Reconfigurable Tactical Operations Simulator (RTOS) 

Operational Demonstration: 

Post Deployment Build 6 Follow Up 

by John K. Hawley, Anna L. Mares, and John I. Fallin 

ARL-MR-0703 June 2008 

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. 
NOTICES 

Disclaimers 

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position 

unless so designated by other authorized documents. 

Citation of manufacturer’s or trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or 

approval of the use thereof. 

Destroy this report when it is no longer needed. Do not return it to the originator. 
Army Research Laboratory 

Adelphi, MD 20783-1197 

ARL-MR-0703 June 2008 

Reconfigurable Tactical Operations Simulator (RTOS) 

Operational Demonstration: 

Post Deployment Build 6 Follow Up 

John K. Hawley and Anna L. Mares 

Human Research & Engineering Directorate, ARL 

John I. Fallin 

U.S. Army Air Defense Artillery School 

Directorate of Training, Doctrine, and Leader Development

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. 
ii 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the 

burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. 

Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently 

valid OMB control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

June 2008 

2. REPORT TYPE 

Final 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 

5b. GRANT NUMBER 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

Reconfigurable Tactical Operations Simulator (RTOS) Operational 

Demonstration: Post Deployment Build 6 Follow Up

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER 

5e. TASK NUMBER 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

John K. Hawley, Anna L. Mares, and John I. Fallin 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

U.S. Army Research Laboratory 

ATTN: AMSRD-ARL-HR-ME 

Field Element, ADASCH, Ft. Bliss TX 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

 REPORT NUMBER 

ARL-MR-0703

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) 

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT 

 NUMBER(S) 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

14. ABSTRACT 

The current report is a follow-up to ARL-SR-0156 which describes the operational demonstration of a part-task, less-than-fullfidelity simulator in an operational Patriot unit. The specific objectives of this follow up assessment were to (1) determine 

whether the Reconfigurable Tactical Operations Simulator (RTOS) operating first with a Post-Deployment Build (PDB) 5.5.2 

emulation and then a PDB-6-like model could be used to train PDB-6 fire control crews (both Information and Coordination 

Central [ICC] and Engagement Control Station [ECS] on selected tasks); and (2) begin formulating a list of changes that 

would be required for the RTOS to adequately support PDB-6 fire control crew training. Results from the follow-up 

assessment indicated that the current RTOS model has limited PDB-6 functionality and should not be used to support PDB-6-

specific training in Patriot units. This conclusion does not mean that the current RTOS does not have training value for PDB6 equipped units. Follow Up participants expressed a view that the current RTOS does have training value in PDB-6 equipped 

units to train fire control personnel from entry up through gunnery table IV. A list of modifications to the RTOS to make it 

usable for PDB-6 specific training in Patriot units also resulted from the Follow Up exercise. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Patriot, simulator validation, training utility, PDB-6 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

John K. Hawley 

a. REPORT 

U 

b. ABSTRACT 

U 

c. THIS PAGE 

U 

17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT 

SAR 

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

44 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code) 

915-568-2896 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18 
iii 

Contents 

List of Tables iv

Introduction 1

Background...............................................................................................................................1 

Training Problems Observed During the PDB-6 Operational Test..........................................2 

The Reconfigurable Tactical Operations Simulator Operational Demonstration ....................3 

The Current Project ..................................................................................................................4 

Method 5

General Approach: The Backward Transfer Simulator Validation Paradigm..........................5 

Participants ...............................................................................................................................6 

RTOS Layout............................................................................................................................6 

Patriot Air Battle Operations Tasks..........................................................................................6 

Procedure..................................................................................................................................7 

Results 7

DOTD-LD’s Task Survey ........................................................................................................7 

Summary Survey ......................................................................................................................8 

Open Ended and HotWash Comments...................................................................................10 

Discussion 10

References 13

Appendix A. Tasks and Task Sets 15

Appendix B. Example of Data Collection Forms 19

Appendix C. Cross-walk between Patriot Tasks and the Gunnery Tables 27 

Distribution List 35 
iv 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Tabulated summary survey results. ..................................................................................9 
1 

Introduction 

Background 

During the combat operations phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), Army Patriot air defense 

missile units were involved in two fratricides, or shoot-downs of friendly aircraft. In the first, a 

British Tornado was misclassified as an anti-radiation missile and subsequently engaged and 

destroyed. The second fratricide involved a Navy F/A-18 Hornet that was misclassified as a 

tactical ballistic missile and also engaged and destroyed. Three flight crew members lost their 

lives in these incidents. The war involved a total of 11 Patriot engagements by U.S. units. Of 

these, nine resulted in successful missile engagements; the other two were fratricides. 

In the spring of 2004, a team from the Army Research Laboratory’s (ARL’s) Human Research 

and Engineering Directorate (HRED) began looking into Patriot performance and training issues 

at the invitation of the then Ft. Bliss Commander, Major General (MG) Michael A. Vane. After 

reviewing conclusions from the Army board of inquiry, which was formed to look into the 

fratricides, MG Vane was convinced that human performance issues were part of the problem 

leading to those incidents. He was particularly concerned by what he termed a “lack of 

vigilance” on the part of Patriot operators along with an apparent “lack of cognizance” of what 

was being presented to them on situation displays with a resulting “absolute trust in automation.” 

MG Vane requested that HRED conduct a human-performance-oriented critical incident 

assessment to complement the official inquiries and report back to him regarding potential 

problems and solutions. 

The HRED project team spent most of the Summer and Fall of 2004 performing the requested 

critical incident assessment and delivered an initial report to MG Vane in October 2004. In 

developing the incident assessment and recommendations, the team focused on how Patriot got 

to those incidents. MG Vane was not interested in a further dissection of the specifics of the 

fratricides, since those details had been the focus of the board convened to examine the incidents. 

Rather, he wanted to understand how Patriot units got into a situation in which those incidents 

were almost inevitable. HRED’s results were intended to be explanatory in a broad, conceptual 

manner rather than a narrow, technical sense. Moreover, the intent was to point the way to 

actionable solutions rather than to lay further blame. Hawley and Mares (2006) provides 

detailed results from HRED’s incident assessment. 

HRED’s report to MG Vane recommended two primary actionable items to address the problems 

identified during the incident assessment: 

1. Reexamine air defense battle command automation concepts to emphasize effective 

operator control: Look into ways to mitigate situational awareness problems resulting from 

undisciplined automation of Patriot control functions. 
2 

2. Develop more effective battle command teams: Reexamine the level of expertise required 

to employ systems such as Patriot on the modern battlefield. 

A later report on Patriot system performance during OIF prepared by the Defense Science Board 

reinforced HRED’s recommendations concerning the importance of effective operator control 

and improved training. 

After reviewing results from the incident assessment, the Army Training and Doctrine Command 

(TRADOC) Capability Manager (TCM) for Patriot requested that HRED’s work continue into a 

second phase. The initial phase of the project resulted in a technical report addressing the impact 

of automation on air defense battle command (Hawley, Mares, & Giammanco, 2005). The TCM 

specifically requested that the project team expand this overview material and prepare two, more 

detailed reports, one concerned with design for effective supervisory control (Hawley & Mares, 

2006) and a second addressing training for automated battle command systems (Hawley, Mares, 

& Giammanco, 2006). In the TCM’s words, the intent of these reports was to inform the air 

defense community on “what right looks like” in each of these topic areas. 

Both reports contain a summary and discussion of the technical state of the art in each topic area 

as it pertains to air defense systems and operations. In developing the reports, the HRED team 

took considerable care to ensure that the material reflected a consensus regarding the state of the 

art. Together, these three reports formed the conceptual basis for what were later to be turned 

into actual design and training actions. 

In the late summer of 2005 after MG Vane had left Ft. Bliss for another assignment, the project 

team briefed his replacement, MG Robert Lennox, on the status and results of the project and 

follow-on work. Following this meeting, MG Lennox formally requested that ARL continue the 

project so that the team could work with the air defense community implementing selected 

actions. A major aspect of follow-on implementation was to serve as the MANPRINT 

(Manpower and Personnel Integration) evaluator during an operational test of a major software 

upgrade for the Patriot system—Post Deployment Build 6, or PDB-6. The PDB-6 upgrade was 

developed to address several of the Patriot system’s operational deficiencies that were considered 

to have contributed to the unacceptable fratricide rate. MANPRINT is the Army’s humansystem integration initiative. 

Training Problems Observed During the PDB-6 Operational Test 

From the Fall of 2005 through the Summer of 2006 during the train-up period for the PDB-6 

operational test, the team’s observations regarding the progress of training for the test unit 

sounded an alarm. Training was not progressing satisfactorily. Training events were being 

completed, but individual and crew performance objectives were not being met. Many of the 

training issues identified during HRED’s follow-up to the initial fratricide inquiry were surfacing 

and were not being addressed adequately by New Equipment Training (NET) or training events 

in the test unit. The team viewed these training deficiencies as a serious problem because 
3 

inadequate test player training would compromise the validity of test results and undermine the 

basis for evaluating the value added of PDB-6 software changes. 

In spite of the observed training difficulties, the HRED project team was able to make several 

defensible observations regarding Patriot training as experienced by the test unit. These 

observations led the Air Defense Artillery (ADA) School to agree that the level of expertise 

required to employ the Patriot system properly with the PDB-6 upgrade exceeded the current 

training standard. The earlier Army board of inquiry report on the fratricides had reached a 

similar conclusion, noting that “the system [Patriot] is too lethal to be placed in the hands of 

crews trained to such a limited standard.” Further, a later review of results from the PDB-6 

operational test prepared by the Department of Defense’s Director, Operational Test and 

Evaluation (DOT&E) concurred that “The level of expertise required for PAC-3 [Patriot 

Advanced Capability 3] PDB-6 operations exceeds the current Army training standard.” 

DOT&E’s assessment added that “The operational impacts of [training and other deficiencies] 

include less robust and less effective defense of critical assets, an increased probability that 

operator error will lead to not engaging hostile targets, and/or erroneously engaging friendly 

targets.” The gist of the problem alluded to here is that technical and operational complexities 

introduced by successive software upgrades coupled with mission changes for Patriot have 

increased the requirement for operator expertise. However, training for Patriot fire control crews 

has not been upgraded to match this increase in system and operational complexity. Enhanced 

training for Patriot fire control crews clearly is a critical issue in overall system effectiveness. 

The convergence of evidence cited above supported an emerging consensus that modifications to 

current air defense training practices were required. Moreover, these modifications would 

require not simply more “traditional” training, but performance-oriented methods focused on 

deliberate practice. HRED advocated this position strongly in a report prepared in the aftermath 

of the training inadequacies leading up to the PDB-6 operational test (Hawley & Mares, 2007). 

This report also laid out a blueprint for how air defense training had to be modified to achieve 

the necessary ends. In current usage, deliberate practice denotes a hands-on instructional 

regimen focused on specific instructional objectives accompanied by immediate and expert 

feedback. 

The Reconfigurable Tactical Operations Simulator Operational Demonstration 

As noted, the ADA School concurred that a reexamination of Patriot training strategies and 

practices was in order. In addition to general agreement that a change in training rigor and 

instructional methods was necessary, the school identified an additional training capability gap. 

This gap concerned the organic simulation capability available to air defense units. The school 

concluded that units might benefit from a capability to train fire control crews that supplemented 

their organic embedded training capability and would better support performance-oriented 

instructional methods focused on deliberate practice. An additional consideration involves limits 

and restrictions on the use of embedded trainers during long deployments and extended wartime 
4 

operations. The current Patriot embedded training capability requires the use of tactical 

equipment in training mode, which is not often feasible while deployed. Moreover, embedded 

training in the Patriot control vans does not provide a setting conducive to job-relevant practice 

with feedback. A stand-alone training device at the unit level would better support training and 

proficiency maintenance under these conditions. 

Toward this end, the school identified an existing device, the Reconfigurable Tactical Operations 

Simulator (RTOS), as potentially fulfilling the need for a simulation capability to supplement 

units’ organic embedded training capability. The RTOS is a part-task, less-than-full-fidelity 

Patriot simulator and has been used since the late 1970s to support air defense exercises as well 

as experimentation and analysis. However, it had not been used previously as a training device 

in Patriot institutional or unit training. To begin exploring these issues, the school organized 

what was termed the RTOS Operational Demonstration (OpDemo). The demonstration was 

structured as a joint project involving the ADA School and an operational Patriot unit, 5-52 

ADA. Its objectives were to: (1) demonstrate and evaluate modified instructional methods for 

use in unit training, and (2) assess the potential utility of the RTOS to supplement unit training 

assets. HRED personnel participated in a technical advisory capacity. 

Results from the demonstration indicated that (1) the RTOS, as an exemplar for a part-task, lessthan-full fidelity training device, has potential utility to support Patriot unit training; (2) a 

training method centered on deliberate practice was effective for the trial modules used; and (3) 

the overall training package was well received by participants. Beyond these specific 

conclusions, the results indicated that the ADA School had a “green light” to pursue further 

applications of an RTOS-like training device and modified instructional methods. 

Demonstration results also helped to forge a consensus among decision makers and opinion 

leaders in the air defense community that the exercise was a success, and that HRED’s view of 

the way forward for training reform was both potentially useful and feasible. As an added 

benefit, the training set-up used during the demonstration—the part-task device coupled with 

modified instructional methods—represented a partial prototype for a solution to the training 

deficiencies that contributed to the Patriot fratricides during OIF and that showed up again 

during the run-up to the PDB-6 operational test. Hawley, Mares, Fallin, and Wallet (2007) 

provides a description of the RTOS OpDemo. 

The Current Project 

The current version of the RTOS operates with an emulation of a predecessor to the software 

version now being deployed to operational Patriot units (i.e., PDB-5.5.2 versus PDB-6). 

Selected enhancements to the RTOS by its developer have resulted in what might be termed a 

PDB-6 “like” version, but the current device cannot be considered fully functionally equivalent 

to Patriot PDB-6. Selected physical aspects of the data displayed to operators on the situation 

display also are different. Given the favorable results from the earlier RTOS Operational 

Demonstration and a perceived need to augment Patriot unit training capabilities, the ADA 
5 

School organized a follow up to the initial OpDemo to examine the potential training impact of 

physical and functional differences between the current RTOS and the Patriot PDB-6 tactical 

system. Once again, HRED personnel participated in an advisory capacity. The specific 

objectives of the Follow Up were to: 

1. Determine whether the RTOS operating first with a PDB-5.5.2 emulation and then a PDB6-like model could be used to train PDB-6 fire control crews (both Information and 

Coordination Central [ICC] and Engagement Control Station [ECS]) on selected tasks. 

2. Begin formulating a list of changes that would be required for the RTOS to adequately 

support PDB-6 fire control crew training. 

Method 

General Approach: The Backward Transfer Simulator Validation Paradigm 

The primary purpose of the Follow Up was to determine whether skills acquired using the RTOS 

would transfer to Patriot PDB-6. In essence, this problem is termed simulator validation. For a 

simulator to be judged valid, it must be demonstrated that there is some reasonable level of skill 

transfer from the simulator to the target performance setting. The usual approach to simulator 

validation is termed forward transfer. Test subjects are trained to criterion using the simulator 

and then brought into the target performance setting where their performance is assessed. The 

level of transfer of training from simulator to target setting is a function of their performance on 

the tactical system. 

In the present situation, this pairing of simulator and tactical system was reversed. With Patriot, 

there are no trainees who have been trained to standard using the RTOS. There is, however, a 

limited pool of Soldiers who have been trained to Table VIII standard on the Patriot PDB-6 

tactical system. Table VIII is one of a set of gunnery qualification tables that serve as a criterion 

in the Army, for example, artillery, tank (Armor), and aerial (Aviation) gunnery. (See appendix 

C for a description of Patriot operator tasks and the gunnery tables to which they are linked.) 

Under the backward transfer procedure, operators trained to standard on the tactical system are 

asked to perform a range of tasks on the simulator in question. Successful performance of the 

tasks thus used can be taken as evidence of backward transfer from tactical system to the 

simulator. If backward transfer is demonstrated, one can also assume that forward transfer from 

simulator to tactical system would occur. On the other hand, if experienced operators perform 

poorly on the simulator, it can be assumed that essential cues in the tactical system are not 

present in the simulator and the simulator is not valid for training skills essential for tactical 

operations. The backward transfer paradigm was developed in the aviation community and has 

been used to validate aviation simulators after-the-fact. That is, in situations where a simulator is 
6 

developed after the tactical system has been deployed (cf. Adams & McAbee, 1961; Stewart, 

1985; Stewart, 1994). 

The present procedure could also be termed a utility (for training) assessment in which 

participants are asked to perform specific tasks in the training device and rate the usability of the 

device for performing those tasks. For example, to address a question similar to that asked in the 

present study, Johnson and Stewart (2005) performed a utility assessment of a low-cost, PCbased helicopter flight training device, running Microsoft Flight SimulatorTM Professional 

Edition, for training a total of 71 primary visual and instrument flight tasks from the Army 

Aircrew Training Manual. The main conclusion of the assessment was that the PC-based 

aviation training device was not suitable for training visual flight maneuver tasks, especially 

those requiring hovering, though it could be useful for training instrument flight tasks, especially 

those involving radio navigation. 

Participants 

Three Patriot crews from 5-52 ADA participated in the Follow Up assessment: one ICC crew 

and two ECS crews. The criteria for selection of Follow Up participants were: (1) participation 

in the initial RTOS OpDemo, (2) training and certification to Table VIII standard on PDB-6, and 

(3) participation in subsequent live air events such as the Weapons and Tactics Instructor (WTI) 

assessment of Patriot PDB-6 conducted in October 2007. All of the participants (eight in total) 

indicated that they had received training on PDB-6; PDB-6 Tactical Standard Operating 

Procedures (TSOP); and new doctrine and tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP) required for 

PDB-6. In addition, five of the eight participants rated their knowledge of Patriot PDB-6 as 

“expert,” and three rated their knowledge level as “intermediate.” These proficiency selfassessments were made relative to their peers in 5-52 ADA and do not suggest any absolute or 

empirically-assessed level of proficiency on Patriot PDB-6. 

RTOS Layout 

The RTOS stations used in the Follow Up were set up as a suite of six consoles representing two 

ECS stations and one ICC. Two additional workstations were available for use as a backup in 

the event one or more of the workstations became inoperative. The physical layout of the RTOS 

consoles was similar to that used in the initial OpDemo, and is shown in figure 1 of Hawley et 

al., (2007). Again, the site for the Follow Up was 5-52 ADA’s Fire Direction Facility located at 

the Tobin Wells range area on Ft. Bliss. 

Patriot Air Battle Operations Tasks 

Seventy (70) Patriot air battle operations tasks were selected for evaluation during the Follow Up 

training utility assessment. These tasks were selected by DOTD-LD subject matter experts 

(SMEs) from the Critical Task Lists (CTLs) for the three Patriot fire control Military 

Occupational Specialties (MOSs)—14A, 140E, and 14E. For purposes of evaluation, these tasks 
7 

were further broken down into four tasks sets for each position and each MOS. The tasks and 

task sets used in the Follow Up training utility assessment are listed in appendix A. 

Procedure 

The RTOS PDB-6 Follow Up assessment took place on 16 January and the afternoon of 17 

January 2008. The assessment was initially planned as a two-full-day event with morning and 

afternoon sessions both days. However, the event was reduced to a day and a half because of a 

unit scheduling conflict. Two of the four task sets were evaluated on the morning of 16 January, 

and the two remaining task sets were evaluated the afternoon of 17 January. The approach used 

was to have the participating fire control crew members perform each task following the 

performance measures outlined in the CTL for their MOS. Using a worksheet provided by 

DOTD-LD, participants determined (Yes or No) whether the performance measures listed in the 

CTL could be performed on the RTOS using the PDB-5.5.2 software model. They were then 

asked to provide an overall assessment (Yes or No) of whether it was possible to use the RTOS 

PDB-5.5.2 model to train the complete task. Following each task set evaluation session, an afteraction review (AAR) was conducted during which open-ended HotWash comments were 

solicited. The final group of Follow Up participants represented only two of the three previously 

listed Patriot fire control MOSs—14A and 140E. Consequently, only 45 of the 70 tasks initially 

proposed for review ended up being evaluated during the Follow Up session. 

In addition to the task-by-task assessment against the performance measures cited in the Patriot 

CTLs, two Reticule Aim Level (RAL) 9 air battle scenarios were run the afternoon of 16 January 

2008. One air battle scenario was run using the RTOS PDB-5.5.2 model, and the second 

scenario was run using the PDB-6-like model prepared by the RTOS developer. Following each 

air battle scenario, an AAR was conducted and HotWash comments were solicited. In addition, 

following the completion of both RAL scenarios, a summary exercise survey was administered. 

The intent of the summary survey was to obtain specific comments on differences between PDBs 

5.5.2 and 6.0 that might affect using the RTOS as a training device in PDB-6-equipped Patriot 

units. The summary survey also provided for open-ended participant comments on any and all 

aspects of the Follow Up. Appendix B contains all of the data collection forms used during the 

RTOS OpDemo Follow Up. 

Results 

DOTD-LD’s Task Survey 

Of the 45 tasks evaluated using DOTD-LD’s task survey, 36 (80%) were judged by 5-52 ADA 

participants to be trainable using the RTOS PDB-5.5.2. Nine tasks (20%) were judged not to be 

supported by the device. The nine tasks judged not to be supported by the current RTOS along 

with their associated job positions are: 
8 

1. Activate Fire Unit (ECS Tactical Control Assistant [TCA]) 

2. Perform Fire Platoon to Fire Platoon Operations at the ECS (ECS TCA) 

3. Engage Jammers on the ECS (ECS TCA) 

4. Perform Remote Launch Operations at the ECS (ECS TCA) 

5. Supervise Patriot Remote Launcher Operations at the ECS (140E ECS Tactical Control 

Officer [TCO]) 

6. Perform Electronic Counter Counter (ECCM) Operations (14A ECS TCO) 

7. Activate the ICC (ICC Tactical Director Assistant [TDA]) 

8. Deactivate the ICC (ICC TDA) 

9. Perform Master Battalion Operations (14E Tactical Director [TD]) 

These nine tasks involve either PDB-6-specific cues or features that RTOS PDB-5.5.2 does not 

currently support or the requirement for physical equipment that the RTOS does not simulate. In 

HotWash comments, the overwhelming response from Follow Up participants was that the 

RTOS could be used for fire unit control crew training from entry level up through Table IV. 

However, this training must be focused on tasks and functions common to both PDB-5.5.2 and 

PDB-6. It is not possible to use RTOS PDB-5.5.2 to support training specific to PDB-6. 

From the survey responses, the primary changes for the current RTOS to fully support PDB-6 

fire control crew training include the following: 

1, Tabs 1, 2, 15, 16, 44, 56, and 80 were identified as requiring changes to accommodate 

PDB-6 training. 

2. Tabs should be as interactive as possible and at least allow entries to be made and saved by 

the system. 

3. ICC Command Plan functionality should be supported during tactical operations. 

4. Force Class capability needs to be added. 

5. Mapping functionality during Tactical Initialization needs to be added. 

Summary Survey 

Eight post-RAL-scenario summary surveys were completed by 5-52 ADA participants during the 

Follow Up exercise. As discussed, items in the summary survey concerned the participants’ 

reactions to specific differences between RTOS PDB-5.5.2 and Patriot PDB-6 during a simulated 

air battle. Participant responses are shown in table 1. Due to the small number of participants, 

responses were collapsed into three categories: (1) Don’t Know/Not Applicable/No Response, 

(2) Different, or (3) Similar. The items referenced in table 1 are listed below: 
9 

1. In general, how similar were air battle operations with the simulator as compared to the 

Patriot PDB-6 system? 

2. In particular, how well did the RTOS simulator emulate the Patriot PDB-6 system 

initialization? 

3. I was able to emulate the Patriot PDB-6 software with the RTOS when I placed the 

launchers in Operate and engaged manually? 

4. I was able to emulate the Patriot PDB-6 regarding functions required of “Unknown 

pending” tracks by the ICC if “pending” tracks are filtered at upper echelons? 

5. I was able to perform the software workarounds required for Patriot PDB-6 using the 

RTOS simulator? 

6. Do the Tab 78 functions in the RTOS emulate the Tab 78 functions seen while using 

Patriot PDB-6? 

7. Do the modifiable settings for self defense criteria within the RTOS match the settings and 

functions of Patriot PDB-6? 

8. Does the Tab 15 Correlate ABT Tracks option provided with Patriot PDB-6 resemble the 

function available in the RTOS? 

9. Are you able to change the classification of a target with the RTOS as you would with the 

Patriot PDB-6 configuration? 

10. PDB-6 implemented new threat specific search sector tailoring. Are these settings and 

functions similar in the RTOS? 

Table 1. Tabulated summary survey results. 

Item DK/NA/NR Different Similar Total 

1 0 0 8 8 

2 3 1 4 8 

3 4 0 4 8 

4 4 1 3 8 

5 3 0 5 8 

6 1 2 5 8 

7 2 4 2 8 

8 7 0 1 8 

9 3 2 3 8 

10 1 6 1 8 

From table 1, summary survey (i.e., post-RAL-scenario) results from the RTOS OpDemo Follow 

Up show no particular pattern and are inconclusive. The only exception to this general 

observation is Item 1, where respondents judged that air battle operations using the RTOS are 

similar to the Patriot PDB-6 system. Whenever a specific comparison between the RTOS PDB-
10 

5.5.2 and Patriot PDB-6 is at issue, the response pattern becomes inconclusive. It should be 

noted that with the exception of Item 1, the items on the summary survey address specific 

differences between PDB-5.5.2 and PDB-6. This conclusion reinforces the earlier conclusion 

that the current RTOS should not be used to training PDB-6-specific functions or tasks. 

However, there is a considerable amount of generic functional overlap between the RTOS and 

Patriot PDB-6. So it is not unreasonable to conclude that participant responses reflect this 

functional commonality. It is possible that the participants’ overall conclusion that the RTOS 

can be used to train tasks encountered early in the Patriot training sequence (e.g., from entry 

through Table IV) reflects this generic comparability between the simulator and the tactical 

system. 

Open Ended and HotWash Comments 

As noted, the RTOS Follow Up permitted participants to provide open-ended HotWash 

comments following each of the four task-set sessions, each of the two RAL scenarios, and on 

the post-RAL-scenario summary survey. In each of these situations, participant responses 

generally concerned specific features that would have to be added to the RTOS to make it 

suitable for use as a training device for PDB-6. Most of these feature additions and 

modifications have been listed previously. The remainder of the participants’ open-ended 

comments reflected a general view that RTOS PDB-5.5.2 has utility to support unit collective 

training, even in PDB-6-equipped units. These latter results concerning the RTOS’ utility for 

unit training also were found during the initial OpDemo (see Hawley et al., 2007). 

Discussion 

Based on results from the OpDemo Follow Up, it is clear that the current RTOS (including the 

so-called PDB-6-like version) has limited PDB-6 functionality. Further, the dividing line 

between PDB-6 functional and non-functional is quite clear. Many of the cues required for 

PDB-6 operations simply are not present in the current RTOS. Hence, it is not advisable to use 

the RTOS, as it currently exists, to support PDB-6-specific training in Patriot units. 

This conclusion does not mean, however, that the current RTOS does not have training value for 

PDB-6 equipped units. Follow Up participants generally expressed a view that the RTOS does 

have training value in PDB-6 units in spite of its limited PDB-6 functionality. Moreover, there is 

considerable support in the simulation literature for the use of less-than-full-up simulators for 

skill building and skills integration, particularly during the early and middle stages of the 

learning sequence (see Stewart, Johnson, & Howse, 2008). For example, pilot trainees do not go 

immediately from the street to flight training in an F-22. The standard training progression is 

through several simpler aircraft and simulators, and finally to the F-22 itself and its associated 

simulators. Key skills are built up along the way, and these are capitalized upon when reaching 
11 

the F-22 stage of training. In the authors’ view, a similar logic is applicable in the case of air 

defense in general and Patriot in particular. This topic is addressed in additional detail in 

Hawley et al., (2007). Interested readers are referred to that report for additional background 

discussion on the utility of less-than-full-fidelity, part-task simulators in preparing trainees for 

more complex training or operational settings. 

Recall that Follow Up participants expressed a view that the current RTOS could be used within 

PDB-6 equipped units to train fire control personnel from entry through Table IV. The current 

assessment addressed individual fire control tasks and not fire unit gunnery tables (the so-called 

“86” Field Manual, FM 3-01.86). Moreover, there is no current cross-walk between Patriot 

critical tasks and the gunnery tables used for individual and crew certification in operational 

Patriot units. That being the case, DOTD-LD Patriot SMEs extended the current results and 

rated the components of the gunnery tables as to whether they could be evaluated using an 

RTOS-like training device. Tasks were loosely mapped to tables and then rated as “Can be 

Performed,” “Cannot be Performed,” or “Has Limitations.” The results of this SME-generated 

cross-walk between Patriot tasks and the gunnery tables are presented in appendix C. The results 

shown in appendix C generally support the view expressed by Follow Up participants—that the 

RTOS has utility for training and evaluating early and mid-range operator skills, even in PDB-6 

equipped Patriot units. These initial results should be viewed as exploratory, however, and 

additional analysis is suggested before using an RTOS-like device for table certification. 

Effective use of a less-than-full fidelity simulator like the RTOS—particularly one that lacks 

much PDB-6 functionality—will require a review of Patriot instructional strategies, methods, 

and standards. More than 50 years of training research has shown that instructional design issues 

generally trump issues pertaining to simulator fidelity (Salas, Bowers, & Rhodenizer, 1998). 

Even relatively low fidelity simulators can have value in a properly designed instructional 

sequence and in the hands of a competent instructor. However, merely shifting training hours 

from the tactical system to the RTOS or a comparable device might actually make things worse 

in the sense that trainees would receive less PDB-6 specific training than they currently do. 

Stewart, Johnson, and Howse (2008) discuss a range of studies supporting the notion that a 

simulator should not be viewed as a replacement for the tactical system. Rather it should be 

considered an adjunct to it. The simulator extends and complements training using the tactical 

system. It should be used to prepare trainees for the more complex tactical setting and make 

them better able to take advantage of limited time on more expensive full-task simulators or the 

tactical system itself. Less time is spent using expensive and limited training resources for 

remediation as opposed to advanced performance objectives. 

In current context, the term instructional strategy refers to the overall approach used to progress 

from individual proficiency to crew proficiency and finally to unit proficiency. An instructional 

strategy generally addresses the instructional media used during this sequence to develop 

competent performance (e.g., classroom presentation, simulators and simulations, tactical 

equipment, embedded training, live field exercises, etc.). Instructional method refers to how the 
12 

instruction actually is conducted using the various media. For example, the “chunk and 

simulate” approach used during the initial OpDemo is an example of an instructional approach 

emphasizing a deliberate practice instructional model and using platform instruction along with 

practical exercises on the RTOS to implement this model. Standards refer to the proficiency 

“gates” that individual trainees and collectives must go through to progress from one stage of the 

instructional sequence to the next. Integrating these types of issues into a comprehensive and 

effective instructional approach for Patriot is the next big task for the ADA School and for 

Patriot units. Such integration is the key to making the RTOS or a comparable device 

productive. It will also be necessary to revisit the issue of “what must be trained” so that current 

training reflects Patriot technical upgrades and a more complex operating environment. Based 

on results obtained during the initial OpDemo and observations in other venues such as the PDB6 operational test and the WTI follow-up assessment, it is clear that many skills essential to 

successful job performance in the contemporary Patriot operational environment are not 

addressed in the official job and task analysis materials for Patriot MOSs (see Hawley et al., 

2007). 
13 

References 

Adams, J. A.; McAbee, W. H. A program for a functional evaluation of the GAM-83 Melpar 

Trainer; Report No. APGC-TN-61-41; U.S. Air Force Proving Grounds: Eglin AFB, FL, 

1961. 

Hawley, J. K.; Mares, A. L. Developing effective human supervisory control for air and missile 

defense systems; ARL-TR-3742; U.S. Army Research Laboratory: Adelphi, MD, 2006. 

Hawley, J. K.; Mares, A. L. Developing effective adaptive missile crews and command and 

control teams for air and missile defense systems; ARL-SR-149; U.S. Army Research 

Laboratory: Adelphi, MD, 2007. 

Hawley, J. K.; Mares, A. L.; Fallin, J. I.; Wallet, C. Reconfigurable tactical operations 

simulator (RTOS) operational demonstration in 5-52 ADA; ARL-SR-158; U.S. Army 

Research Laboratory: Adelphi, MD, 2007. 

Hawley, J. K.; Mares, A. L.; Giammanco, C. A. The human side of automation: Lessons for air 

defense command and control; ARL-TR-3468; U.S. Army Research Laboratory: Adelphi, 

MD, 2005. 

Hawley, J. K.; Mares, A. L.; Giammanco, C. A. Training for effective human supervisory 

control of air and missile defense systems; ARL-TR-3765; U.S. Army Research Laboratory: 

Adelphi, MD, 2006. 

Johnson, D. M.; Stewart, J. E. Utility of a personal-computer-based aviation training device for 

helicopter training. International Journal of Applied Aviation Studies 2005, 5, 207–305. 

Stewart, J.E. Learning and performance in an air refueling part-task trainer: A preliminary data 

analysis. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 29th Annual Meeting

(pp. 408-411). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 1985. 

Stewart, J. E. Using the backward transfer paradigm to validate the Simulator Training 

Research Advanced Testbed for Aviation; Res. Rept. No. 1666; U.S. Army Research Institute 

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences: Alexandria, VA, 1994. 

Stewart, J. E.; Johnson, D. M.; Howse, W. Fidelity requirements for army aviation training 

devices: Issues and answers; Draft Research Report; U.S. Army Research Institute for the 

Behavioral and Social Sciences: Alexandria, VA, 2008. 

Salas, E.; Bowers, C. A.; Rhodenizer, L. It is not how much you have but how you use it: 

Toward a rational use of simulation to support aviation training. International Journal of 

Aviation Psychology. 1998, 8 (3), 197–208. 
14 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
15 

Appendix A. Tasks and Task Sets 

TCA Task Set 

Task Number 

Task 

Set Task Title 

441-083-1471 1 Activate Fire Unit 

441-083-1485 1 Perform Fire Platoon (FP) to Fire Platoon Operations at the 

Engagement Control Station (ECS) 

441-083-1492 1 

Perform System Rerorientation and Clutter Map Update on the 

Engagement Control Station (ECS) 

441-083-1474 1 Deactivate Fire Unit (FU) 

441-083-1486 2 Perform Friendly Protect at the Engagement Control Station (ECS) 

441-083-1476 2 Engage Jammers On the Engagement Control Station (ECS) 

441-083-1489 2 Perform Mode Transition Procedures-Engagement Control 

441-083-1491 2 Perform Saturation Alleviation Procedures 

441-084-1407 3 Perform ECS Initialization 

441-083-1493 4 

Verify Identification, Friend or Foe (IFF) Operability on the 

Engagement Control Station (ECS) 

441-083-1500 4 Perform Remote Launch Operations at the Engagement Control 

Station (ECS) 

441-083-1478 4 Engage Targets on the Engagement Control Station (ECS) 

441-083-1479 4 Evaluate Pre-engagement Data at the Engagement Control Station 
16 

140E TCO Task Set 

Task Number 

Task 

Set Task Title 

441-EW1-1087 1 Direct Firing Battery System Reorientation 

441-EW1-1088 1 Perform Tactical Ballistic Missile (TBM) Engagement Operations 

441-EW1-1089 1 

Perform Air Defense Mission in all Modes of Control for 

Engagement Control Station (ECS) 

441-EW1-1123 1 

Perform Duties and Responsibilities as the Tactical Control Officer 

(TCO) 

441-EW1-1090 2 Identify Targets at Engagement Control Station (ECS) 

441-EW1-1091 2 Supervise Engagement of Targets 

441-EW1-1093 2 Implement Firing Doctrine Changes 

441-EW1-1102 2 Direct Saturation Alleviation 

441-EW1-1084 3 Perform Engagement Control Station(ECS) Initialization 

441-EW1-1094 4 Define Engagement Control Station (ECS) Tabular Displays 

441-EW1-1095 4 

Implement (ABT) and Tactical Ballistic Missile (TBM) Search using 

Expanded Search Sectors 

441-EW1-1121 4 

Analyze the Process of Evaluation, Decision, and Weapons 

Assignment (EDWA) 

441-EW1-1122 4 Perform Friendly Protection 

14A TCO Task Set 

Task Number 

Task 

Set Task Title 

441-041-2038 1 Perform ECCM Operations 

441-041-2004 1 Direct Firing Battery System Reorientation 

441-041-2032 1 Identify Targets at Engagement Control Station 

441-041-2009 1 Employ Active Identification Measures at the ECS 

441-041-1035 2 Evaluate Air Threat for Friendly Protection 

441-041-1041 2 Supervise Saturation Alleviation at the Fire Unit 

441-041-2013 2 Implement Firing Doctrine Changes (as TD or TCO) 

441-041-6011 2 Direct Saturation Alleviation at the Fire Unit 

441-041-2001 3 Perform Engagement Control Station (ECS) Initialization 

441-041-2002 3 Perform Engagement Control Station (ECS) Re-Initialization 

441-041-1046 4 Engage Targets Manually in Enhanced EMCON 

441-041-2017 4 

Implement Air Breathing Threat and Tactical Ballistic Missile 

Search Using Expanded Search Sectors 

441-041-2039 4 Supervise Patriot Remote Launcher Operations at the ECS 

441-047-7002 4 Perform Engagement Overrides at ECS 
17 

TDA Task Set 

Task Number 

Task 

Set Task Title 

441-083-1472 1 Activate the ICC 

441-083-1480 1 Evaluate Pre-Engagement Data at the ICC 

441-083-1482 1 Initiate Target Engagement at the ICC 

441-083-1475 1 Deactivate the ICC 

441-083-1487 2 Perform Friendly Protect at the ICC 

441-084-1409 3 Perform ICC Initialization 

441-083-1480 4 Evaluate Pre-Engagement Data at the ICC 

441-083-1482 4 Initiate Target Engagement at the ICC 

441-083-1487 4 Perform Friendly Protect at the ICC 

14A TD Task Set 

Task Number 

Task 

Set Task Title 

441-041-1035 1 Evaluate Air Threat for Friendly Protect 

441-041-1044 1 Direct Battalion Air Defense Battle in the Patriot ICC 

441-041-1052 1 Deconflict Track Data 

441-041-1053 1 Correlate Track Data 

441-041-2013 2 Implement Firing Doctrine Changes (as TD or TCO) 

441-041-1038 2 Employ Active Identification Measures at the Patriot ICC 

441-041-1046 2 Engage Targets Manually in Enhanced EMCON 

441-041-3007 2 Resolve Identification Conflicts 

441-041-1037 3 Perform Patriot ICC Initialization 

441-041-1040 4 Perform AMD EMCON Procedures 

441-041-1039 4 Assign Patriot Engagements to Subordinate Units 

441-041-1042 4 Employ Engagement Overrides at the Patriot ICC 

441-041-1050 4 Direct AMD Engagements to Subordinate Units 
18 

140E TD Task Set 

Task Number 

Task 

Set Task Title 

441-EW3-1021 1 Perform Friendly Protect at the ICC 

441-EW3-1025 1 Perform Master Battalion Operations 

441-EW3-1022 2 Define ICC Tabular Displays 

441-EW3-1026 2 Implement Firing Doctrine Changes 

441-EW3-1028 2 Employ Active ID Measures at the Patriot ICC 

441-EW3-1016 3 Perform ICC Initialization 

441-EW3-1024 4 Perform Track Downtell 

441-EW3-1027 4 Assign Engagements to subordinate units 
19 

Appendix B. Example of Data Collection Forms 

I. Background Information 

1. What is your MOS? 

2. What is your current Job/Position (ex: TD, TCO etc)? 

3. How many years have you been working in your current job/position? 

4. What was your previous job/position? 

5. How long were you in this position? 

6. How many years have you been in the Army? 

7. Approximately how many hands on hours have you trained for your current position? 

8. How would you rate your knowledge of your current position (ex: novice, intermediate or 

expert)? 

9. Have you received training on the PDB6 software? 

10. Have you received training on the new PDB6 TSOP? 

11. Have you received training on the new doctrine and TTP required for PDB6? 

II. Evaluation of Simulation Exercise 

1. In General, how SIMILAR were Air Battle Operations with the simulator as compared to the 

Patriot PDB6 system? 

Don’t 

Know 

Very 

Different 

Different Somewhat 

Different 

Somewhat 

Similar 

Similar Very 

Similar 

 

Additional Comment: 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________ 

2. In Particular, how well did the RTOS simulator emulate the Patriot PDB6 system 

initialization? 

 

Don’t 

Know 

Very 

Different 

Different Somewhat 

Different 

Somewhat 

Similar 

Similar Very 

Similar 

 

Additional Comment: 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________ 
20 

3. I was able to emulate the Patriot PDB6 software with the RTOS when I placed the launchers 

in Operate and engaged manually? 

Don’t 

Know 

Very 

Different 

Different Somewhat 

Different 

Somewhat 

Similar 

Similar Very 

Similar 

 

Additional Comment: 

______________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________ 

4. I was able to emulate the Patriot PDB6 regarding functions required of “Unknown Pending” 

tracks by the ICC if “Pending” tracks are filtered at upper echelons. 

Don’t 

Know 

Very 

Different 

Different Somewhat 

Different 

Somewhat 

Similar 

Similar Very 

Similar 

 

Additional Comment: 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________ 

5. I was able to perform the software workarounds required for Patriot PDB6 with the RTOS? 

Don’t 

Know 

Very 

Different 

Different Somewhat 

Different 

Somewhat 

Similar 

Similar Very 

Similar 

 

Additional Comment: 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________ 
21 

6. Do the TAB 78 functions in the RTOS emulate the TAB 78 functions seen while using Patriot 

PDB6? 

Don’t 

Know 

Very 

Different 

Different Somewhat 

Different 

Somewhat 

Similar 

Similar Very 

Similar 

 

Additional Comment: 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________ 

7. Do the modifiable settings for self defense criteria within the RTOS match the settings and 

functions of Patriot PDB6? 

Don’t 

Know 

Very 

Different 

Different Somewhat 

Different 

Somewhat 

Similar 

Similar Very 

Similar 

 

Additional Comment: 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________ 

8. Does the TAB 15 Correlate ABT Tracks option provided with Patriot PDB6 resemble and 

function available in the RTOS? 

Don’t 

Know 

Very 

Different 

Different Somewhat 

Different 

Somewhat 

Similar 

Similar Very 

Similar 

 

Additional Comment: 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________ 
22 

9. Are you able to change the classification of a target with the RTOS as you would with the 

Patriot PDB6 configuration? 

Don’t 

Know 

Very 

Different 

Different Somewhat 

Different 

Somewhat 

Similar 

Similar Very 

Similar 

 

Additional Comment: 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________ 

10. PDB6 implemented new threat specific search sector tailoring. Are these settings and 

functions similar in the RTOS? 

Don’t 

Know 

Very 

Different 

Different Somewhat 

Different 

Somewhat 

Similar 

Similar Very 

Similar 

 

Additional Comment: 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________ 

11. We would be interested in any additional impressions that you may have of the simulation 

in which you have just participated. We are especially interested in the ways that you found the 

RTOS LIKE and UNLIKE Patriot PDB6. 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 

Appendix C. Cross-walk between Patriot Tasks and the Gunnery Tables 

As per FM 3-01.86, the following lists are the Patriot training requirements and fire unit gunnery 

tables. Many of these tasks can be completed on the RTOS. 

Level TABLE SUBJECT MATTER 

Basic 

Gunnery Tables 

I 

II 

III 

IV 

System Skills 

Ready for Action Drills 

Battle Drills 

System Capabilities / 

Tactics 

Certification 

Intermediate 

Gunnery Tables 

V 

VI 

VII 

VIII 

Air Defense Operations / 

Missile Reload 

Day & NBC March 

Order/Emplacement 

Practice Table V and VI 

Certification 

Advanced 

Gunnery Tables 

IX 

X 

XI 

XII 

Air Defense Operations / 

Missile Reload 

Night & NBC March 

Order/Emplacement 

Practice Table IX and X 

Certification 

Below are the tasks required for Air Battle Operations which can be trained and evaluated on a 

“RTOS like” simulator. 

TABLE I (Basic System Skills) 

This table is used to train the crew member on the basic fundamentals of Patriot system 

operation. Table I consists of march order and emplacement drills, PMCS, fault recognition, 

missile reload, and UHF communication procedures.
28 

1. TASK: Operate and maintain A Patriot System 

2. SUB-TASKS: 

 Task can 

be 

Performed

Task 

Cannot be 

Performed

Task has 

limitations 

a. Perform initialization drills per 

ARTEP 44-635-11-Drill, ARTEP 44-

635-13 Drill, ARTEP 44-635-14-Drill, 

TM 9-1430-600-10-1, and applicable 

SOPs. 

 X 

TABLE II (Ready For Action Drills) 

This table is used to train the fire control and launcher crew members to configure their 

equipment for missile launch and verify the systems operational readiness. The focus of Table II 

is on performing “Ready For Action” portions of the Battle Drills and verifying emplacement 

and initialization criteria. 

1. TASK: Prepare the Patriot system for missile launch. 

2. SUB-TASKS: 

 Task can be 

Performed 

Task Cannot be 

Performed 

Task has 

limitations 

a. Discuss the function of all tabs per 

FM 3-01.85, TM 9-1430-600-10-1, and 

TM 9-1630-602-10. 

 X 

 

b. Discuss the functions of all 

switches/indicators per FM 3-01.85, 

TM 9-1430-600-10-1, and TM 9-1630-

602-10. 

X 

. 

c. Recognize Patriot symbols per 

applicable TMs and FMs (TM 9-1430-

600-10-1, TM 9-1630-602-10, and FM 

3-01.85). 

 X 

Neutral not 

available 

 

d. Discuss situational display per TM 9-

1430-600-10-1, and TM 9-1630-602-

10. 

X 

 

e. Discuss the alert states, STO, and 

ACO per SOPs. 

X 
29 

 

f. Perform “Ready For Action” drills 

per ARTEP 44-635-13-Drill, ARTEP 

44-635-14-Drill, and applicable SOPs. 

X 

PDB6 Tab 

limits 

TABLE III (Basic Air Battle Management) 

This table trains fire control crew members on applicable national and other contingency 

command directives, emergency action cell (EMAC) procedures, and basic air battle 

management. Training will prepare fire control crew members to receive, decode, disseminate, 

and implement alert messages. Use of the PCOFT, TPT, OTM or FMS-D will prepare the crew 

member to perform basic air battle management. 

1. TASK: Acquire A Basic Knowledge And Understanding Of Tactics And Air Battle 

Management. 

2. SUB-TASK: 

 Task can be 

Performed 

Task cannot 

be Performed 

Task has 

limitations 

a. Learn the applicable SOPs. X 

 

b: Learn the Patriot Evaluation 

Decision and Weapon Assignment 

(EDWA) process and Fire Unit 

capabilities per FM 3-01.85. 

X 

 

c. Learn basic TBM/ABT defense 

design per FM 3-01.85 and applicable 

SOPs. 

X 

 

d.: Conduct air defense operations per 

ARTEP 44-637-30-MTP (collective 

task 44-1-9002.44-P20P), using FM 3-

01.85, and the applicable SOPs, and 

using RALs 1 through 4. 

 X 

e Learn reporting requirements per 

applicable SOPs. 

X 

 

f. Learn how to read and process a 

simple USMTF /NATO formatted 

ATO/ACO and prepares it for input 

into the Patriot system. 

X 
30 

TABLE IV (Basic Gunnery Certification) 

Table IV evaluates a soldier’s ability to maintain equipment, operate the equipment and function 

within a crew. ECS crew members will also be evaluated on their ability to perform “Ready For 

Action” drills, conduct a low intensity centralized air battle, and demonstrate their knowledge of 

the Patriot system and unit tactical directives. 

ECS crew members: 

1. TASK: Demonstrate knowledge of the Patriot system, air defense tactics, air battle 

management and system capability. Perform system initialization with mapping as required by 

terrain. Conduct low intensity air battle operations. Conduct “Ready For Action” drills (Scud 

alert/launch and ABT) per ARTEP 44-635-13-Drill and the applicable SOPs. 

 2. SUB-TASKS: 

 Task can be 

Performed 

Task cannot be 

Performed 

Task has 

limitations 

a Initialize the Patriot system 

with mapping, as required by 

terrain. Conduct “Ready For 

Action” drills correctly 

configuring system for 

directed alert state (Scud 

Alert/Launch and ABT) per 

ARTEP 44-635-14-Drill and 

the applicable SOPs. 

 X 

 

b Conduct air defense 

operations per ARTEP 44-

637-30-MTP (collective task 

44-1-9002.44-P20P), using 

RAL 5. 

 X 

 

c Demonstrate reporting 

requirements per applicable 

SOPs. 

X 

 

d TCOs and TCAs 

demonstrate knowledge of 

Patriot system and unit 

tactical directives per TM 9-

1430-600-1, FM 3-01.85, and 

applicable SOPs. 

X 
31 

TABLE V (Air Battle Management/Missile Reload) 

Trains ECS crews on intermediate level Air Battle skills and LS crews on GMT/forklift missile 

reload and missile hazard/misfire procedures. ECS crews will configure the system to engage 

aircraft and TBMs under different tactical situations under varying conditions to include 

daylight, NBC environment, and changing communications status. Launcher crews will 

demonstrate the ability to conduct missile reload and perform missile hazard/misfire procedures. 

1. TASK: Conduct Air Defense Operations: 

.2. SUB-TASKS: 

 Task can be 

Performed 

Task cannot be 

Performed 

Task has 

limitations 

 

a Create an ABT/TBM 

defense design for Table V, 

RAL scenario. Design will 

be based upon the threat 

and DAL provided in the 

Battalion OPORD and the 

Defense Design will be per 

FM44-85-1, and applicable 

SOPs. 

 X 

Only do this with 

TCS/ TACOW. 

Don’t use an ICC 

anymore

 

b. Process Air Space 

Control Order (ACO) and 

MEZ information per 

applicable SOP. 

 X 

Can input in 

BATI and TACI 

but not in K7

 

c. Create Site Data Books 

and System Data Book for 

Table V scenario per 

applicable SOP. 

 X 

Can’t do PDB6 

 

d. Conduct air defense 

operations per ARTEP 44-

637-30-MTP (collective 

task 44-1-9002.44-P20P) 

using RALs 6 through 9 

and applicable SOPs. 

X 

Can’t do PDB6

 

e Perform missile misfire 

procedures per TM 9-1430-

600-1 and applicable 

SOPs. 

 X 

Cant do full LS 

EMERG OFF
32 

TABLE VI (Daytime March Order and Emplacement) 

Trains licensed equipment crews (assisted by other crews per ARTEP) to march-order and 

emplace the Patriot System and prepare it for tactical operations. Conduct of RSOP operations. 

Establishing and operating the Battery CP. Emphasis in this table will be on equipment crew 

performance and include supervision of the process by the Battery trainers. All equipment crews 

will be battle rostered and crew integrity will be strictly adhered to. Initial focus will be on the 

correct performance of individual equipment march order and emplacement. After equipment 

crews have demonstrated the ability to conduct MO&E on their assigned equipment, the unit will 

practice MO&E on the system as a whole. The final goal of this table is to create a unit that is 

capable of march order, emplacement and configuring the Patriot missile system per a directed 

alert state. 

1. TASK: March Order, Emplace, And Configure The Equipment For Action Per A Directed 

Alert State. 

ECS: Crews will be required to perform mapping. The current terrain will determine 

type of mapping. Crew members will demonstrate the ability to install at least one corner 

reflector and the MCPE. The ECS crew will install the MCPE and Corner Reflector after mission 

assumption and system verification. The MCPE and Corner Reflector portion of the drill will not 

be timed. 

2. Sub-Tasks 

 Task can be 

Performed 

Task cannot be 

Performed 

Task has 

limitations 

a. Air Defense Operations: 

The RAL will be a 

Battalion netted scenario 

that meets all the 

criteria as outlined in the 

RAL generation guide. The 

evaluated unit will be 

required to demonstrate the 

ability to operate under 

varying conditions in a 

high stress environment to 

include the following: 

 X 

PDB6 Limitations

(1) NBC environment. At a 

minimum 20 minutes of 

the air battle will be 

conducted in 

MOPP IV. 

X 

(2) One console operations. X 
33 

(3) Various equipment 

outages 

 X 

(4) Centralized, 

decentralized, independent, 

FU to FU operations, and 

autonomous 

Operations 

 X 

Cannot do 

FU-FU Ops

TABLE VII (Practice Tables V and VI) 

This table combines tasks from Tables V and VI. The goal of this table is to develop crews that 

can receive a movement warning order, perform RSOP, conduct an air battle, receive a 

movement execution order, march order, emplace, initialize and rejoin the air battle, performs a 

missile reload.Table VII must be performed before the crew advances to Table VIII. Upon 

successful completion of Table VII commanders will submit a memorandum to BN S-3 with 

battle rostered crews to schedule a Table VIII evaluation. 

1. TASK: Move the Patriot system and engage the enemy air or missile threat employing skills 

mastered in Table V through VI. 

2. SUB-TASKS: 

 Task can be 

Performed 

Task cannot be 

Performed 

Task has 

limitations 

a. Conduct RSOP per 

ARTEP 44-637-30-MTP 

(collective task 44-1-

9046.44-P20P), using FM 

44-63-5, and applicable 

SOPs. 

 X 

Not done with a 

“system” but with 

a team

 

b. Conduct air defense 

operations per ARTEP 44-

637-30-MTP, (collective 

task 44-1-9002.44-P20P) 

and using applicable 

SOPs. 

 X 
34 

TABLE VIII (Intermediate Level Gunnery Certification) 

Table VIII evaluates a battery's ability to conduct RSOP, march order, emplace, initialize, 

conduct Air Defense operations, establish/operate a CP, maintain the Patriot system and conduct 

missile reload. Table VIII evaluations will take place during Battery or Battalion field training 

exercises. 

1. TASK: Move The Patriot System And Engage The Enemy Air Threat. 

a. Command Post 

b. Guided Missile Transporter or 10-K Forklift (if available). 

c. Four (4) missile round trainers and 2 empty missile canisters. 

d. PADS team and required survey equipment. (if available) 

e. ICC to support the Air Battle 

f. One additional fire unit to support the Air Battle. 

g. Battalion scenario OPORD for the Tables V through VIII has been received. The ACO is 

broken and plotted. Site Data Book, System Data Book, and defense design are available for 

inspection. All data developed by the TCO and TCA is based upon the scenario OPORD issued 

during Table 5 training. 

h. Battalion netted Table VIII certification, (RAL 11), scenario to include all required tabular 

data, communications plans, asset locations, unit locations, ACM(s), STO(s), and ACO(s) as 

required throughout the evaluation. 

i. Battalion tactics exam. 

j. Battalion communications exam. 

2. SUB-TASKS: 

 Task can be 

Performed 

Task cannot be 

Performed 

Task has 

limitations 

a. Conduct RSOP per 

ARTEP 44-637-30-MTP 

(collective task 44-1-

9046.44-P20P) using FM 

44-63-5 and applicable 

SOPs.

 X 

Not done with a 

“system” but with 

a team 

 

b. Conduct air defense 

operations per ARTEP 44-

637-30-MTP (collective 

task 44-1-9002.44-P20P) 

and using the applicable 

SOPs. 

 X 

 

c. Submit required tactical 

reports per applicable 

SOPs. 

X 
35 

No. 

Copies Organization

 1 ADMNSTR 

 ELEC DEFNS TECHL INFO CTR 

 ATTN DTIC OCP 

 8725 JOHN J KINGMAN RD 

 STE 0944 

 FT BELVOIR VA 22060-6218 

 1 DARPA 

 ATTN IXO S WELBY 

 3701 N FAIRFAX DR 

 ARLINGTON VA 22203-1714 

 1 CD OFC OF THE SECY OF DEFNS 

 ATTN ODDRE (R&AT) 

 THE PENTAGON 

 WASHINGTON DC 20301-3080 

 1 COMMANDER 

 108TH ADA BDE 

 ATTN AFZX-CO 

 FT BRAGG NC 28310-5100 

 1 COMMANDER 

 11TH ADA BDE 

 ATTN AFVJ-CO 

 FT BLISS TX 79916 

 1 COMMANDER 

 263RD AAMDC 

 1 NATIONAL GUARD RD 

 COLUMBUS SC 29201 

 1 COMMANDER 

 31ST ADA BDE 

 ATTN AFVR CO 

 FT BLISS TX 79916 

 1 COMMANDER 

 32ND AAMDC 

 ATTN AFVL CO 

 FT BLISS TX 79916 

 1 COMMANDER 

 35TH ADA BDE 

 ATTN EAAD H, PSC3 

 APO AP 96266 

 1 COMMANDER 

 69TH ADA BDE 

 ATTN AETV GW CO, CMR 475 

 PO BOX 1402 

 APO AE 09036 

No. 

Copies Organization

 1 COMMANDER 

 94TH AAMDC 

 ATTN AMPC CG 

 MAIL STOP 577 

 FT SHAFTER HI 96858 

 1 ARL HRED AMEDD FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD RL HR MM V RICE-BERG 

 BLDG 4011 RM 217 1750 

 GREELEY RD 

 FT SAM HOUSTON TX 78234-5094 

 1 ARL HRED AMCOM FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MO J MINNINGER 

 BLDG 5400 RM C-242 

 REDSTONE ARSENAL AL 35898-7290 

 2 US ARMY RSRCH DEV AND ENGRG CMND 

 ARMAMENT RSRCH DEV AND ENGRG CTR 

 ARMAMENT ENGRG AND TECHNLGY CTR 

 ATTN AMSRD AAR AEF T J MATTS 

 ATTN AMSRD AAR AEF T 

 BLDG 305 

 ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND MD 

 21005-5001 

 1 CD ARMY G1 

 ATTN DAPE MR B KNAPP 

 ARMY G1 MANPRINT DAPE MR 

 300 ARMY PENTAGON RM 2C489 

 WASHINGTON DC 20310-0300 

 1 ARMY RSCH LAB-HRED JFCOM 

 JOINT EXPERIMENTSATION J9 

 JOINT FUTURES LAB 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MJK 

 J HANSBERGER 

 115 LAKEVIEW PARKWAY STE B 

 SUFFOLK VA 23435 

 1 ARMY RSRCH LAB-HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MU M SINGAPORE 

 6501 E 11 MILE RD MS 284 

 BLDG 200A 2ND FL RM 2104 

 WARREN MI 48397-5000 

 1 ARMY RSRCH LABORATORY-HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MQ M R FLETCHER 

 AMSRD NSC WS E BLDG 3 RM 343 

 NATICK MA 01760-5020 

 1 ARMY RSRCH LABORATORY-HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR ML J MARTIN 

 MYER CENTER RM 2D311 

 FT MONMOUTH NJ 07703-5601 
36 

No. 

Copies Organization

 1 ARMY RSRCH LABORATORY-HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MG R SPINE 

 BUILDING 333 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 07806-5000 

 1 ARMY RSRCH LABORATORY-HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MK 

 J REINHART 

 10125 KINGMAN RD 

 FT BELVOIR VA 22060-5828 

 1 ARMY RSRCH LABORATORY-HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR M M STRUB 

 6359 WALKER LANE SUITE 100 

 ALEXANDRIA VA 22310 

 1 ARMY RSRCH LABORATORY-HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MN R SPENCER 

 DCSFDI HF 

 HQ USASOC BLDG E2929 

 FT BRAGG NC 28310-5000 

 1 ARMY RSRCH LABORATORY-HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MW E REDDEN 

 BLDG 4 RM 332 

 FT BENNING GA 31905-5400 

 1 ARMY RSRCH LABORATORY-HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MT J CHEN 

 12423 RESEARCH PARKWAY 

 ORLANDO FL 32826-3276 

 1 ARMY RSRCH LABORATORY-HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MD T COOK 

 BLDG 5400 RM C242 

 REDSTONE ARSENAL AL 

 35898-7290 

 1 ARMY RSRCH LABORATORY-HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MH C BURNS 

 BLDG 1467B RM 336 THIRD AVE 

 FT KNOX KY 40121 

 1 ARMY RSRCH LABORATORY-HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD-ARL-HR-MP 

 D UNGVARSKY 

 BATTLE CMD BATTLE LAB 

 POPE HALL BLDG 4709 BCBL 806 

 HARRISON DR 

 FT LEAVENWORTH KS 66027-2302 

 1 ARMY RSRCH LABORATORY-HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MV 

 HQ USAOTC S MIDDLEBROOKS 

 91012 STATION AVE RM 111 

 FT HOOD TX 76544-5073 

No. 

Copies Organization

 1 ARMY RSRCH LABORATORY-HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MY M BARNES 

 2520 HEALY AVE STE 1172 

 BLDG 51005 

 FT HUACHUCA AZ 85613-7069 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY-HRED 

 AVNC FIELD ELEMENT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MJ 

 D DURBIN 

 BLDG 4506 (DCD) RM 107 

 FT RUCKER AL 36362-5000 

 1 US ARMY TRADOC 

 BATTLE LAB INTEGRATION & 

 TECHL DIRCTRT 

 ATTN ATCD B 

 10 WHISTLER LANE 

 FT MONROE VA 23651-5850 

 2 COMMANDANT USAADASCH 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR ME A MARES 

 (1 ELEC) 

 ATTN ATSA CD (1 HC) 

 5800 CARTER RD 

 FT BLISS TX 79916-3802 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 DIRECTORATE OF COMBAT 

 DEVELOPMENTS 

 ATTN COL H L COHEN 

 5800 CARTER RD 

 FT BLISS TX 79916-7001 

 3 DIRECTOR 

 DIRECTORATE OF TRAINING, 

 DOCTRINE, & LEADER DEVELOPMENT 

 ATTN C WALLET 

 ATTN COL R K CARL 

 ATTN J FALLIN 

 2 SHERIDAN RD, BLDG 2 

 FT BLISS TX 79916-7001 

 1 PROJECT MANAGER 

 IAMD PEO MS 

 ATTN SFAE MSLS SS R THOMAS 

 PO BOX 1500 

 HUNTSVILLE AL 35807-3801 

 1 PROJECT MANAGER 

 LTPO PEO MS 

 ATTN SFAE MSLS LT E EDWARDS 

 PO BOX 1500 

 HUNTSVILLE AL 35807-3801 
37 

No. 

Copies Organization

1 DIRECTOR 

 OFFICE, CHIEF OF AIR DEFENSE 

 ARTILLERY 

 ATTN ATSA OCADA 

 FT BLISS TX 79916 

 1 PRODUCT MANAGER TIMS 

 ATTN SFAE IEWS NS TIMS 

 BLDG 563 

 FT MONMOUTH NJ 07703 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 QUALITY ASSURANCE OFFICE 

 ATTN ATSA QAO 

 FT BLISS TX 79916 

 1 TRADOC CAPABILITY 

 MANAGER-LOWER TIER 

 ATTN COL R L DELGADO 

 BLDG 12, PERSHING RD 

 FT BLISS TX 79916-7001 

 1 TRADOC CAPABILITY 

 MANAGER-UPPER TIER 

 ATTN ATSA TSM UT 

 FT BLISS TX 79916 

 1 ASSISTANT COMMANDANT 

 US ARMY AIR DEFNS 

 ARTILLERY CTR AND FT BLISS 

 BLDG 2 SHERIDAN RD 

 FT BLISS TX 79916 

 1 COMMANDING GENERAL 

 US ARMY AIR DEFNS 

 ARTILLERY CTR AND FT BLISS 

 ATTN MG R P LENNOX 

 BLDG 2 SHERIDAN RD 

 FT BLISS TX 79916-7001 

 1 US ARMY INFO SYS ENGRG CMND 

 ATTN AMSEL IE TD F JENIA 

 FT HUACHUCA AZ 85613-5300 

 1 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY RDECOM 

 ATTN AMSRD AMR W C MCCORKLE 

 5400 FOWLER RD 

 REDSTONE ARSENAL AL 35898-5000 

 1 US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL CI OK TP 

 S FOPPIANO 

 BLDG 459 

 ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND MD 

 21005 

No. 

Copies Organization

 1 US ARMY RSRCH LAB 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL CI OK TP 

 TECHL LIB T LANDFRIED 

 BLDG 4600 

 ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND MD 

 21005-5066 

 1 US ARMY RSRCH LAB 

 ELEC ATTN AMSRD ARL HR ME J HAWLEY 

 5800 CARTER RD 

 FT BLISS TX 79916-3802 

 1 US GOVERNMENT PRINT OFF 

 DEPOSITORY RECEIVING SECTION 

 ATTN MAIL STOP IDAD J TATE 

 732 NORTH CAPITOL ST NW 

 WASHINGTON DC 20402 

 3 US ARMY RSRCH LAB 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR S L PIERCE 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR SE D HEADLEY 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR SE K COSENZO 

 BLDG 459 

 ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND MD 

 21005 

 1 US ARMY RSRCH LAB 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR M 

 F PARAGALLO 

 BLDG 459 

 ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND 

 MD 21005-5066 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RSRCH LAB 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL RO EV 

 W D BACH 

 PO BOX 12211 

 RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK NC 

 27709 

 3 US ARMY RSRCH LAB 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL CI OK T 

 TECHL PUB 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL CI OK TL 

 TECHL LIB 

 ATTN IMNE ALC IMS 

 MAIL & RECORDS MGMT 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

TOTAL: 62 (57 HCS, 2 CDS, 3 ELEC) 
38 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK