Upload
shonda-shields
View
221
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
27th ISMOR: 30 Aug – 3 Sept 2010
Is Soft OR Sufficient to Inform Helicopter Operations in the Australian Defence Force
Arvind ChandranDefence Science and Technology Organisation
OR Methods we use, along with some cool pictures, that’ll hopefully distract everyone from the fact that I don’t know
anything about soft OR…
27th ISMOR: 30 Aug – 3 Sept 2010
DSTO OR Support to the ADF
Provides an UNDERSTANDING of CAPABILITY• What systems to obtain
• How to use those systems
DSTO OR Support to FAA and 16 Avn Brigade
To DEVELOP, EXPLORE and ANALYSE mission tactics• ASuW, ASW, maritime support, SAR
• Reconnaissance, Attack, AMO
27th ISMOR: 30 Aug – 3 Sept 2010
How has DSTO provided OR support?
• Mathematical Modelling of systems• Spreadsheet analysis / statistics• Simulation
Issues with using Hard OR techniques• Costs – both in time and money• Difficult to define and scope the problem
Can SOFT OR methods offer sufficient insights and add value to operational problems?
27th ISMOR: 30 Aug – 3 Sept 2010
An Example Mission
Air-Mobile Operation in a high-threat environment
Flight Path
Waypoint
Threat Zone
Embarkation
Disembarkation
27th ISMOR: 30 Aug – 3 Sept 2010
The Air-Mobile Mission
• Air-Mobile Team: 2 x ARH + 4 x MRH 90• Transit over terrain, collecting troops from PZ• Flies series of waypoints to LZ• Air Mobile Team then returns to FOB• Rugged Terrain, MANPADs, small-arms threats
MOEs: Survivability, threat detection capability, optimal altitudes, speeds, flight paths for safety
27th ISMOR: 30 Aug – 3 Sept 2010
What do Operators / Military Stakeholders Want from OR?
To enhance mission effectiveness• Defining COI• Modelling the mission• Analysing the merits of different options• Recommendations / outcomes / refinement
27th ISMOR: 30 Aug – 3 Sept 2010
A Well-Defined Problem
An understanding of the critical operational issue• Political, social, economic and ethical context• Scenario context (environment, allies, threats)• What systems require adequate representation• What measures will assist in the evaluation• What are the constraints and assumptions
Requires significant operator input
27th ISMOR: 30 Aug – 3 Sept 2010
Realistic Modelling
Representing reality by extracting what is important • Effectively represent the operational aspects of
the mission and environment• Strategic factors, human facts and system
specifications need to be recognised.• Validity and reliability is critical
Platform Weapons• Guns• Rocket• PGM • Missiles
Tactics• Manoeuvre• Weapon• Sensor• CM
CM• Chaff• Flare• Obscurant
Comms• Radio• Datalink
Sensors• Eyesight• Radar• EWSP • EO/IR
Environment
27th ISMOR: 30 Aug – 3 Sept 2010
Detailed and Relevant Analysis
Metrics need to be defined (MOEs)• Ability to detect a threat• Ability to classify a threat• Optimal altitudes and speeds for safe conduct• Optimal flight path for safe conduct
COI Classifications Per Mission vs SA-18 Threats
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
100 500 1000 2000 5000 10000
Seahawk Operating Altitude (Feet)
Num
ber o
f CO
I Cla
ssifi
catio
ns
Ideal Conditions
Good Condiitons
Moderate Condtions
Poor Conditions
Detection Capability at Different Altitudes
Percentage of Contacts Classified vs SA-16 Threats
0
20
40
60
80
100
100 500 1000 2000 5000 10000
Seahawk Operating Altitude (Feet)
Pe
rce
nta
ge
(%
)
Ideal Conditions
Good Condiitons
Moderate Condtions
Poor Conditions
Classification Capability at Different Altitudes and Visibility Levels
Mean Suppression Effect on Small-Arms Operator For Different FS Gun Types / Formation Separations
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Tight Formation Loose Formation
Seco
nds
Mag58
MiniGun
ARH Gun
Likelihood of Survivability on Different Flight Paths
27th ISMOR: 30 Aug – 3 Sept 2010
A Guarantee of Outcomes
Recommendations that offer a scientific justification• To improve survivability• To improve lethality• To improve endurance• To improve force co-ordination / interoperability
To improve overall mission effectivenessBreak Turn or Dig & Pinch
In-Place Turn to Head-on attack
Break Turn or
TAC TurnCross Turn &
Cover
Break Turn or
TAC Turn
Break Turn
& Cover
Break Turn
& Cover
SplitTurn
In-Place Turn or
Split Turn
In-Place Turn or
Split Turn
RightLeft
12
2
4
10
8
6
2 km
5 km
27th ISMOR: 30 Aug – 3 Sept 2010
Hard OR Modelling Methods used by DSTO
Analytical Method (Days-Weeks)
Low-Complexity Simulation Framework
(Weeks-Months)
High-Complexity Simulation Framework(Months-Years)
Operational Question
Operational Recommendations
27th ISMOR: 30 Aug – 3 Sept 2010
The Analytical Approach
• Uses a series of simplified calculations to produce a quantitative solution
• Most operational aspects are modelled• Helicopter motion• Flight path• Detection capabilities• Threat effects• Environmental factors
27th ISMOR: 30 Aug – 3 Sept 2010
Low Fidelity Simulation
• Models require some background knowledge• Models are representative of real systems with more
assumptions• Simple rule-based decision making• Some V&V required – larger tolerance limits allowed• Some data collectable.
27th ISMOR: 30 Aug – 3 Sept 2010
High Fidelity Simulation
• Models can require large amounts of background knowledge
• Models are more closely representative of real systems
• Models of Operator Decision-Making are more detailed• Model V&V required – trials, experiments and exercises• Significant amounts of data collectable.
27th ISMOR: 30 Aug – 3 Sept 2010
High Complexity Simulation Framework
2-D Visualisation
3-D Visualisation
27th ISMOR: 30 Aug – 3 Sept 2010
Can Soft OR Add Value?
Qualitative or interpretive approaches • Used to define, scope and structure the problem• Require stakeholder input• Does not necessarily facilitate quantifiable analysis,
cannot objectively compare CoA or guarantee outcomes
• Outputs may correspond with hard OR approaches, however reliability & validity are limited
27th ISMOR: 30 Aug – 3 Sept 2010
Soft OR Approaches Used in DSTO
• Scenario planning – stepping through the scenario• Interactive planning – moving from a current to
desired state• Decision trees – examining different CoAs• Experimentation – understanding future capabilities
and identify gaps and requirements• SWOT / PEST analysis – planning and developing
possible future scenarios and external drivers
27th ISMOR: 30 Aug – 3 Sept 2010
Soft vs Hard OR Methods
• In theatre, both soft and hard OR provide an improved understanding of the environment
• At strategic level, including long-term planning significant uncertainty exists – soft OR assists to constrain the define the problem
• At system level (sensor / weapon / airframe performance), soft OR offers little
• At other levels, a mix of soft and hard OR methods can provide a comprehensive understanding
27th ISMOR: 30 Aug – 3 Sept 2010
OR Approaches for Examining Different Levels of Military Warfare
Level of Military Warfare OR Approach Modelling Methods
Strategic Level, including long-term planning
Soft OR SWOT, PEST, experimentation, scenario planning, decision trees
Campaign Level, including force-level combat
Soft / Hard OR SWOT, PEST, scenario planning, game theory, Markov chains, simulation
Mission / Operational Level Soft / Hard OR Scenario planning, interactive planning, decision tree analysis, simulation, analytical methods
Tactical / Engagement Level Soft / Hard OR Scenario planning, interactive planning, decision tree analysis, simulation, analytical methods
System Level Hard OR Simulation, analytical methods
27th ISMOR: 30 Aug – 3 Sept 2010
Discussion and Conclusions
Approach depends on• Level of military warfare being analysed• Stakeholder’s requirements• Objectives
Combinations of Hard/Soft OR approaches are ideal
Can Soft OR methods add value at operational level?• Yes – in the absence of quantitative information• Mainly to define/understand problem – then use Hard OR
techniques to solve…
27th ISMOR: 30 Aug – 3 Sept 2010
Questions?