Higher Fidelity Operational Metrics
Higher FidelityOperational MetricsLTC Tom HenthornChief, Small Arms BranchSRD, USAIC1
35 3535 ?
Small Arms CBAPriority FindingsRequirements for improving small arms analyses Adopt an effects based standard (Probability ofIncapacitation, Pi ) Develop higher fidelity, operationally relevant metricsto enable effective analysis of the performance of specificcurrent (and projected) non-materiel and materielcombinations Develop the modeling and simulation base that enablessensitivity analyses of Soldier and small unit performanceto add quantitative and qualitative value to threshold andobjective requirements3
Effects Based Standard “Stopping” or “Knockdown” Power are ambiguous and not measurable Hits on a target do not guarantee an inability to shoot back A human target is complex and requires an understanding of– Where a hit occurs– What part of the body is impacted by bullet / fragment– How much damage is produced by the bullet / fragment– Whether the damage is relevant to the target’s task performance– When effect occurs or is realized Must consider both delivery and terminal performance Probability of Incapacitation facilitates evaluating Soldier Systemperformance from bullet delivery through terminal effectSoldier Training Weapon Enablers (Optics) Ammo Effect4
Assessment / Evaluation Facilities Maneuver Battle Lab (POC: Mr. Jerry Barricks, jerry.w.barricks@us.army.mil)– US Army Infantry Center, Ft Benning, GA– Weapon and Systems capabilities assessment– Weapon Assessments with Soldiers in an operational context Gruntworks Facility (Mr. Mark Richter, mark.richter@usmc.mil)– US Marine Corps, Quantico, VA– Provide configuration management of current Marine Rifle Squadequipment– Determine optimum integration of all Marine Rifle Squad equipment– Determine best areas to modernize the Marine Rifle Squad for thefuture Asymmetric Battle Lab (POC: Mr. Joe Vega, joe.vega@us.army.mil)– Asymmetric Warfare Group, Ft Meade, MD– Rapid Asymmetric Non-Materiel and Materiel Solution Development
Individual Performance AssessmentSoldier Weapon Evaluation and Test (SWEAT)– Generate capability comparisons– Any Soldier Training Weapon Optic Ammo combo– Performance as a function of time and range– Relevant operational ng”Not“Testing”
Soldier Weapon Evaluation and Test CourseSWEATUnderstand terminal performance through barrier at range .Defines: Soft target performance Hard target performanceStatic Dynamic Frameworkevaluates target performancebased on system launchconsidering factors thatinfluence terminal effect . Simple Measurable Repeatable .and ORCA modeltranslates shot location anddamage into incapacitationof target based on ammoand weapon system used
Small Caliber Evaluation Replaced outdated assessment methodologies– Energy deposit methodology– Gelatin block “damage” evaluation– Methods do not account for spatial damage – Joint ARL SLAD/WMRD effort– End to end look at weapon/bullet performance evaluation– Includes statistical variation in systems performance “fleet”yaw– Can be applied to body armor and other types of barrierevaluation0-2-4-20224681012Width (in)Height (in)20New evaluation methodology 41416First study performing comparative P(I) analysis for M855,MK262, and M80 (among others)– Assessments including yaw effects and other considerations– Incapacitation predictions produced by ORCADepth (in) Currently being used for LFT&E of M855LFS (Green BulletProgram)8Slide courtesy of the U.S. Army Research Laboratory
Static/Dynamic FrameworkP(H) f [Warfighter-weapon interface,aerodynamics, weapon & projectiledesign]P(I) f [delivery, terminal effects, hitlocation and shot line, projectile/spall interaction withanatomical features, time]Modeling and simulation in the Static/ DynamicFramework / Operational Requirement-basedCasualty Assessment (ORCA) model used togenerate:Weighted Task Average Impairment (WTAI)Probability of Incapacitation P(I)Empirically Driven System Effectiveness ModelsSlide courtesy of the U.S. Army Research Laboratory9
Soldier Weapon Evaluation and Test CourseSWEATUnderstand terminal performance through barrier at range . .develop incapacitation zones on targets thatrespond to the weapon and threat posture .Defines: Soft target performance Hard target performanceStatic Dynamic Frameworkevaluates target performancebased on system launchconsidering factors thatinfluence terminal effect . Simple Measurable Repeatable .and ORCA modeltranslates shot location anddamage into incapacitationof target based on ammoand weapon system used
Target ResponseOverview: Require targets that ‘understand’ adjustable qualityof hit metrics and provide target feedback given differences intarget posture, location of hit and caliber of round Adjustable target zones (size) Quality of hit scoring Variable time responses Real-time feed-back to Soldier Multiple degrees of freedom for target response Adjustable software Wireless to 1200m (reduce digging on range) Thermal signature (O) for future use Durable to .50 cal Rapid target switch-out Moving targetsNon-incapacitatingshot: target shuddersand returns
Soldier Weapon Evaluation and Test CourseSWEATUnderstand terminal performance through barrier at range . .develop incapacitation zones on targets thatrespond to the weapon and threat posture .Defines: Soft target performance Hard target performance Simple Measurable RepeatableWeapon .and ORCA modeltranslates shot location anddamage into incapacitationof target based on ammoand weapon system usedSoldierStatic Dynamic Frameworkevaluates target performancebased on system launchconsidering factors thatinfluence terminal effect . .evaluate Soldier performancein an operationally realisticenvironment driven by systeminfluence and target ldier in the loop performance evaluatesunder operational conditionsthe weapon and ammunition influence
Course Layout: 1 of 22 Position: 1 Represents: Right handedengagements Firing position: standing Number of engagements: 5 Number of target locations: Bldg3, 5, 6 and 7 Type of engagements: 2 window,1 roofBLD2Course view,birds eyeBLD3BLD115m50m75m200m300m600m8001000mTime1.2 sec3 sec4 sec10 sec15 secP(i)05000BLD8BLD7BLD5CQB-310mBLD6RangeBLD4
SWEAT Scoring MethodologyProduces two resultsOverall Scorefor comparison of capabilityGiven a Soldier,Training, Weapon,Optic AmmocombinationIncapacitation Profilefor comparison of standards741where score is a function of quality hits time burden rounds firedRangeCQB50m200m600m1000mTime1 sec2 sec4 sec7 sec10 secRawScore12/1510/156/152/120/10P(i)806740170
Comparison of System PerformanceSoldier Training Weapon Optic Ammo LRCQB2sec50m3sec200m5sec600m8sec1000m10secRelevant comparisons of capability based on Effect produced15
ClosingExcellent. More Fact. Less Opinion.- SGM Pete Gould Develop and maintain tools for improved capability evaluation SWEAT (Individual) SWEAT (Sniper) SWEAT (Support by Fire) Share and leverage evaluation capability across Joint Services andIndustry Develop understanding of Soldier System Effect .what is required?16
Includes statistical variation in systems performance “fleet” yaw – Can be applied to body armor and other types of barrier evaluation First study performing comparative P(I) analysis for M855, MK262, and M80 (among others) – Assessments including yaw effects and other considerations – Incap
3: HR metrics ⁃ Examples of different HR metrics ⁃ HR process metrics vs. HR outcome metrics 4: HR and business outcomes ⁃ Going from HR metrics to business metrics ⁃ The difference between metrics and KPIs Course & Reading Material Assignment Module 2 Quiz 2 VALUE THROUGH DATA AND HR METRICS MODULE 2
Simulation Fidelity to the Digital Twin Applying Levels of Process Model Fidelity Applying the correct level of process model fidelity can be difficult with an incorrect approach resulting in wasted time and money. On one hand, specifications often dictate a high fidelity model while neglecting the requirements of dynamics and real-time response.
§ High-Fidelity Prototypes (Mockup & Software Prototype) § Analysed the number of style properties of a button across different fidelity levels (Sketch: 7 à Mockup: 37 à Product: 71) Fidelity Speed Cost Navigation Interactivity Responsivene Style Information Low-Fidelity Protot
1 Fidelity refers to Fidelity Investments Life Insurance Company and, for New York residents, Empire Fidelity Investments Life Insurance Company, New York, N.Y. Having some type of life insurance is an important part of any long-term fi nancial plan. With adequate coverage in place, you will ensure your family has the fi nancial
Registered investment advisors are not appointed agents of Fidelity Investments Life Insurance Company, Empire Fidelity Investments Life Insurance Company, and/or Fidelity Insurance Agency, Inc. Any recommendation and/or information they provide about any specific Fidelity annuity is done so in their capacity as registered investment advisors .
Metrics for Software Testing: Managing with Facts: Part 2: Process Metrics Provided by Rex Black Consulting Services (www.rbcs-us.com) Introduction In the previous article in this series, I offered a number of general observations about metrics, illustrated with examples. We talked about the use of metrics to manage testing and quality with facts.
2.2.1 Product and Process Metrics Generally within a software development project, software metrics can be classified into process metrics and product metrics (Conte et al. 1986, Hunter 1990): Process metrics quantify attributes of the development process and the development environment such as the number of defects found
metrics are any different, or is it just an application of classical metrics (desktop metrics) to a new medium (web metrics). In our research, we propose to investigate these issues, and present the distinguishable metrics for the Quality Assurance(QA) processes involved in Web-Applications, as opposed to traditional desktop software application.
