27th ismor: 30 aug – 3 sept 2010 is soft or sufficient to inform helicopter operations in the...

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…


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


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?


An Example Mission

Air-Mobile Operation in a high-threat environment

Flight Path

Waypoint

Threat Zone

Embarkation

Disembarkation


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


High Complexity Simulation Framework

2-D Visualisation

3-D Visualisation


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


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


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


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


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…


Questions?

27th ismor: 30 aug – 3 sept 2010 is soft or sufficient to inform helicopter operations in the...

Documents