor coverage on the body of the soldier and to indicate an injury on legs or arms. As long as the FSS are connected to the IHU they are recognized and the system software will automatically generate the correct detector coverage. An IR input, like an IFU request, a laser simulated shot, or a CSU input, is received by the detectors with electronics, decoded and then transmitted to the IHU. The FSS is shown in Figure 8.


Figure 8: FSS (shaded area) attached to the IHU

1.1.6 Laser Trigger Button (LTB) Description and Function

The Laser Trigger Button (LTB) fires the Integrated Laser Transmitter Unit when the SIMLAS system is used for Combat Identification.

The Laser Trigger Button is connected direct to the Laser Transmitter via cable and may be mounted at a convenient place on the weapon.

The main parts of the Laser Trigger Button are shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Laser Trigger Button components


The LTB is used only in Combat Identification Mode. It is physically connected to the ILU, just by plugging in. There is no connecting procedure needed (as an option a LTB, controlled by radiofrequency can be used. For this one a special connecting mode is needed)

As long as the button is pressed the LTB sends a Combat Identification (CID) request signal (coded infrared pulse).

1.1.7 Audio Communications Unit (ACU) Description and Function

The Audio Communication Unit (ACU) is an earphone. It is used to report events acoustically to the soldier like a received hit or kill or an IFF response.

The ACU is an ergonomically formed loudspeaker enclosure and can be worn in either the left or right ear. It is connected directly to a plug in the neck area of the IHU (Figure 10, below).

Figure 10: ACS connection

The main components of the ACS are shown in Figure 11, below.

Figure 11: Components of the ACS

The ACS is connected to the Integrated Harness Unit by cable. It provides acoustic signals to the ear. The IOD can be used to eliminate the sound completely.


1.1.8 Code Setter Unit (CSU) Description and Function

The Code Setter Unit (CSU) is used to transmit and receive tactical identification codes from and to each combatant.

The CSU is designed to resemble a pistol and can optionally be fitted with an aiming aid. A keypad and a display allow information to be entered into the CSU.

Main parts of the Code Setter Unit are indicated in Figure 12 (below).

Figure 12: CSU Components

The Code Setter Unit is in the simulation mode used at the beginning of an exercise to transmit to participants all necessary exercise parameters and basic settings.

For this transmission the IR Link2 is used and the CSU has to be docked on the soldiers IHU.

During an exercise, the CSU is used as an Umpire Gun. It emits a coded laser light after pressing the actuator. With this function an injured or killed soldier can be “restored” back to Fighting Status or a fighting soldier can be “killed”.


For this transmission the IR Link1 is used and it can be done from a distance up to 200 meters.

After an exercise, the CSU is used to download stored exercise data from the participants and transfer it over an interface to the computer.

For this transmission the IR Link2 is used and the CSU has to be docked on the soldiers IHU and on the interface.

1.1.9 Adjusting and Aiming Unit Description and Function

The Adjusting and Aiming Unit (AAU) is used to align the laser beam with the weapon’s line of sight and for aiming practice.

The AAU is a stable field box construction. It can be used both indoors and outdoors, operating either from electrical mains or with its own batteries. The unit contains a screen sensitive to laser light.

Main parts of the Alignment and Aiming Unit are shown in Figure 13 (below).

Figure 13: Adjusting and Aiming Unit

The AAU has two functions :

- It is used to align the Integrated Laser Transmitter Unit to the weapon line of sight; and

- It is used as an electronic target for indoor target practice.


Laser Alignment Mode

The measured offsets in x and y-axis of the laser line of sight and from the gun bore-sight (this differs for each weapon type) is entered into the software of the Alignment Unit. The software computes the theoretical impact point of a laser shot from the weapon laser on the target screen, in comparison to the point of aim of the weapon.

Aiming the weapon at the screen target point and operating the laser gives a laser impact on the screen. The Alignment Unit software then compares this actual laser impact point with the theoretical impact point had the laser been correctly aligned. The calculated impact error is then further processed to generate the laser adjustment necessary on this weapon to achieve perfect alignment.

This information is displayed as instructions for corrections to the x and y- axes. The user makes the adjustments and repeats the exercise until correct alignment is achieved.

Normally a maximum of three such iterations is enough.

1.1.10 Carrying Bag Description and Function

The Carrying Case (CAS) or carrying bag holds the dismounted soldier’s SIMLAS Equipment.

The CAS is a bag made out of canvas. It serves to keep all components together in place and is shown in Figure 14.

Figure 14: Carrying Case.


1.1.11 Combat and Evaluation Software Description and Function

The purpose of the Combat Evaluation Software (CES) is to acquire, process, store and display the events transmitted by the CSU to the RS232-IrDA interface.

The software is preinstalled on a laptop computer and runs with an MS Windows Operating System.

At the beginning of an exercise, the software is used by exercise control staff to configure the SIMLAS systems of exercise participants. Exercise data relating to individuals is entered into the software and the computer may then be used to transfer this data into Code Setter Units for transfer to the exercise participants.

After an exercise, stored event data from each participant is entered into the software using the Code Setter Unit. From the CSU it is loaded via an IR interface to the computer. The software then processes the data and displays it in various formats (chronologically, individually, by unit, by event etc) according to the wishes of the user. A representative screen shot of the software is presented in Figure 15.

Figure 15: Combat and Evaluation Software Screen Shot

1.1.12 Weapon Interface Description and Function

The Weapon Interface (WIF) is used to fix the Integrated Laser transmitter Unit to the weapon.

The WIF is made from Aluminum, anodized and can be fixed to the weapon through two grabber rails.


Main parts of the Weapon Interface are shown in Figure 16.

Figure 16: Weapon Interface

1.2 Building Installed Equipment (Sensors and Indoor Monitoring Station)

The training system depends on in-building equipment to monitor and display both positional and engagement data generated by the person-worn equipment. In order to do this, both sensors and data collection devices are employed. Sensors and the data collection devices in the monitoring station are described below.

1.2.1 Sensors RF sensors are used to communicate with the person worn equipment associated with Combat Simlas +.

The sensors are located both within and outside the building. The position of the sensors is provided in Appendix 1 to this Annex.

The sensors are located within the building as wall/ceiling mounted units, which provide coverage of all floor space on the basement, ground and 1st floors. Coverage is nonexistent for the attic and mouse holes used to gain access to the 1st floor from the roof. Sensors outside the building are attached to posts, which provide coverage out to 10 meters from the building in all directions.

The sensors are used to capture not only positional data for each participant, but also the engagement data (kills/injuries/shots fired etc.). This data is sent to a monitoring station located in the basement of the building.

1.2.2 Monitoring Station The monitoring station is located in a purpose built room located in the basement of the instrumented building. It comprises the panel of circuit boards which networks the sensors into


functional groups within the building, as well as the PC which initiates, controls and collects information from the sensors.

1.3 External Monitoring Station The external monitoring station is essentially a duplicate of the monitoring station located inside the building with the addition of an RF transceiver unit which is used to collect positional data provided by the GPS add on to the SIMLAS person worn equipment.

The entire setup is contained within a trailer, which has its own power, and provides a climate controlled environment for the equipment and the operator.

Humansystems® Soldier Tracking & Performance Measurement System Page A-1-1

Appendix 1 to Annex A: STPMS Training Systems Sensor Locations

Humansystems® Soldier Tracking & Performance Measurement System Page B-1

Annex B: Comparison of Measured vs

Reported Positional Data


1. Introduction

The FIBUA Training System installed at LFCATC Meaford (Bldg M229) allows the tracking and reporting of positional data for individual participants. This function is performed utilizing the person-worn SIMLAS system in conjunction with RF sensors mounted throughout the building. The sensors continually query and update an individuals position within the building and display the information on a monitoring station. The data can also be exported to analysis software in the form of a standard ASCII text file.

The sensors in the building are positioned in functional groups which correspond to rooms, hallways, and stairwells. The RF sensors query the individuals equipment and upon receiving a response which contains the subjects number, plots the individuals position on the display screen of the monitoring station located in the basement of the building, or alternatively, on a remote station located in a trailer outside the building.

Positional data for participants which are not within the areas covered by the RF sensors is provided by a GPS transceiver which telemeters its data to an RF receiver located on the monitoring station trailer. Each participant wears a GPS in order to provide positional data out to a reported 1000m from the trailer.

In order to confirm the functional requirements for positional data (Ref A), a series of data collection scenarios were performed. The differences between manually measured positions (from a standardized reference point) are compared to reported data.

2. Method In order to generate positional data both within the building and the surrounding area, several data collection scenarios were implemented. The in-building and surrounding area scenarios are described below.

The in-building scenario involved the placement of reference points within each functional space within the instrumented building. Functional space was defined as those areas which would support soldiers in their TTPs with reference to Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT). These instrumented areas would provide positional data for each soldier set of SIMLAS. Each floor of the building was subdivided into 6 data collection areas. Within each area on each of the three floors, six (6) locations were set and the locations measured from a standardized reference point. The areas and target locations within each are presented in Appendix 2 to this Annex.

With each of the locations measured, SIMLAS sets were initialized and placed within the building on designated spots. Data for locations 1 and 2 in each of the six areas was collected first, followed by locations 3 and 4, with locations 5 and 6 collected during the third iteration. Data collection continued for each of the three floors in a similar manner.

Following the data collection, the STPMS data was compared to manually measured locations and differences were noted.

The surrounding area scenarios were performed utilizing the GPS components of the STPMS. Two sets of SIMLAS were initialized and worn by experimental staff. The systems were implaced out to 800 meters away from the data collection station. Intial locations were confirmed with hand


held GPS. The staff were then instructed to move in increments of 100 meters (measured with a 100m measuring tape) and report the new grid coordinates by radio and to maintain their position for 120 seconds. The staff would then move an additional 100 meters toward the data collection station reconfirm and report their positions. This method was followed until the staff had returned to within 100 meters of the data collection station. Two iterations of this scenario were run with the first starting in a wooded area northwest of building M229 and the second occuring in a open field area with little overhead cover.

The position of the GPS transceiver was standardized as the top of the left shoulder to increase the reliablility of the signal. Two sets of SIMLAS were utilized in each of the iterations.

3. Results In-Building Positional Data Comparison:

The data for the in-building positional comparison is presented in tabular form in Appendix 1 to this Annex. The data is tabulated by position within each functional space for each of the three floors of the building.

All data was entered into a spreadsheet and compared to the reported data. Three data points were removed as they were more than three standard deviations from the mean, these data points are bolded in the tabulated data in Appendix 1. The overall differences between the manually measured positions and the positions reported by the STPMS are tabulated in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Positional Differences (Manual vs Reported)

Difference N Mean s.d. Min Max X Coordinate Differences (cm) –Absolute

value 97 15.7 13.3 0.0 63.0

X Coordinate Differences (cm) 97 4.4 20.2 -38.0 63.0 Y Coordinate Differences (cm) – Absolute

Value 97 15.9 11.4 0.0 50.0

Y Coordinate Differences (cm) 97 1.2 19.6 -49.0 50.0 Distance Difference (cm) 97 24.5 14.3 1.4 72.9

The final average for the difference between the measured data and the reported data is 24.5cm with a standard deviation of 14.3. The near zero means of the X and Y coordinate differences shows no indication of any systematic bias in the location measurements.

Difficulties were encountered for data collection from zone 4 on the top floor of the building. Position 6 was the only position that provided data. Repeated attempts to receive data from the other five locations did not resolve the problem. Further investigations which included performace as well as positional data during other scenarios did not present similar problems (See Annex C).

Out of Building (Surrounding Area) Positional Data Comparison:

The STPMS positional data for the iterations described was problematic at best. In both iterations significant gaps in the reported data occurred. In the case of the second iteration, only one of the sets was reported, with the second set disappearing off the display. The iteration was stopped and the second set was reinitailized and worked for less than a minute prior to the signal being lost.


Iteration 1 provided the most complete data for both the SIMLAS sets in use. While significant gaps occurred in the data, it was possible to track the progess of the participants as they moved from the start point toward the village in 100m increments. Comparison of data reported by the STPMS with coordinates derived from commercial GPS units proved difficult. The intermittent nature of reported data did not allow direct comparison in most instances. The data was displayed by the STPMS on a hand drawn sketch of the area which had been scanned and imported into the tracking software. Unfortunately this sketch did not adequately match the terrain features surrounding the instrumented building. Further discussion of the problems that this type of display presented is found in Appendix C (Performance Measure Evaluation).

The second iteration presented similar difficulties. One of the SIMLAS sets did not report data for extended periods of time during the exercise. The other set of SIMLAS proved more reliable and provided data more or less continuously throughout the exercise.

Given the difficulties with reported positional data and the display problems, the positional data provided by the system and the commercial GPS was compared to map data from significant ground features in the area which were clearly marked on the 1:50,000 map. The data, when present, appeared to match the map coordinates to within 10 meters in both the x and y plane. It should be noted that this corresponds to an eight figure grid reference on a 1:50,000 map and is the most accurate figure expected to be achieved with a map of this scale and the protractors currently in service with the CF.

4. Discussion The Request for Proposal clearly identifies the accuracy to which the STPMS should provide positional data while participants are inside the building Ref A.

3.1.6.5 The STPMS shall determine and provide the position of individual session participants in three dimensional space to an accuracy of +/- 20 centimeters of a fixed reference point within the building and when the participants are within a 10 m perimeter of the building. The STPMS should track individuals outside this perimeter using GPS.

In-Building Positional Data Comparison:

The differences between the measured position data and the reported data is a function of the combined differences in the x and y planes. The differences are 15.7 and 15.9 centimeters respectively. The resultant difference is 22.3 cm. The stated requirement for the system is 20 cm. Therfore, the system does not meet the requirements.

While the system does not meet the requirement as stated, it should be noted that the requirement may more stringent than necessary. That is to say that for experimental purposes, this requirement may be too low.

Using body width as an example, research performed for the Canadian Forces (Anthropometric Survey of the Land Forces, 1998) to determine Anthropometric data, provides some evidence for increasing the minimum requirement. Bideltoid breadth is the distance measured between the lateral margins of the upper arms on the deltoid muscles. This anthropometric measurement is generally used as the measure of width of the human body in the transverse plane. The bideltoid breadth for 5th to 95th percentile males is 44.7 cm and 53.3 cm respectively. The bideltoid breadth for 5th to 95th percentile females is 39.7 cm and 48.4 cm respectively. As the positional sensors are


located on the UHU, the positional data reported is for the head only, not the center of mass of the participant. This becomes significant as in a MOUT scenario, there may be any number of situations where the soldier is not vertical (standing) but prone or in a crouched posture. The requirement to monitor the head only, and to a tolerance of 20 cm, may significantly underrepresent the actual location of the soldier. For instance, if a soldier quickly looks into a room to determine its contents, the system will report the soldier entering the room when this may not be the case.

The functional requirement of the system for experimental purposes with respect to positional data is that the system must account for all participants and their general location, for instance when a fire team is stacked, or when a team has entered a room and assumed positions of overwatch, or the position of an enemy soldier relative to the entrances to a particular room. The success or failure of a mission from an experimental standpoint, focusses on the performance data (kills/injuries) rather than purely positional data. Positional data is useful to determine when significant event are about to take place, but in and of themselves, are indicators only. Similarly, when positional data is used to determine differences in technique or tactics, the requirement is for relative differences between teams where groupings of soldiers and the time that they reached those locations can be compared.

Given the reported accuracy of the STPMS, the system achieves the functional requirement for experimental purposes, and in conjunction with performance measurement (kills/injuries), provides a good basis for comparisons between scenarios.

Out of Building (Surrounding Area) Positional Data Comparison:

The positional data provided by the STPMS proved to be reasonably accurate, if intermittent, for the exercises completed. In general terms it was possible to track the individual sets of SIMLAS over the preplanned routes. The presence of overhead cover did not seem to negatively affect the provision of the data to the trailer, no more so than the open field section. The problems associated with the display of the area on the system could be overcome with the provision of an aerial photograph of the area scanned and imported into the software package. This would allow the display to very closely match the terrain around the MOUT site.

In addition, the data provided by the STPMS in tabular form for analysis purposes should be presented in a Military Grid Reference System (MGRS) format. This format would match the systems generally used to setup exercises and in the debriefing mode, would be readily understandable to the exercise participants.

It should be noted that the problems experienced with intermittent data reception and display issues were not experienced to the same extent during the hasty section attack portions of the evaluation. In fact there was little signal loss and the display worked well. Details regarding the performance of the GPS position data can be found in Annex C (Performance Measurement Evaluation)

It is suggested that the accuracy comparison for GPS data be evaluated further to confirm the general conclusions under more controlled circumstances using multiple sets of SIMLAS.

Humansystems® Soldier Tracking & Performance Measurement System Page B-1-1

Appendix 1 to Annex B: Measured vs Reported Positional Data (within building) Bottom Floor

Measured Positions Reported Position Differences ZONE: 1 X Y X Y X Y

Position 1 1182 1624 1187 1638 5 14 Position 2 1052 1766 1037 1760 -15 -6 Position 3 1334 1804 1330 1800 -4 -4 Position 4 1294 1502 1293 1488 -1 -14 Position 5 1131 1515 1134 1532 3 17 Position 6 1339 1664 1333 1652 -6 -12

ZONE: 2 X Y X Y X Y Position 1 1785 1515 1795 1529 10 14 Position 2 1785 1634 1788 1655 3 21 Position 3 1663 1469 1650 1482 -13 13 Position 4 1635 1791 1647 1794 12 3 Position 5 1955 1807 1944 1782 -11 -25 Position 6 1958 1459 1937 1494 -21 35

ZONE: 3 X Y X Y X Y Position 1 1187 1231 1167 1213 -20 -18 Position 2 1352 1254 1327 1246 -25 -8 Position 3 1349 1038 1344 1030 -5 -8 Position 4 1032 1033 1050 1065 18 32 Position 5 1024 1388 1062 1371 38 -17 Position 6 1339 1388 1318 1370 -21 -18

ZONE: 4 X Y X Y X Y Position 1 1818 1211 1839 1197 21 -14 Position 2 1965 1040 1960 1035 -5 -5 Position 3 1970 1381 1932 1375 -38 -6 Position 4 1627 1386 1625 1376 -2 -10 Position 5 1638 1244 1614 1235 -24 -9 Position 6 1632 1045 1656 1062 24 17

ZONE: 5 X Y X Y X Y Position 1 1541 1652 1575 1646 34 -6 Position 2 1534 1812 1584 1804 50 -8 Position 3 1450 1743 1471 1753 21 10 Position 4 1457 1566 1441 1550 -16 -16 Position 5 1386 1441 1413 1463 27 22 Position 6 1567 1459 1577 1448 10 -11

ZONE: 6 X Y X Y X Y Position 1 1483 1256 1471 1285 -12 29 Position 2 1496 1162 1484 1201 -12 39 Position 3 1577 1233 1573 1236 -4 3 Position 4 1519 1388 1526 1394 7 6 Position 5 1402 1350 1422 1356 20 6 Position 6 1397 1238 1392 1264 -5 26


Ground Floor Measured Positions Reported Position Differences

ZONE: 1 X Y X Y X Y Position 1 1202 1601 1202 1605 0 4 Position 2 1024 1606 1041 1619 17 13 Position 3 1032 1794 1075 1821 43 27 Position 4 1194 1797 1206 1764 12 -33 Position 5 1349 1809 1340 1770 -9 -39 Position 6 1316 1454 1297 1451 -19 -3

ZONE: 2 X Y X Y X Y Position 1 1797 1662 1797 1665 0 3 Position 2 1616 1469 1636 1482 20 13 Position 3 1611 1804 1652 1782 41 -22 Position 4 1820 1807 1828 1802 8 -5 Position 5 1957 1700 1956 1701 -1 1 Position 6 1832 1433 1848 1457 16 24

ZONE: 3 X Y X Y X Y Position 1 1174 1190 1171 1191 -3 1 Position 2 1281 1043 1276 1068 -5 25 Position 3 1050 1030 1044 1061 -6 31 Position 4 1027 1249 1043 1260 16 11 Position 5 1039 1388 1059 1398 20 10 Position 6 1322 1391 1305 1370 -17 -21

ZONE: 4 X Y X Y X Y Position 1 1802 1193 1812 1199 10 6 Position 2 1804 1378 1829 1356 25 -22 Position 3 1947 1393 1971 1360 24 -33 Position 4 1954 1043 1956 1061 2 18 Position 5 1619 1040 1628 1071 9 31 Position 6 1632 1371 1642 1360 10 -11

ZONE: 5 X Y X Y X Y Position 1 1497 1314 1497 1306 0 -8 Position 2 1589 1289 1587 1300 -2 11 Position 3 1492 1411 1521 1408 29 -3 Position 4 1383 1309 1389 1301 6 -8

Position 5 1495 1141 1577 1234 82 93 Position 6 1452 1228 1483 1244 31 16

ZONE: 6 X Y X Y X Y Position 1 1412 1751 1409 1779 -3 28 Position 2 1419 1619 1452 1618 33 -1 Position 3 1379 1476 1432 1526 53 50 Position 4 1528 1446 1545 1464 17 18 Position 5 1523 1636 1520 1639 -3 3 Position 6 1521 1789 1584 1821 63 32


Top Floor Measured Positions Reported Position Differences

ZONE: 1 X Y X Y X Y Position 1 1032 1597 1050 1600 18 3 Position 2 1184 1500 1191 1479 7 -21 Position 3 1357 1688 1362 1691 5 3 Position 4 1215 1868 1220 1819 5 -49 Position 5 1017 1762 1029 1786 12 24

Position 6 1248 1668 1331 1791 83 123 ZONE: 2 X Y X Y X Y

Position 1 1804 1648 1778 1613 -26 -35 Position 2 1619 1498 1607 1450 -12 -48 Position 3 1639 1800 1606 1823 -33 23 Position 4 1784 1815 1772 1812 -12 -3 Position 5 1972 1617 1954 1609 -18 -8 Position 6 1916 1462 1916 1449 0 -13

ZONE: 3 X Y X Y X Y Position 1 1179 1193 1162 1190 -17 -3 Position 2 1344 1213 1321 1204 -23 -9 Position 3 1350 1045 Position 4 1047 1051 1059 1036 12 -15 Position 5 1034 1249 1024 1245 -10 -4 Position 6 1263 1401 1288 1423 25 22

ZONE: 4 X Y X Y X Y Position 1 1809 1203 Position 2 1967 1251 Position 3 1974 1040 Position 4 1779 1035 Position 5 1634 1272 Position 6 1835 1396 1821 1390 -14 -6

ZONE: 5 X Y X Y X Y Position 1 1510 1406 1514 1386 4 -20 Position 2 1414 1391 1404 1391 -10 0 Position 3 1411 1188 1469 1205 58 17 Position 4 1495 1030 1504 1051 9 21 Position 5 1579 1259 1581 1244 2 -15

Position 6 1480 1198 1380 1190 -100 -8 ZONE: 6A X Y X Y X Y

Position 5 1437 937 Position 6 1543 934 1519 911 -24 -23

ZONE: 6B X Y X Y X Y Position 1 1432 1774 Position 2 1435 1629 1411 1641 -24 12 Position 3 1437 1538 1447 1557 10 19 Position 4 1333 1474 1333 1457 0 -17


Appendix 2 to Annex B: SIMLAS Locations by Floor (within building)

Humansystem® Soldier Tracking & Performance Measurement System Page C-1

Annex C: STPMS Performance

Measurement Evaluation


1. Introduction The Soldier Tracking and Performance Measurement System (STPMS) installed at LFCATC Meaford (Bldg M229) is a site specific tool to experiment with and evaluate future concepts, requirements, and equipment for soldier systems projects in building clearing and fighting in built up areas situations. The system is intended to allow soldiers to perform as they intend to fight using equipment they actually use. The alternate role for the STPMS is to be a system for training soldiers in the proper drills and procedures for building clearing operations and fighting in built up areas.

In order to achieve this force on force capability, the STPMS allows an operator to view the activities of exercise participants both outside and within the instrumented building during an exercise and to record the participants’ activities. The system includes automated data collection and recording to permit near real time collection and viewing of specific events during an exercise and replay of events afterwards . This function is performed utilizing the person-worn Soldier Integrated Multifunction Laser System (SIMLAS) in conjunction with RF sensors mounted throughout the building. The sensors continually query and update an individual’s position and status within the building and display the information on a monitoring station. The data can also be exported to analysis software in the form of a standard ASCII text file. While outside the instrumented area, performance is recorded on the SIMLAS system and is downloaded to the monitoring stations through the use of an Umpire Gun. Information of specific components of the STPMS is contained in Annex A.

The sensors in the building are positioned in functional groups, which correspond to rooms, hallways, and stairwells. The RF sensors query the individual’s equipment and receive a response, which contains the subject’s number. The individual’s position and status are then displayed on the screen of the monitoring station located in the basement of the building, or alternatively, on a remote station located in a trailer outside the building.

Positional data for participants who are not within the areas covered by the RF sensors is provided by a GPS transceiver, which telemeters its data to an RF receiver located on the monitoring station trailer. Each participant wears a GPS transceiver in order to provide positional data out to a reported 1000m from the trailer.

In order to confirm the functional requirements for performance measurement data (Ref A and Annex D), a series of data collection scenarios were performed. Following the performance of the scenarios, data was reviewed with the participants to identify any perceived differences between the recorded events and the actual events.

2. Method In order to generate performance data both within the building and the surrounding area, several data collection scenarios were implemented. The in building and surrounding area scenarios are described below. Prior to the start of each exercise the participants were briefed on the scenario, and the SIMLAS systems were inspected and initialized. The participants were then placed in start positions and on receipt of radioed instructions, completed the scenario. Following the scenario, performance data was downloaded from individual participants and entered into the monitoring station computer.


2.1 Scenarios In-Building (FIBUA) Scenarios

In Building 1: The scenario included 1 four-person fire team (Assault Group 1) against 5 enemy that were positioned in various rooms within building M229. The enemy were stationary and were to remain in position until killed or until the order “END EX” was given.

In Building 2: The scenario included 1 four-person fire team (Assault Group 2) against 5 enemy that were positioned in various rooms on all floors of building M229. The enemy were stationary and were to remain in position until killed or until the order “END EX” was given.

In Building 3: The scenario included a section complete (Assault Groups 1 and 2) against 5 enemy that were positioned in various rooms on all floors of building M229. The enemy were stationary and were to remain in position until killed or until the order “END EX” was given.

In Building 4: The scenario included a section complete (Assault Groups 1 and 2) against 2 enemy that were initially located in various locations within building M229. The enemy were given instructions to move dynamically between floors and rooms, depending on the tactical situation presented. The scenario was complete when all members of either the section or the enemy force were “killed”. The participants were also instructed to perform combat identification tasks prior to engaging enemy.

Following each of the in building scenarios, the participants were debriefed using the playback feature of the STPMS. The participants reviewed the playback and commented on any discrepancies that they perceived did not reflect the nature of the events that had just transpired.

Out of Building (Hasty Section Attack) Scenarios:

General: The enemy force of 5 soldiers were emplaced to simulate a section dug in with trenches in depth. This comprised 2 soldiers in forward trenches and 1 soldier in a trench in depth. The enemy force was positioned prior to the start of the exercise and was instructed to engage the attacking section at approximately 100 m from the trench positions. The attacking section, comprising 8 soldiers split equally into two assault groups, was instructed to fight through the enemy position and reorganize and consolidate 20 m past the last enemy trench. The scenario was halted if the attacking section was “killed” prior to reaching the enemy position. The first two of three scenarios required that the friendly force attempt to identify the enemy utilizing the combat identification features of the SIMLAS. In the third scenario subjects were required to use obscurants (Pains-Wessex Smoke grenades) in addition to the requirement to identify the enemy. The locations used for each scenario are indicated in Figure 1 below.


Figure 1: Out of Building Scenario Locations (locations approximate)



Out of Building 3: The scenario included a section complete (Assault Groups 1 and 2) beginning at GR 2276 4623, against 5 enemy emplaced at GR 2249 4613. This scenario included the liberal use of obscurants by the attacking section.


3. Results In-Building (FIBUA) Performance Measurement:

In building 1:

The complete exercise summary from the STPMS for this iteration can be found in Appendix 1 to this Annex.

In general terms, the attacking force achieved their objective, resulting in 3 enemy dead and 1 injured, while incurring casualties of 2 dead and 1 wounded. A total of 253 laser “shots” were recorded by the system during the exercise. As instructed, the participants did not employ the Combat identification function during this iteration.


• The participants indicated that the display did not indicate whether the doors and windows are open or closed during the exercise. They felt that this would be useful in debriefing sessions as their positions within the building could be better evaluated with respect to the tactical situation and level of risk associated with the close quarters combat.

• Subjects picked up through window on ground floor. The playback of the iteration indicated that one subject was inside the building when in fact he had not entered at that point in the iteration. Further questioning revealed that the soldier had walked by a ground floor window with his head above the sill, allowing the sensors in that room to pick up his signal from outside the room. The signal was lost from the ground floor room and picked up again as the soldier entered the building through the ground floor door on the East side of the building.

• Subjects moved to basement first, not into ground floor. Several participants noted that they were indicated on the wrong floor of the building as they entered using the door on the north end of the building. The participants stated that they had proceeded to the basement of the building rather than the ground floor as indicated. The signals from the affected soldiers were subsequently picked up in the correct location as they entered the Northwest room of the basement.

• Participant number 10 stated that his SIMLAS had indicated to him through the aural indicator, that he had been killed in the basement of the building. The STPMS did not record this “death” in the basement. The participant stated that after hearing the tone, he did not confirm his status using the IOD. Participant 10 was reported “killed” later in the scenario.

• Subject 14 was indicated on the playback as firing through a wall to record a kill on subject 19. The participant stated that this was impossible as the laser is line of sight. Upon questioning the soldier stated that he had quickly peered into the room, engaged the enemy with a three round burst and quickly returned to a position of cover outside the door. The cycle time for the sensors in this room obviously did not pick up the soldier’s movements within the room and assigned the kill from the last reported position.


• Participant 20 stated that he had engaged participant 11, but that the engagement had not been indicated on the playback. Subject 11 stated that he had indeed been “killed” by subject 20. The “kill” did register on the playback, but not until much later in the scenario.

• Participant 13 stated that he had received an aural indication that he had been killed, and that he had confirmed his status using the IOD. This event was not recorded by the STPMS.

• Similar to a point raised above, participant 12 was shown on the playback to engage participant 14 through a wall. The participant stated that he had performed a similar movement to the previous participant by quickly looking into a room, engaging a target (participant 14) and then recovering to a position of cover outside the door. The STPMS cycle time for querying the room may not have been fast enough to record the engagement or the head of the soldier may not have been sufficiently far enough within the room to be queried by the sensors in that room.

• Subject #12 killed subject #1 Participant 12 stated that he had engaged participant 1. Participant 1 stated that he had been engaged and received a “kill” tone from his system. The STPMS did not record this event.

In building 2:


In general terms, the attacking force did not achieve their objective, suffering 4 dead during the attack. The defending force incurred 1 injured during their successful defence. The STPMS recorded 37 laser “shots” during the iteration. As instructed the participants did not utilize the combat identification function during this exercise.


• Participant 7 stated that the display indicated that he had killed participant 10 through a wall. Similar to the previous iteration, the soldier had quickly leaned into the room to engage the enemy. Participant 10 confirmed that he had indeed been killed by participant but only after engaging participant 7 as he moved around the doorway. The system did record both kills, but indicated that both had fired through walls to kill each other.

• Participant 6 stated that he had been “killed” by participant 10 in the basement of the building, and had confirmed the event using his IOD. The STPMS did not indicate this event, however the data downloaded from his SIMLAS system recorded the event.

• Participant 9 indicated that the STPMS displayed his position and a firing event from the center front room on the ground floor. Participant 9 stated that he had not entered that room at any time during the iteration but had passed the entrance on his way to a different room. The participant surmised that he must have passed close to the door and could have been picked up in this manner, but was adamant that he had not fired his weapon while doing so.


In building 3:


In general terms the attacking force achieved their objective, incurring 4 dead while the defending force suffered 3 dead. The STPMS recorded 69 laser “shots” fired during the exercise. As instructed the participants did not utilize the combat identification function during this iteration.


• Participant 5 stated that he had received an “injury” tone from his system and confirmed his status utilizing the IOD while on the basement floor. The STPMS display did not indicate this event on the playback.

• Participant 1 stated that the system indicated that he was inside the building in the South West room on the basement floor. The participant stated that he was outside the window of that room but did not enter until later in the scenario. The windows to this room were open during the exercise and the sensors must have picked up his signal from outside the room.

In Building 4:

The exercise summary from the STPMS for this iteration can be found in Appendix 1 to this Annex.

In general terms, the attacking force achieved their objective while suffering 1 dead and no injured soldiers. The defending force incurred 2 dead during the exercise. The STPMS recorded 31 laser “shots” during the iteration. The participants also performed 25 combat identification confirmations as recorded by the STPMS.


• Participant 8 indicated that he was not displayed in the position he had occupied in the Southeast room on the ground floor. The participant indicated that the STPMS had shown his initial entry into the room but that his icon disappeared when he adopted a crouched posture in the corner of the room. The participants icon was not displayed again until the participant exited the room and into the corridor outside.

• Participant 4 indicated that he had received a “kill” tone while still outside the building adjacent to the stairway on the west side of the building. The participant stated that he had remained in that location until just prior to the end ex command was given by which time he had moved to the front stairs of the building. The STPMS playback indicated that his position changed several times during this period from the stairway on the west to inside the Southwest room on the basement floor, to the front of the building and back again.

• Participant 14 stated that he had fired at and killed subject 10 from outside the building into the Southwest room on the third floor. The STPMS display indicated that participant 10 had been killed but did not indicate by whom and from where the shot had been fired.


• Participant 10 indicated that the playback showed him moving from the NW room on the top floor to the balcony on the south side of the building. The participant was certain that he had not moved to the balcony during that portion of the exercise.

Out of Building (Hasty Section Attack) Performance Measurement:

General Comments: The STPMS playback of scenarios performed outside of the instrumented building indicate positional data only. The engagement and status data is provided by downloading the data from the individual SIMLAS systems. Therefore comments by participants reflect only the positional data recorded by the system through the GPS components of the system.

Out of Building 1:


In general terms, the attacking force achieved their objective, suffering 2 dead and no injured soldiers. The defending force incurred 4 dead and 1 injured during this iteration. The STPMS recorded 703 laser “shots” during the exercise. The STPMS also recorded a total of 5 combat identification confirmations, 3 for the attacking force and 2 for the defending force.


• While initially recorded as being at the start position of the attacking force, participant 10 did not appear on the display after the section moved from the start position. The participant stated that he did in fact participate in the attack and should have been shown on the display.

• Participant 6 indicated that he was shown to be out of position with respect to his assault group when in fact his section commander verified that he had been in position the entire attack.. The display icon for participant 6 was sporadic and not updated to the same extent as the other section members.

• Participants indicated that the icons used to represent them were too large, and obscured each other when the section was performing section skirmish movement. This made it difficult to assess the accuracy of the display due to the inability to see their own icon.

• An icon was present on the display for SIMLAS system “0”. There was no system identified as “0” present during the exercise. The icon was represented in a green colour. No explanation could be found for this anomaly.

Out of Building 2:


In general terms the attacking force achieved their objective while suffering 5 dead and 1 injured soldiers. The defending force suffered 2 dead during this iteration. The STPMS recorded a total of 164 laser “shots” during this iteration. The STPMS also recorded 21 combat identification confirmations by the attacking force.



• Participants indicated that the display, in the form of a hand drawn sketch that had been subsequently scanned into the computer, did not accurately reflect the area surrounding the instrumented building or the FIBUA village as a whole. The found great difficulty in determining if their positioning was correct based on a flawed display.

• The enemy force indicated that their position was indicated on the display as being west of the road running North-South beside building M229, when in fact they were located on the East side of that road.

Out of Building 3:


In general terms the attacking force achieved their objective, incurring 4 dead and no injured soldiers. The defending force suffered 5 dead during this iteration. The STPMS recorded a total of 268 laser “shots” during this exercise. The STPMS also recorded a total of 1 combat identification confirmation by the attacking force.


• Comments by participants regarding the accuracy of the scanned sketch used to indicate positional data were numerous. Participants felt that they could not accurately assess their positional data relative to the ground that they had actually covered.

• Participants stated that when they were performing group and team skirmishing, that the system accurately represented the relative movement of groups and teams during the approach phase of the attack.

4. Discussion Following the performance of the scenarios and the debrief conducted with the participants, several perceived problems were identified with the STPMS. Each deficiency is described below and a recommendation on the ways and means to overcome them is provided where possible.

First and foremost, the ability of the system to display a playback of the exercise scenarios is deficient. The system supplied equipment intended to provide a debriefing function consists of the monitors in the controller stations as well as a large television monitor located in the trailer outside the instrumented building. The television is unable to be used in this capacity as the video card provided with the PC in the trailer does not have a TV out function. The monitors included with the PC are not large enough to adequately present the information to a group of participants. The debriefing for these scenarios in this evaluation was performed by attaching a projector to the video out function of the video card and displaying the playback on the wall inside the basement of the building. In order to present the playback in a manner that allows the best possible use of the system, the capability to use the television monitor must be addressed. This will allow the efficient use of the system in the manner in which it was intended.


In most cases during the in-building scenarios, discrepancies arose with the displayed positional data provided by the STPMS. Participants continually disagreed with the display and indicated that they were not in the locations displayed at that particular time during the exercise. This discrepancy was most evident where the system displayed the participant outside of a room and engaging the enemy through a concrete wall. In addition, participants noted that they were indicated on the display as being located within the building prior to their actual entry.

As indicated previously, the person worn sensors that provide the information to the system with respect to the location of the participant within the building are located on the UHU (Head Unit). The RF sensors inside the building report the location of the participant therefor, on the location of the head unit. This proves to be a problem when participants quickly peer into a room with the head and shoulders only and then move back into their original position. Depending on the length of time the participant has their head into the room the system may incorrectly identify their location. The problem is further exacerbated if the participant quickly engages a target within a room while the system has them placed outside the room as the display indicates that the shots from the weapon have passed through a wall in order to hit the intended target. In some cases the position of the individual was lost for periods of time during the exercise or was seen to jump to different locations when the participant states that they did not move at those times.

The positional data provide by the system when the participants performed scenarios away from the instrumented building were problematic as well. The area further than ten meters away from the instrumented building is based on a hand drawn sketch that has been scanned and imported into the display software. The sketch does not accurately reflect the area and as such provides little in the way of useful feedback for the positioning of the participants relative to the actual terrain. The participants did note however, that when the icons were present for the entire section, the display did a good job in representing the type of movement being conducted. Section, group and team skirmish were reflected well when the map was zoomed in. In order to overcome the perceived problems with the display, a detailed overhead image of the site and surrounding area must be obtained and loaded into the system. This would provide valuable feedback to the participants as their performance, specifically with respect to the use of terrain and cover, could be better evaluated and discussed. Additionally, participants would be better able to assess the accuracy of the playback if the graphic represented the actual terrain that they had used during the exercise.

The discrepancies in positional data serve to undermine the confidence that the participants have in the system with respect to its capabilities in accurately reflecting the events that occur during the exercise scenarios. In order to alleviate the perceived problems with positional reporting the ability to view the exercise utilizing video cameras would seem to be the way forward. Rather than requiring a detailed debrief in which participants confirm the data presented by the system, discrepancies can be noted and the data amended using a time tagged video replay. The original Request for Proposal (RFP, ref A), stipulated that such a system be in place. The subsequent contract award stipulated that the system should be wired for the eventual addition of a video/audio capture system to be purchased at a later date. This addition would be invaluable in overcoming the conflicting information provided by the current system.

In terms of accuracy with respect to performance data, several discrepancies were observed between the data downloaded from individual person worn SIMLAS sets and the data collected by the sensors within the building. Participants noted that in some cases they had been alerted to a kill or injury by the aural tones but the event was not recorded by the STPMS sensors. The differences can be overcome by comparing the both data sets, but the process is labour intensive and requires


that the participants confirm the event. In addition the comparison is only possible when events take place inside or within 10 meters of the instrumented building as the participants data is being captured by both systems. Once the participants leave the area that is instrumented, the only data collected by the STPMS is positional data through the GPS components of the SIMLAS. That being said, the perception among participants was that the person worn SIMLAS provided a more accurate record of events.

The use of the system as a force on force training system does not suffer to the same extent as its use as an experimental tool due to the previously mentioned problems. The use of the system as an experimental tool requires that a high degree of confidence be maintained with respect to the accuracy and completeness of the information it provides. Relative differences between techniques and novel equipment must be defined by hard, verifiable data that is consistent and representative of the tasks undertaken. That being said, the inclusion of a video/audio data capture system, the provision of accurate, detailed imagery used during playback, and a suitable playback system will go a long way to meeting these requirements.

Further information with respect to the functional requirements of the system and the compliance of the STPMS can be found in Appendix D.

Humansystem® Soldier Tracking & Performance Measurement System Page C-1-1

Appendix 1 to Annex C: Performance Measurement Exercise Summaries In Building Scenario 1: Exercise Summary


In Building Scenario 2: Exercise Summary


Out of Building Scenario 1: Exercise Summary

Humansystems® Soldier Tracking & Performance Measurement System Page D-1

Annex D: Soldier Tracking and Performance

Measurement System (STPMS) Functional Requirements

Criterion Compliance


1. Introduction The following section presents the intended functional requirements for the Soldier Tracking and Performance Measurements System as found in the Request for Proposal (PWGSC W7711-007682/A Reference A).

The functional requirements are broken down into the following categories:

1. System Requirements

2. Soldier Requirements

3. Combat Identification

4. Umpire Requirements

5. Data Collection Requirements

6. Monitoring Requirements, and

7. Performance Feedback Requirements.

The following sections contain tables which provide the requirements for each category, remarks with respect to compliance and an indication as to wether the system satisfies the requirement. Compliance may be partial in some instances, and in these cases, further explanation is presented.

It should be noted that the functional requirements stated in the Request for Proposal (RFP) differ from the final Contract. For example, the RFP states that video and audio will be captured and recorded while participants are in the instrumented building. The final contract states that the building should wired for the inclusion of these devices, but that none are to be supplied at this time.

The remarks in the following sections are based on the users manual as well as observations obtained through the performance of the positional data comparison testing and performance measurement evaluations, and focus groups. . Compliance is separated into two components: functional compliance (fnct) with criteria and contractual compliance (cntct) The comments in the remarks section in brackets are clarifications of or explanations for, discrepancies between the RFP and the contract (provided by the Scientific Authority).


1.1 System Requirements Functional Requirements Contract

Requirements Remarks Compliant

Fnct Cntct The FIBUA TS shall provide individual soldiers a force on force training capability.

Essential The systems provide a force on force training capabilty.

YES YES

The weapon transmitter shall have dispersion comparable to that of the C7 rifle.

Essential The literature from the company details the characteristics of the laser as being approx. 5.56 mm in diameter out to 300 meters. The calibre of the C7 rifle is 5.56 mm, the C6 MMG is 7.62 mm.

YES YES

Individual soldiers shall use actual weapons firing blank ammunition during training.

Essential The systems utililizes the actual weapons of each soldier and is primarily activated using the concussive force of a blank round. Activation of the ILU is so achieved using piezo sensors.

YES YES

The characteristics of the weapon transmitter shall be adjustable by the exercise operator to simulate other weapon systems and capabilities both real and projected.

Essential The ILU can be configure with the provided software to simulate the effects of other weapons and ammunition types. Specifically, the software can be used to tailor the laser to change the number of hits required to register a kill or injury, and the effects of body armour worn by the participant relative to the round being simulated.

YES YES

Individuals shall be able to mitigate the effectiveness of simulated incoming rounds by the judicious use of cover.

Essential The laser is line of sight (LOS) and as such will not hit a target that cannot be seen. (One drawback to this is that the soldier can hide behind objects that block line of sight but would not block an actual bullet. This deficiency cannot be overcome with currently available technology)

YES YES


Functional Requirements Contract Requirements

Remarks Compliant Fnct Cntct

The FIBUA TS shall simultaneously accommodate up to TBD individuals consisting of friendly, enemy and non-combatant personnel in FIBUA situations.

Essential The system is capable of accommodating up to 3000 personnel. The personnel can be assigned categories corresponding to enemy, friendly and non-combatants

YES YES

The FIBUA TS shall be designed for nighttime operation as well as daytime use.

Essential The system is usable in both day and night conditions. The IOD is backlit for operation at night, although the other components do not have any illumination.

Yes No

The FIBUA TS shall incorporate an audible alarm system within the building. Controlled by the operator, the alarm will alert personnel to hazardous or life-threatening situations. The alarm shall be loud enough to be heard above the sound of gunfire.

Essential At present there is no alarm system installed in the building. Further details are required for the type of alarm and what it is intended to communicate.(This requirement was deemed desirable during discussions with the contractor as it is not currently present in any other FIBUA training area in the CF and there are no characteristics of this site that render it inherently more hazardous than other FIBUA training areas)

No No

When used by a trained operator, the FIBUA TS shall be ready for operation within 30 minutes. This time shall include: power on; loading of software; self tests; diagnostics; entry of data for up to forty (40) personnel; loading of required data into the umpire gun; and downloading of required data from the umpire gun to the individual man-worn kit.

Essential The FIBUA TS can be ready in 30 minutes when set up by a trained operator. Significant economies in time are achieved by setting the participant file and characteristics prior to the arrival of the Unit. This is performed primarily using the supplied software and allows the operator to upload the data to the control station. Subsequent sessions allow the operator to copy a participant list from previous exercises.

YES YES

All FIBUA TS components shall operate on a common time base to permit accurate data recording for data analysis and replay purposes.

Essential The time base is set using the master software which is used to initialize the exercise. This ensures that a common time base is achieved for resolving timing data associated with mission objectives.

YES Yes




The man-worn apparatus shall be contained in ruggedized, commercial transit cases for transportation and storage. Up to ten kits may be contained in one case.

Essential Ruggedized commercial transit cases were not provided for the systems. At present, the sets are provided in canvas bags, which, while robust material, do not provide protection against inadvertant impact.(This requirement was removed due to the bulk associated with protective containers and the relative robustness of the systems. It was felt that any transportation of the systems would by in a barrack box or similar rugged container. This was also a cost issue.)

No No

Ruggedized, commercial transit case(s) shall be supplied for the operator station.

Essential Ruggedized commercial transit cases are not supplied for the operator station. The OEM containers in which the PC and associated items were packed are the only shipping containers.(The operator station is a COTS computer. A ruggedized transit case was removed from the requirement for budgetary reasons, in part due to the limited travel anticipated for the operator station.)

No No

The FIBUA TS must be interoperable with the system in place at the DBBL MOUT site at Fort Benning, USA.

Essential Base on trials held in Ft Benning Georgia (McKenna MOUT site), the syste is interoperable with the CS+ Version 2.01 in place.

YES YES

It is desirable that the FIBUA TS include a two-way voice communication system for communication between the exercise operator and exercise umpires.

Not Found in Contract

A two way voice communication system has not been provided for this function.(This was removed due to budgetary restrictions)

No NA


1.2 Soldier Requirements: Functional Requirements Contract


Fnct Cntct The FIBUA TS torso mounted components shall be integrated into Clothe the Soldier load carriage vests. All remaining FIBUA TS soldier mounted components shall be designed and sized to accommodate from the 5th percentile female to the 95th percentile male for the pertinent dimensions for the intended mounting location The soldier shall not be hindered nor obstructed from his/her normal activities by wearing the FIBUA TS components while wearing summer and winter combat clothing and equipment.

Desirable for LCS

Essential for fit

The torso mounted components of the system have not been integrated into the Tactical Vest (TV). The system comprises a harness system which contains the flexible sensor straps, IOD, and the integrated harness unit. The harness is worn over existing webbing or vests. The IHU does not accommodate the 95th percentile males in that the velcro for attaching the head harness to a large CG 634 Combat helmet is too short. (Due to time and budgetary constraints it was not possible to integrate the FIBUA TS components into the CTS vest for this purchase. This was an option for follow on purchases. The head harness and arm bands have Velcro extension pieces to permit them to fit the large helmet or large soldiers, while not ideal this solution allows the system to function.)

No No

The FIBUA TS weapon transmitter and man-worn equipment shall be appended by each soldier, powered, and self-tested including verification of weapon/laser alignment in less than five minutes.

Essential This requirement is achievable by a fully trained and experienced participant. Neophytes will have difficutly meeting this timing.

YES Yes

The FIBUA TS shall permit the inter-player transfer of weapons between soldiers with the weapon transmitter being assigned the player identification of the soldier holding the weapon.

Essential The system allows the transfer of weapons but the process is not automatic. The ILU on the transferred weapon must be powered down and then back up going through the start up connection sequence to obtain the new soldier ID.(I would say that this capability is a YES as it can be accomplished, the procedure is a bit cumbersome but cannot be readily simplified without risking that weapons change owners at random when soldiers are in close proximity.)

No No




The FIBUA TS weapon transmitter and man-worn equipment shall have a low battery indicator to indicate the need for battery replacement.

Essential The IOD provides a battery check function which is a series of five bars. Five full bars indicates that the battery contains a full charge. There is however no low battery indicator that automatically alerts the participant when a battery requires replacement. Experience suggests that the participant query the system on a regular basis to determine battery status.(An automatic alert would have to be auditory which could compromise tactical situation if it went off at the wrong time.)

No Yes

The FIBUA TS weapon transmitter shall give an indication that it is firing properly.

Essential The ILU indicates that it has fired a laser shot through an LED that blinks red.

YES YES

The FIBUA TS man-worn equipment shall not register self-inflicted wounds due to reflected light.

Not found in Contract

The coded laser shot of the ILU will not register a kill on the same soldier number. Suicides or accidental death are not exercise event markers on the data collection software.

YES NA

For alignment purposes, the FIBUA TS weapon transmitter shall include a dry firing mode that permits the weapon transmitter to be activated without the use of blank ammunition. The FIBUA TS will recognize this mode as separate from the blank fire mode both at the man-worn equipment and the activity record level. This will prevent soldiers from inflicting casualties after they have run out of ammunition unless permitted in the exercise scenario.

Essential The systems ILU has a firing mode that can be engaged for alignment purposes. The system will acknowledge that the laser is operating in this mode. The mode is continuous. The system does not prevent the laser activation from a force similar to the concussive force of a blank round. The piezo sensors can be set such that cycling the bolt of a C7 with the charging handle will activate the ILU and a laser shot will be generated.(It wasn’t feasible within budget to fully meet this requirement.)

No Yes

Alignment of the weapon transmitter to the actual weapon shall be completed by user personnel in less than five minutes.

Essential An experienced user can meet this requirement. Neophytes certainly would not. The timing also assumes that the ILU is not significantly off a zero point and that the alignment unit and software is functioning correctly for controlled experiments. Field expedient methods are possible but do not provide sufficient accuracy for the IFF interogation function at distance.

YES Yes




Alignment of the weapon transmitter to the actual weapon shall be completed by user personnel in less than five minutes.

Essential An experienced user can meet this requirement. Neophytes certainly would not. The timing also assumes that the ILU is not significantly off a zero point and that the alignment unit and software is functioning correctly for controlled experiments. Field expedient methods are possible but do not provide sufficient accuracy for the IFF interogation function at distance.

YES Yes

Alignment to the host weapon shall be accomplished without adjustment of the host weapon sight.

Essential The alignment of the ILU without making adjustments to the weapon sight is possible. This assumes however, in the case of the C7 with C79 optical sight, that the handguards have been replaced with “weaver” or “picatinny” rail type handguard.

YES Yes

The weapon transmitter shall be activated by firing a blank round from the weapon during normal training.

Essential The ILU has shock or piezo sensors which are used to activate the laser when they detect that a blank round has been fired.

YES Yes

The man-worn equipment shall provide detection coverage of 360 degrees in azimuth and 150 degrees in elevation about a vertical line through the soldier.

Essential The man worn equipment provides the required detection coverage .

YES Yes

The weapon transmitter shall fire single shot and automatic fire at the maximum rates for each weapon.

Essential The weapon transmitter meets or exceeds the maximum rates of fire for the C7, C8, C6 and C9 weapons systems.

YES Yes

The FIBUA TS should include one hundred (100) simulated hand grenades that shall operate with the man-worn equipment.

Desirable No simulated hand grenades were provided with the system.(Handgrenades were beyond the budget for the system.)

No No

The hand grenade shall be armed in the normal manner, that is, a pin must be pulled to arm the grenade and the grenade will “explode” in TBD seconds ±TBDseconds after being released from the hand.

Essential No simulated hand grenades were provided with the system.

No No




The hand grenade shall provide a flash and bang to represent the effects of an actual hand grenade.

Essential No simulated hand grenades were provided with the system.

No No

The man-worn equipment shall include an indicator to provide information on soldier status to include alive, dead, and wounded. This information shall be available to the user on demand.

Essential Soldier status is indicated on the IOD on the harness system. The system can be queried on demand at any time to determine soldier status.

YES Yes

The man-worn equipment shall emit a distinct audio tone for a kill and a different distinct audio tone for “wound” when the detectors register a hit from a weapon transmitter or grenade. Both tones shall not exceed 140 dB.

Essential The system emits distinct audio tones for both kills and injuries. Injury tones comprise short tones for ten seconds following an injury. Kills are represented by a continuous tone lasting ten seconds. Sound pressure levels for the tones were not measured.

YES Yes

The audio tone for a non-lethal wound shall have a duration of approximately 10 seconds. The audio tone for a “kill” shall have a duration of approximately 30 seconds.

Essential Kill tone required for 10 seconds only

The audio tone for an injury (wound) has a duration of ten seconds. The continuous tone for a kill lasts for ten seconds. (Discussions with the contractor and SA determined that 10 seconds was adequate for each tone.)

No Yes

The audio tone for a wound or kill shall begin within 0.5 seconds of the shot being fired.

Essential Time for onset of the wounding or kill tones was not measured.

An individual’s weapon transmitter shall be rendered non-operational when the man-worn detector system registers a kill.

Essential The ILU is rendered inoperable when the detector system registers a kill. The ILU remains disabled until the system has been reset to “Fighting”, even if the unit is shut down and restarted.

YES Yes

The weapon transmitter shall be rendered non-operational, until reset by the umpire gun, when the system detects a cheating event on the man-worn equipment (system power down or battery removal).

Essential The ILU is not rendered non-operational when the head unit is turned off or the battery is removed. The only indication that the various components are turned off is if the umpire queries the soldier with the God gun. Similarily, the system cannot detect if the laser sensors on the particpants body have been covered with tape, etc. and therfore cannot detect this cheating event. (Solving these technical problems proved beyond the scope of this acquisition in both time and money. One complicating issue is how to deal with battery changes when they run low.)

No No


1.3 Combat Identification Requirements Functional Requirements Contract


Fnct Cntct Each weapon transmitter shall be fitted with an CID device that, when used, will identify personnel fitted with man-worn detectors and master units as friendly. (Note: The CID mode will be used to experiment with future concepts such as identification of friendly forces in hostile theatres.)

Essential The ILU comprises a coded laser, it acts as a CID in that if a target is lased, it responds with a code that identifies it as either a friendly, or an enemy. Non combatants will be identified as friendly only if they are wearing the recievers and have been coded as freindly participants.

YES Yes

The CID mode shall be selectable as either ON or OFF.

Essential The CID mode be turned off using the IOD. The CID cannot be activated through shock or piezo sensors when left activated, until the pressure switch provided for CID activation is pressed. In combat mode, the laser only provides CID.

YES Yes

The CID function shall be activated by the soldier through a switch that is independent of the weapon trigger.

Essential The CID function is activated by a pressure switch that is independant of the weapon trigger. The pressure switch is configurable by the firer as to location.

YES Yes

When a target is identified as friendly the IFF device will give visual confirmation to the firer.

Essential When a target is indicated as friendly, the response comprises both aural and visual indicators. The aural indicator is two short beeps and the visual indicator is 4 red blinks on the LED located on the ILU

YES Yes

When a target is identified as friendly the CID device will give aural confirmation to the firer.

Essentiqal See above. YES Yes

The firer shall have the choice of hearing the CID audio tone with or without an earphone. When an earphone is used, the internal speaker shall be turned off.

Essential When the Audio Communication Unit (ACU) is employed, the internal speaker mounted in the harness is turned off.

YES Yes




When the CID function is activated and does not register a response, the device shall provide visual confirmation to the firer within 10 seconds.

Essential No indication is given to the firer when the CID function does not register a response. Some confusion may arise as the soldier may question whether the target is an enemy or merely that the laser missed the target. A method to increase the width of the beam in order to increase the likelihood of a hit is provided and is activated through the IOD. This assumes however that the ILU has been correctly aligned with the weapon sight.(The system does indicate that the laser has been fired through an LED. It was deemed redundant to provide an additional indication that the laser fired and didn’t receive a response.)

No No


1.4 Umpire Requirements Functional Requirements Contract


Fnct Cntct The FIBUA TS shall be equipped with two (2) umpire guns. The umpire gun shall: a. upload/download data to/from the man-worn equipment; b. upload/download data to/from the control station; c. allow the umpire to “resurrect” any “killed’ personnel; d. allow the umpire to “kill” any personnel; and e. allow the umpire to query the status of any man-worn equipment.

Essential The Umpire Gun (Code Setting Unit) satisfies the functional requirements.

YES Yes

The umpire gun shall require no physical connection to the man-worn equipment to perform the functions in the preceding paragraph.

Essential In order to query the status of any man worn equipment, the God Gun must be mated to the data port on the harness.

Similarly, to up/download data from the soldier, the God Gun must be mated to the data port.

Resurrecting or killing a participant is possible without contact as long as LOS is maintained out to 200 meters.

(It was not feasible to perform the info download/upload functions at a distance as the risk of data dropout was too great. The major remote requirements are kill and resurrect, the other functions are usually performed at the start or end of an exercise.)

No No


1.5 Data Collection Requirements: Functional Requirements Contract


Fnct Cntct The FIBUA TS shall record the time tagged video with audio being displayed on the XX monitors in the control station.

Essential

Not found in contract

No video/audio collection devices were purchased or installed with the system. (Beyond the budget)

No NA

The FIBUA TS shall display and record in near real-time specific events occurring during a training session, in tabular format, including: a. time from session start; b. time tagged location of all session participants—by name, force (friend, foe, or non-combatant), and weapon type; c. time tagged activation of all session participants’ weapons; d. time tagged casualty status of all session participants; e. time tagged identifier for all participants weapon actions including IFF f. time tagged identifier for each casualty—who was wounded/killed and by whom and by what weapon; g. all fratricide occurrences; and h. time tagged cheating events—equipment power down or battery removal.

Essential a. events are recorded from the time of initialization, not elapsed time from session

Yes Yes

The information listed above will also be displayed, in near real time, on the wire frame and plan view displays of the exercise area.

Essential The information is available but not all is found on the display, only the subject number is displayed at all times.(Combat activities are indicated as well (shots and CIDs) but do not remain on the screen. To leave all this info on the screen at all times would have rendered the display too cluttered to be useful.)

No No




Individual exercise participants shall be identified by unique identifiers such as: name, rank and service number (alphanumeric).

Essential A variety of unique identifiers are available for each participant, including each of the ones noted above. In addition, special codes and numbers can be appended to further identify subsections within organic units.

YES Yes

The FIBUA TS shall permit individual exercise participants to be identified as friend, foe, or non-combatant. It will also permit the subdivision of participants within each of these groups.

Essential See above YES Yes

The FIBUA TS shall determine and provide the position of individual session participants in three-dimensional space to an accuracy of ±20 centimeters of a fixed reference point within the building and when participants are within a 10 metre perimeter of the building. When outdoors and outside the 10 metre perimeter of the building and up to a distance of 1 kilometre from the operator station, accuracy shall be ±2 metres using the operator station as the reference point.

Essential See Report Annex B No No

Tracking of a person moving from inside to outside, or vice versa, shall be seamless with no abrupt discontinuities in the data reporting.

Essential Positional data is not seamless, gaps occur when subjects move from outside the building to inside. In addition, if the windows and doors are open a participant may be shown inside the building before they have actually entered.

No No

Soldier position from outdoors to indoors and vice versa shall be accurate to XX m and position shall not be lost for more than YY seconds.

Essential The accuracy demands were not identified in the functional requirements. The contract states accuracy to .5 meters and that position should not be lost.

No Yes




The FIBUA TS shall assign a casualty status of alive, killed, or wounded to individual exercise combatants using an algorithm based on: lethality and accuracy of weapon type (including grenades); accuracy of the firer; cover taken by individual combatants; wearing of fragmentation vests, body armour and helmet. The effectiveness of this protection should be adjustable by the exercise controller prior to the exercise start (i.e. variable V50); where hit on the body; and cumulative effects of non-lethal wounds.

Essential YES YES

After an individual has been killed the FIBUA TS shall continue to monitor the individual for movement and register further laser hits. The FIBUA TS operator shall be alerted to any movement greater than 2 metres.

Essential The operator is not informed per se when a “killed” participant moves more than 2 meters. Further hits are recorded on the subjects IHU.

(If desired this could probably be coded into the system.)

NO No


1.6 Monitoring Requirements Functional Requirements Contract


Fnct Cntct The FIBUA TS shall have a control station to monitor and view the activities of session participants in near real-time.

Essential The FIBUA TS has two control stations; one inside the building on the bottom floor and one outside which is located in a purpose built and configure trailer.

YES Yes

The operator shall use the control station to download personnel engagement data from the umpire gun.

Essential Personnel engagement data from the umpire gun is downloaded at the control station or to any PC which has been configured for the exercise.

YES Yes

The FIBUA TS shall provide a live video picture with audio of all rooms and hallways in the FIBUA training building and within an area of up to 10 metres from the outside perimeter of each building.

Essential

The contract states that only the wiring for cameras is required

No video collection systems with audio were supplied with the System either inside or outside the building.(Beyond the budget)

No Yes

Video cameras shall be placed within the building such that 90% of all floor and wall areas, including areas used for concealment, are covered and viewable with the camera.


No video cameras were purchased and installed in the building or outside areas.

No NA

The video system shall provide a picture that allows the operator to recognize exercise participants and discern their movements and activities.



No NA

The video system shall provide a clear picture when operated in light levels from a minimum of XX lux to a maximum of XX lux.



No NA




The control station shall display in real-time an operator selectable three-dimensional view showing each individual’s position either in a wire-frame model of the building or a plan view of a selected floor. The following information concerning a training exercise shall be shown: A. position of each individual within the gaming area; B. combatant type as friend, foe, or non-combatant and sub-group within these types; C. number of rounds fired by each combatant; D. casualty status of each combatant; and E. weapon firing status of each combatant.

Essential The control station will display in real-time, an operator selectable view. However, this is a plan view only, wire frame views have not been supplied. A. the position of each individual within the gaming area is represented B. the combatant type (friend or Foe) and subgroups are represented through colour coding (Red – enemy, Blue – friend or non-combatant) C. The number of rounds fired by each combatant is not shown on the display, rather a running display of event markers, including individual shots fired, can be displayed. D. The casualty status of each participant is displayed through the use of an icon. E. The weapon firing status of each combatant is linked to the casualty status in that a “killed” paricipant can no longer use their weapon.

Yes Yes

A zoom function shall permit the operator to zoom in on the wire-frame or plan views, selecting different floors in the building, and zooming in and out of specific areas of the building.


A zoom function is available for the plan views of each floor/room.

YES NA

The operator station shall simultaneously display the views as seen from 8 video cameras within and outside the FIBUA buildings.



Yes NA

A selector function shall permit the operator to select the view, from any of the video cameras within and without the buildings, to be displayed on any of the display monitors.



No NA

The audio associated with each monitor shall be easily heard by the operator and shall be adjustable.


No audio monitors were purchased or installed within the building or surrounding area.

No NA




A selector function shall permit the operator to choose which video source and its associated audio is to be recorded.


No video collection devices were purchased or installed with the FIBUA TS system.

No NA

The video and audio data shall be recorded in NTSC format on a VHS cassette tape.



No NA

There shall be the ability to insert a reference mark into the video and audio data as it is being recorded to permit the rapid location of events during the debrief.



No NA


1.7 Performance Feedback Requirements Statement of Requirement Contract


Fnct Cntct The FIBUA TS operator station shall permit the operator to retrieve, edit and replay stored video, voice, and digital training performance data and to convert the data into a format suitable for training feedback products.

Essential

Only digital training performance data specified in contract

The operator can retrieve stored digital training performance data, video and voice are not provided by the current system. The data is converted into ASCII text files which can be manipulated by a variety of data analysis software packages.

No Yes

The FIBUA TS shall generate and display exercise reports and summaries in video display and hard copy (printed) formats for use by exercise controllers and training analysts.

Essential The analysis program provides a conversion function which allows a hard copy of the reports and summaries for subsequent analysis.

YES Yes

The FIBUA TS exercise reports will be used to debrief exercise participants and shall contain in tabular format: time of event; description of event; name of event originator (firer); force of originator (friend, foe or non-combatant); weapon type used; name of casualty; force of casualty; status of casualty (wounded or killed); and where casualty was struck (body part); and exercise summaries shall contain, by force, the total: number of kills inflicted; number of kills suffered; number of injuries inflicted; number of injuries suffered; number of non-combatants killed; number of non-combatants injured; number of IFF inquiries made; instance of injuries inflicted on own force; and instances of fratricide.

Essential See Annex A to this Report YES YES

Humansystems® Soldier Tracking & Performance Measurement System Page E-1

Annex E: Exit Focus Group Results


Exit Focus Group Results Following the completion of all scheduled activities, an exit focus group was held. The focus groups included directed discussions on all aspects of the STPMS in a controlled setting. Comments and recommendations made by the participants are discussed below in general or by specific category when warranted.

Fit and Adjustment: Participants generally agreed that the current configuration of SIMLAS components, specifically the integrated harness unit (IHU), flexible sensor straps (FSS) and universal head unit (UHU), were easily configured and worn with existing equipment (Fighting Order). In particular they noted that the clips provided on the IHU worked well when attaching the system to the web belt.

Some participants noted that the adjustment mechanisms on the IHU were difficult to use when trying to shorten or lengthen the straps that attached to the web belt. They suggested that the adjustment mechanism be replaced with an adjustment buckle similar to the one currently in use on the 84-pattern webbing.

Some participants noted problems with the fit of the audio communication unit (ACU), as it tended to fall out of the ear during vigorous physical activity. As the speaker located in the IHU is disabled while the ACU is in use, the aural tones to indicate significant events could not be heard in these instances.

Most participants noted that the IHU tended to slip off the shoulders during vigorous physical activity, requiring that the subject stop and adjust the IHU prior to continuing in the exercise. The participants suggested including a clip that would secure the IHU to the material of the uniform to prevent such occurrences.

Participants that use a large sized combat helmet also noted that the UHU was not large enough to remain securely attached to their helmets. The Velcro closure was felt to be too short to provide a secure attachment. In addition to increasing the length of the Velcro closure the soldiers suggested that clips that could attach to the brim of the helmet be added to ensure a robust attachment.

Range of Motion: In general the participants were satisfied with the range of motion of the arms and shoulders while wearing the SIMLAS components. Some however noted that to obtain the required degree of range of motion, they deliberately left some play in the tension with which they attached the flexible sensor straps on the arms. With the FSS taught, some participants perceived that the full range of motion of the arms and shoulders were restricted to some degree.

Durability: Participants generally expressed some concerns with respect to the durability of the person worn SIMLAS components.


Water resistance was continually raised as a concern. The participants noted that the electronic components would most likely not function when immersed in water, and since their training was not weather dependant, they suggested that increased water resistance would improve the systems reliability overall. No problems due to moisture were encountered during the evaluation however.

Some participants expressed concerns regarding the robustness of the harness and the attached sensors. They felt that the likelihood of damage to both was increased due to the nature of tasks within the building as frequent contact with concrete walls and floors, as well as points of entry were common. The single stitching of the harness was also suspect as several of the harnesses showed evidence of the stitching having given way.

While there was no apparent catastrophic damage to any of the sets in use, the soldiers suggested increasing the robustness of the stitching on the harness to alleviate this concern.

Coverage: Participants unanimously agreed that the coverage of the IHU and FSS should be increased to include sensor straps that cover the legs to the height of the knees. All agreed that to increase the realism of the performance data, the legs should be included as frequently the enemy force saw the legs of the attacking force through windows or mouse holes but were not able to inflict injuries to them, as there were no sensors in that area. Participants agreed that an injury to the legs, which would significantly reduce the mobility of the affected soldiers, would be an important variable to include in the exercises.

Compatibility: Participants based their comments on compatibility on the equipment worn during the exercises, which included 84 pattern webbing, combat tunic and pants, CG 634 combat helmet and C7A1 rifle.

Participants noted that in general the person worn SIMLAS component were compatible with the webbing and combat clothing. As mentioned previously the UHU was found to be too small when fitted on a large sized helmet. Participants suggested that the Velcro should be increase in length by 10 centimeters.

Some of the participants noted incompatibility with the C7A1 rifle. They noted that the shoulder straps of the IHU impeded the correct placement of the rifle butt into the shoulder. The participants suggested that the over the shoulder padding thickness of the IHU be reduced to alleviate this concern.

Snagging Participants stated that while they had not experienced any snagging problems while performing the scenarios, both in the building and in the surrounding area, they recognized the potential for snagging that the person worn SIMLAS components presented. They stated that the exercises were performed in a building that did not have furniture or impediments of any kind and that the terrain for the section attacks was generally open ground. They felt that in a closely wooded environment or in a building with obstacles the


potential existed for the IHU and ACU attachment cord to become snagged and potentially damage the equipment.

Participant Recommendations The exit focus group concluded with participants making suggestions for use of the SIMLAS person worn components.

The participants felt that although the current configuration for the integrated harness unit was workable, economies in setup and use could be achieved through alternate configurations.

The first configuration for person worn SIMLAS components included a system in which the sensors and harness be integrated into a purpose built coverall. The participants suggested that this coverall could be worn over the combat clothing and under the load carriage components (webbing or tactical vest). They believed that this configuration would significantly reduce the setup time and would reduce the adjustment difficulties they experienced with the buckles on the current IHU.

The participants suggested that the sensors be mounted in sleeves sewn into the coveralls such that the garment could be laundered. They also realized that the coveralls would have to be provided in several sizes to accommodate the variety of body shapes that would be encountered.

The participants unanimously agreed that a better option that either the current configuration or the coveralls would be the inclusion of the sensor package into dedicated tactical vests. They felt that the vest option would have a number of advantages. They felt that setup would be enhanced, as they would only be required to transfer the contents of their webbing into the vest, put it on and begin the exercise. The equipment would be familiar to them and would allow them to perform this specialized training in kit, which they would be familiar with. They also stated that the sensors would be better standardized as to location without extensive adjustment.

Overall Impressions The participants unanimously agreed that the STPMS and SIMLAS components were a valuable addition to the training aids available at LFCATC Meaford in particular and for the Canadian Forces in general.



UNCLASSIFIED

DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA(Security classification of the title, body of abstract and indexing annotation must be entered when the overall document is classified)

1. ORIGINATOR (The name and address of the organization preparing the document, Organizationsfor whom the document was prepared, e.g. Centre sponsoring a contractor's document, or taskingagency, are entered in section 8.)

Publishing: DRDCToronto

Performing: Humansystems® Incorporated, 111 Farquhar St., 2ndfloor, Guelph, ON N1H 3N4

Monitoring:

Contracting: DRDCToronto

2. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION(Overall security classification of the documentincluding special warning terms if applicable.)

UNCLASSIFIED

3. TITLE (The complete document title as indicated on the title page. Its classification is indicated by the appropriate abbreviation (S, C, R, or U) in parenthesis atthe end of the title)

Soldier Tracking and Performance Measurement System (STPMS) Evaluation Report(U)

4. AUTHORS (First name, middle initial and last name. If military, show rank, e.g. Maj. John E. Doe.)

Philip M. Gaughan

5. DATE OF PUBLICATION(Month and year of publication of document.)

July 2005

6a NO. OF PAGES(Total containing information, includingAnnexes, Appendices, etc.)

84

6b. NO. OF REFS(Total cited in document.)

5

7. DESCRIPTIVE NOTES (The category of the document, e.g. technical report, technical note or memorandum. If appropriate, enter the type of document,e.g. interim, progress, summary, annual or final. Give the inclusive dates when a specific reporting period is covered.)

Contract Report

8. SPONSORING ACTIVITY (The names of the department project office or laboratory sponsoring the research and development − include address.)

Sponsoring: DLR 5, NDHQ OTTAWA,ON K1A 0K2

Tasking:

9a. PROJECT OR GRANT NO. (If appropriate, the applicableresearch and development project or grant under which the document waswritten. Please specify whether project or grant.)

12QG01

9b. CONTRACT NO. (If appropriate, the applicable number under whichthe document was written.)

W7711−007685/A

10a. ORIGINATOR'S DOCUMENT NUMBER (The officialdocument number by which the document is identified by the originatingactivity. This number must be unique to this document)

DRDC Toronto CR 2005−067

10b. OTHER DOCUMENT NO(s). (Any other numbers under whichmay be assigned this document either by the originator or by thesponsor.)

SIREQ #17

11. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY (Any limitations on the dissemination of the document, other than those imposed by security classification.)

Defence departments in approved countries − Document has initial limited distributionthrough Exploitation Manager − TTCP and NATO countries and agencies − Unlimitedafter initial limited distribution

12. DOCUMENT ANNOUNCEMENT (Any limitation to the bibliographic announcement of this document. This will normally correspond to the DocumentAvailability (11), However, when further distribution (beyond the audience specified in (11) is possible, a wider announcement audience may be selected.))

Other − Document to have initial Limited announcement

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA(Security classification of the title, body of abstract and indexing annotation must be entered when the overall document is classified)

13. ABSTRACT (A brief and factual summary of the document. It may also appear elsewhere in the body of the document itself. It is highly desirable that the abstract

of classified documents be unclassified. Each paragraph of the abstract shall begin with an indication of the security classification of the information in the paragraph(unless the document itself is unclassified) represented as (S), (C), (R), or (U). It is not necessary to include here abstracts in both official languages unless the text isbilingual.)

(U) The purpose of this investigation was to test the components of the Soldier Tracking andPerformance Measurement System (STPMS) against the statement of requirements asfound in the Request for Proposal. Secondary aims of this investigation included gatheringdata that will allow potential users of the system to understand its capabilities andlimitations, as well as allow efficient planning of both time and resources necessary toensure efficient and productive use of the system for training and experimentationpurposes.Data collection focused on the following functional requirements criteria: SystemRequirements, Soldier Requirements, Combat Identification, Umpire Requirements, DataCollection Requirements, Monitoring Requirements, and Performance FeedbackRequirements. The investigation was performed utilizing 10 Infantry soldiers in LFCATCMeaford under controlled conditions.Outcomes of the investigation indicate that the System met or exceeded the vast majorityof requirements as outlined in the Request for Proposal. Those requirements that were notmet were a function of economies realized through extensive discussions with themanufacturer and the Scientific Authority. The report provides a detailed description ofsystem components, comparisons of measured vs. reported soldier position data, anevaluation of performance feedback mechanisms and the results of extensive directeddiscussions following the participant’s use of the system in a controlled environment.

14. KEYWORDS, DESCRIPTORS or IDENTIFIERS (Technically meaningful terms or short phrases that characterize a document and could be helpful in

cataloguing the document. They should be selected so that no security classification is required. Identifiers, such as equipment model designation, trade name,military project code name, geographic location may also be included. If possible keywords should be selected from a published thesaurus, e.g. Thesaurus ofEngineering and Scientific Terms (TEST) and that thesaurus identified. If it is not possible to select indexing terms which are Unclassified, the classification of eachshould be indicated as with the title.)

(U) Soldier Information Requirements Technology Demonstration Project; SIREQ TD; SoldierTracking and Performance Measurement System; STPMS; Soldier IntegratedMultifunction Laser System; SIMLAS; FIBUA; urban operations; simulated training; trainingaids

UNCLASSIFIED

soldier tracking and performance measurement … · the report provides a detailed description of...

Documents