Soldier Machine Interface for Vehicle Formations: 

Interface Design and an Approach Evaluation and 

Experimentation 

by Keryl A. Cosenzo, Erin Capstick, Regina Pomranky, 

Tony Johnson, and Sanjiv Dungrani 

ARL-TR-4678 April 2009 

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 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5069 

ARL-TR-4678 April 2009 

Soldier Machine Interface for Vehicle Formations: 

Interface Design and an Approach Evaluation and 

Experimentation 

Keryl A. Cosenzo and Regina Pomranky 

Human Research and Engineering Directorate, APG 

Eric Capstick and Tony Johnson 

DCS Corporation 

Sanjiv Dungrani 

U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research Development and Engineering Center 

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)

April 2009 

2. REPORT TYPE 

Final 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 

5b. GRANT NUMBER 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

Soldier Machine Interface for Vehicle Formations: Interface Design and an 

Approach Evaluation and Experimentation 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER 

5e. TASK NUMBER 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

Keryl A. Cosenzo, Erin Capstick, Regina Pomranky, Tony Johnson, and Sanjiv 

Dungrani 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

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

U.S. Army Research Laboratory 

ATTN: AMSRD-ARL-HR-SC 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5069 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

 REPORT NUMBER 

ARL-TR-4678 

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 

This document presents interface designs developed through a number of technology development and experimentation efforts 

at the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research Development and Engineering Center and U.S. Army Research Laboratory, 

respectively. Through these efforts, a functional Soldier Machine Interface (SMI) was developed using Future Combat System 

concepts to support the tasks of monitoring and maintaining coordinated movement of platoon size units conducting a tactical 

road march. This report provides an in-depth description of the approach used to develop the SMI and the features of the SMI. 

In addition, we describe a modeling and simulation environment that is being used to support human-in-the-loop experiments to 

evaluate the current SMI and examine the impact of the SMI on the supporting operator’s roles. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Design guidelines, robotics, simulation 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

Keryl A. Cosenzo 

a. REPORT 

Unclassified 

b. ABSTRACT 

Unclassified 

c. THIS PAGE 

Unclassified 

17. LIMITATION 

 OF 

 ABSTRACT 

UU 

18. NUMBER 

 OF 

 PAGES 

48 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code) 

(410) 278-5885 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
iii 

Contents 

List of Figures v

List of Tables vi

1. Introduction 1

2. Background 1

2.1 Current Force...................................................................................................................1 

2.2 Future Force ....................................................................................................................3 

3. RC Soldier Machine Interface 5

3.1 Design Approach.............................................................................................................5 

3.2 Goals and Assumptions...................................................................................................6 

3.3 Development and Evaluation ........................................................................................10 

3.4 Design Features .............................................................................................................12 

3.5 Formations Large Portal................................................................................................13 

3.6 Formation Parameters....................................................................................................15 

3.7 Map Overlays ................................................................................................................17 

3.8 Alerts .............................................................................................................................20 

3.9 Vehicle Sensors .............................................................................................................22 

4. Modeling and Simulation Environment 23

4.1 General Description.......................................................................................................23 

4.1.1 Intelligent Systems Behavior Simulator............................................................24 

4.1.2 Embedded Simulation System...........................................................................25 

4.2 Specialized Simulation Components for SMI Evaluation.............................................25 

4.2.1 Scenario Event Service......................................................................................26 

4.2.2 Data Analysis and Reporting Tool (DART)......................................................27 

4.3 Hardware Components..................................................................................................28 

4.4 System Deployment ......................................................................................................30 

5. Conclusions 31
iv 

6. References 33

Bibliography 34

Acronyms 36
v 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. METT-TC........................................................................................................................2 

Figure 2. RC SMI design approach.................................................................................................5 

Figure 3. FCS Template: basic portrait display configuration.......................................................6 

Figure 4. RC MMWS......................................................................................................................6 

Figure 5. The Crew Automated Testbed Advanced Technology Demonstration (CAT ATD) 

(left) and the Robotic Followers Advanced Technology Demonstration (RF ATD) (right). ..11 

Figure 6. VTI crewstation.............................................................................................................11 

Figure 7. VTI asset status bar (formation information not shown in this image).........................11 

Figure 8. VTI map display............................................................................................................11 

Figure 9. VTI formation screen. ...................................................................................................12 

Figure 10. RC menu (navigation) structure. ................................................................................13 

Figure 11. Situation understanding (SU)-formations large portal. ...............................................14 

Figure 12. Details part...................................................................................................................15 

Figure 13. Individual vehicle parameter details............................................................................16 

Figure 14. Formation parameter details........................................................................................16 

Figure 15. Formation parameters update. .....................................................................................16

Figure 16. (a) Leader Plan overlay and (b) the Plan History overlay (gray portion of plan). ......17 

Figure 17. Planned Location Box and Deviation Line overlays...................................................18 

Figure 18. (a) Planned Distance from Lead Line and (b) the Current/Actual Distance from 

Lead overlays...........................................................................................................................19 

Figure 19. (a) Planned and Current Aft Distance overlays and (b) the Planned and Current 

Lateral Distance overlays.........................................................................................................20 

Figure 20. Alert notification. ........................................................................................................20 

Figure 21. FCS generic status indicators. .....................................................................................21 

Figure 22. Formation alerting example.........................................................................................21 

Figure 23. Formation map icon (yellow arrow)............................................................................22 

Figure 24. UGV Control – Teleop large portal.............................................................................22 

Figure 25. Simulation environment software components. ..........................................................24 

Figure 26. Vehicle following technique.........................................................................................26 

Figure 27. DART. .........................................................................................................................27 

Figure 28. Hardware configuration diagram.................................................................................29 

Figure 29. Object deployment diagram. .......................................................................................30
vi 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Scenario event list...........................................................................................................27 

Table 2. Hardware inventory. .......................................................................................................28 
1 

1. Introduction 

As the emerging technologies of the Army’s Future Combat System (FCS) are introduced into 

the battlefield, Soldiers increasingly will face new challenges in workload management. A 

shifting force structure will bring increasing responsibilities for the next generation Soldier, who 

will be tasked with effectively using and protecting robotic assets in addition to performing other 

missions. In order to assess the capabilities and operational value of new concepts associated 

with FCS objectives, the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research Development and Engineering 

Center (TARDEC) and U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL) have developed a functional user 

interface and are conducting experiments to examine various human-machine interface concepts 

for manned and unmanned systems. Through experimentation we are able to quantitatively 

verify the capabilities and operational value of new concepts, techniques, and procedures (1). 

This work is part of a joint TARDEC-ARL research program, the Robotics Collaboration Army 

Technology Objective (RC ATO). The goal of the program is to develop a common user 

interface that maximizes multi-functional Soldier performance of primary mission tasks by 

minimizing required interactions and workload in the control of ground and air unmanned 

systems and minimizes unique training requirements. Program objectives include analyzing and 

evaluating the effects of automated technologies, interface design concepts, and associated 

control devices with respect to Soldier workload. 

This report describes a functional Soldier Machine Interface (SMI) that was developed using 

FCS concepts to support the tasks of monitoring and maintaining coordinated movement (i.e., 

formation) of platoon size units that include manned and unmanned systems. We provide a 

detailed description of our design approach and the resultant features of the SMI. In addition, we 

describe a modeling and simulation environment that is being used to support human-in-the-loop 

experiments to evaluate the current SMI and examine the impact of the SMI on the supporting 

operator’s roles. The experiments and the associated results are not presented in this report but 

will be published in a future report. 

2. Background 

2.1 Current Force 

The ability to move through the battle space is the fundamental requirement for conducting an 

operation in the theater of war. This movement should be as rapid as the terrain, the mobility of 

the force, and the enemy situation will permit (2). In current operations there are two types of 

movements, a tactical movement (movement in preparation for contact) and a maneuver 

movement (movement while in contact with the enemy). Prior to initiating any type of 
2 

movement, planning must occur. Figure 1 shows the flow of events in mission execution 

including planning, monitoring, and execution. Knowledge of critical elements, such as Mission, 

Enemy, Terrain, Troops Available, Time and Civilians (METT-TC), is integral to mission or 

battle execution and continually influence the components of the mission cycle (3). 

Figure 1. METT-TC. 

METT-TC drives the battle decisions at the tactical level; however, no matter what decision is 

made, security is maintained at all times. A well planned and executed tactical maneuver (i.e., 

formations and techniques) is just one of the ways unit security is ensured at all times for both 

offensive and defensive operations. One way security is maintained is through formations and 

techniques. Formations are the arrangements of units (i.e., squads and above) in relation to each 

other. Techniques are the position of units (i.e., sections and above) and the sequential 

movement of those in relation to each other during movement. Forces on the battlefield use the 

best combination of formations and techniques to maximize control, security, and flexibility for a 

given situation. There are standard positions which allow leaders to control team members to 

maintain cohesion and momentum. For example, security forces reduce their exposure to the 

enemy during movement through use of the terrain, avoidance of possible kill zones, dispersion, 

observations, and the use of measures to counter enemy observation and fires. Further, there are 

standard techniques, tactics, and procedures (TTPs) for formations (4). For example, in current 

operations, the lead vehicle in most types of formations is traditionally the Platoon Leader’s 

vehicle. If something happened to that lead vehicle, the command would transition down to 

another vehicle in the platoon, and the Tank Commander in that vehicle would become the 

Platoon Commander for the remaining unit. The mission may continue until all resources are 

depleted, depending on the order from the Company Commander. Ultimately, the Platoon 

Leader has primary responsibility of maintaining a formation (4). 

METT-TC 

Battle 

Intervene 

Plan and Re-plan 

Execute 

Monitor 

METT-TC* 
3 

Communication between formation elements is crucial to the leaders’ situational awareness (SA) 

of the status of each element in a formation. Currently, there are many tools that a Platoon 

Leader can use to maintain SA of that status. Some of the more well-known tools at the Platoon 

Leader’s disposal are Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2), Blue Force 

Tracker (BFT), satellite imagery, and Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) 

imagery. FBCB2 provides the commander a common operating picture (COP) of the blue forces 

in the form of a map with moving vehicle icons that denote the grid location of each platform 

within the FBCB2 network. Vehicle location is periodically updated every nth minute or every 

nth distance based on the refresh rate (user defined). Also, FBCB2 can produce overlays that 

denote routes, phase lines, objectives, named areas of interest (NAI), target areas of interest 

(TAI), etc. BFT is similar to FBCB2 in overall purpose as it also provides a COP of the blue 

forces. Satellite and AWACS imagery can provide the leader with a bird’s eye static view of the 

unit formation as well as the mission route. Also in the commander’s arsenal are Unmanned 

Aerial Vehicle (UAV) visuals (e.g., streaming video) that can be used to keep constant watch on 

the entire unit or provide an advance look at portions of the upcoming route. Even with all the 

technology available today, a leader uses the most primitive SA tools, such as line of sight (LOS) 

through the front and side windows and the side view mirror to keep an eye on vehicles in front 

of or behind him. 

The platoon generally knows where it is going (e.g., route from start point to the objective area), 

as it is briefed by the Platoon Leader during the presentation of his operations order based on 

initial planning. Formation elements currently communicate with each other through a variety of 

means such as various radios (Single-Channel Ground-Air Radio System (SINGARS), Enhanced 

Position Location and Reporting System (EPLRS), etc.), FBCB2, and if all else fails, hand and 

arms signals (5). The radio is the most common form of inter-formation communication, most 

likely due to quickness and ease of use. FBCB2 is often used for recurring updates such as 

situation reports (SITREPs) and Spot reports. To keep the radio lines clear, Soldiers often use 

the quick and easy free text messaging provided through FBCB2. Finally, if technology fails, or 

if noise discipline and/or radio silence is in effect, Soldiers are trained in hand and arm signals 

that allow members of the unit to pass information along. In current operations, procedures 

related to formations are relatively fixed. For example, there are two separate convoy types, the 

logistics convoy and the combat convoy. A logistics convoy is typically in defense mode since 

they follow the Blue Force (BlueFOR) in a linear battlefield and the BlueFOR (e.g., the combat 

convoy) provides fire support for the logistics convoy. In a nonlinear battlefield and one with 

advanced technologies, the logistics convoy will need to shift its mindset to think about offense 

as well defense. 

2.2 Future Force 

In the future, the forms of maneuver, tactical formations, and movement techniques used today 

will continue but the TTPs for implementing them will change (7). The Army will be integrating 

firepower either as separate vehicles or as part of the logistics supply vehicles. Small combat 
4 

units will continue to use standard movement formations (e.g., wedge, column) and techniques 

(traveling, traveling overwatch, and bounding overwatch). Further, the movement techniques or 

formations at company level and below remain similar but the battlespace they will operate in 

will expand with technological advances. 

Movement techniques and formations will include the use of sensors (unmanned and manned), 

information superiority, and networked fires. This modification will change and increase the 

complexity of the Platoon Leader’s monitoring task and the tasks of the individual members of 

the platoon. FCS will also be intermingling unmanned systems with manned systems. The 

introduction of unmanned systems with autonomous capabilities will pose new challenges for 

conducting military movements. Unless a standardized electronic command language (such as 

the Battle Management Language (BML)) is instituted in the operational force structure, the 

Platoon Leader will not be able to send a verbal communication direction to unmanned systems 

as he does to vehicle commanders or drivers. Instead this communication will need to be 

directed to a Robotics Technician, who is responsible for the unmanned system. This 

combination yields three types of control modalities for vehicles in the group (e.g., platoon): 

manned vehicle driving, unmanned vehicle driving (teleoperation), and supervisory control of 

the unmanned system. Manual driving allows for immediate reaction to obstructions; a manned 

vehicle driver can make on the spot and immediate changes. For teleoperation of an unmanned 

system, the Robotic Technician may have to deal with issues related to indirect driving, such as 

latency, the lag between his driving action (increase speed of robot) and the robot’s response. 

The Robotic Technician also has to manage multiple tasks (driving the robots, responding to 

Platoon Leader communications), which can affect his ability to teleoperate. For supervisory 

control, the Robotics Technician controls the vehicle through a series of higher order commands 

(e.g., follow waypoints). Autonomous mobility can pose a threat to the unmanned system and 

the other units. If an unexpected formation change is required, a manned vehicle can easily 

make the adjustments necessary for the new formation. The unmanned vehicle would likely 

have to halt while a new plan is initiated and executed, and by that time circumstances may 

change again, prompting yet another formation change. This action may also slow or stop the 

entire unit, which can put the entire group at risk. Given issues related to vehicle control, it may 

be a challenge to configure and maintain a desired formation especially in complex terrain with a 

mix of manned and unmanned systems. Interfaces and procedures need to be developed to 

overcome the potential problems associated with convoy operations and formations. 

Even with the plethora of tools and communication devices available, a gap still exists that does 

not allow the leader to be completely and simultaneously aware of the status of each element in 

his unit. In the future force, it is anticipated that the Platoon Leader’s ability to achieve and 

maintain SA will be enhanced with advanced formation planning and maintenance tools to 

include map displays with planned and current routes, status information on each of the vehicles 
5 

in the formation, and alerts regarding formation vehicle issues. However, it is important to pay 

special attention to how we organize and present this information to the Platoon Leader so that it 

increases his SA and does not result in information overload. 

3. RC Soldier Machine Interface 

3.1 Design Approach 

A primary objective of the RC ATO is to create a SMI that is directly relevant to the FCS 

program. In June 2007, interface design concepts were developed for the RC SMI. The tasks 

included in the interface concepts were those relevant to the roles of Platoon Leader and 

Robotics Technician: (1) create and execute a maneuver plan (including formation parameters), 

(2) monitor an unmanned vehicle’s progress, and (3) teleoperate an unmanned vehicle. Figure 2 

outlines the process used to define the SMI. FCS Goal Directed Task Analysis documentation 

and previous TARDEC lessons learned were used to create a task analysis and design concepts. 

FCS design documentation used to develop the RC SMI included the FCS SMI Standard, 

Warfighter Machine Interface Services (WMIS), flash files (screenshots), WMIS user interface 

specifications, and Unified Modeling Language (UML) models. From these documents, 

TARDEC and DCS identified the key aspects, behaviors, and functionality of the FCS user 

interface. 

Figure 2. RC SMI design approach. 
6 

The RC SMI uses the screen zone concept defined by FCS (figure 3), which includes small 

portals, large portals, tabs, subtabs, and helper zones (toolbar) (6). Wherever possible, the FCS 

design has been directly emulated. The SMI has been implemented on RC’s Mission Module 

Work Station (MMWS) (figure 4) hardware, which is a surrogate representation of the 

crewstation concept for the FCS Manned Ground Vehicle (MGV) variant crew compartments 

(figure 4). 

Figure 3. FCS Template: basic portrait display configuration. 

Figure 4. RC MMWS. 

3.2 Goals and Assumptions 

The FCS WMI is currently being defined, so there are certain topics that have not been addressed 

yet or are in process or are partially defined. To date, formation-related functionality has not 

been addressed by the FCS program. To fill this gap, additional functionality has been blended 
7 

into the FCS design to address the RC program objectives to include the ability to plan, maintain, 

and monitor a formation. Formation functionality was implemented within the SMI with the RC 

program goal of developing an aid and/or interface features to reduce the workload of individual 

users. Key questions addressed in the design process were as follows: 

1. How do we present the status of the formation to facilitate monitoring? 

2. What information do we present to the user? 

3. What information is presented at what time? 

 a. What is presented when things are okay versus when things are going wrong? 

4. Who gets what information (i.e., roles)? 

5. What modalities are used to present information? 

 a. What information should be presented in the visual mode versus the auditory 

mode? 

After defining these goals, a task analysis was completed to determine a user’s needs (related to 

formations). We discovered the primary tasks related to formations were configuring, 

monitoring, and maintaining vehicle positions. The information needed to support these primary 

tasks is outlined below: 

1. To configure or maintain a formation (parameters are set by operator) an operator will need 

to be able to enter/adjust the following: 

• Formation type 

• Number of march units 

• Vehicle positions 

○ Lead vehicle 

○ Other positions—2, 3, 4... 

○ Change the order of the vehicles 

• Distances 

○ Open (vehicles further apart) or Closed (vehicles closer together) 

○ Time-distance factors are used to perform calculations for planning movements and 

are critical to convoy planning 

○ Lateral offset (right or left) 

○ Aft offset (following) 
8 

• Sensor coverage 

• March rate (speed) 

○ Max speed 

• Time constraints 

• Start formation 

• Pause/stop formation 

○ Entire formation 

○ Individual vehicles 

• Take vehicle(s) out of formation 

• Clear parameters—remove all the parameters for the follower vehicles 

• Save formation parameters (template) 

• Delete formation template 

• Alerting thresholds (settings for determining a vehicle is out of formation) 

○ Distance related 

○ Speed related 

○ Sensor coverage related 

2. To monitor formation status of an individual vehicle(s) an operator will need to know the 

following: 

• Current formation type

• Current formation status (executed, paused, OK, caution, warning, etc.) 

• Distance from leader 

• Distance from other vehicles in formation 

• Position relative to leader 

• Current sensor coverage/sector of observation 

• Areas that have been covered by vehicle 

• Percent complete (based on leader’s plan—time and distance) 

• Graphical representation of the original (leader’s) plan/route 
9 

• Deviation—actual position/coverage area relative to where it should be in formation, 

including distance, direction, coverage: 

○ Where it should be 

○ Where it is 

○ Deviation distance—how far out of formation (number of meters) 

○ Direction of deviation 

○ Speed deviation (kph under/over speed) 

• Criticality of deviation 

• Recommend action(s) to decrease/eliminate deviation 

• Speed 

• Fuel status 

• Ammunition 

• Heading 

• Obstacles 

• Malfunctions 

• System confidence 

○ For example, instead of modeling the world, there are multiple algorithms that run 

in parallel (global positioning system (GPS) bread crumbs, road following, etc.). 

Each algorithm provides a confidence and control output. The confidence levels 

are weighted and fused to provide an overall system confidence (0 to 1 value). 

3. To monitor the formation status of the entire formation(s) an operator will need to know the 

following: 

• Status (distances, timing) of the convoy execution. The following variables use 

algorithms to derive the status reports: 

○ March Unit Road Space: The length of roadway which all the march units in a 

column or serial occupy, RSpaceMU. 

○ Time Gap: The total time of all time gaps between march elements and serials, 

TGap. 

○ Total Road Space: The length of any column or element of a column or the length 

of roadway which a column occupies, TRSpace. 
10 

○ Pass Time: The length of time required by a column or its elements to pass a given 

point on the route, PTime. 

• Current sensor coverage/sectors of observation (combined coverage of whole 

formation) 

• Areas that have been covered by formation 

• Percent complete (based on leader’s plan—time and distance) 

• Graphical representation of the original (leader’s) plan/route 

• Deviations: Vehicles that are out of formation—actual positions/coverage areas relative 

to where they should be in formation, including distance, direction, coverage: 

○ Where should the vehicle be? 

○ What is the vehicles current location? 

○ Deviation distance—how far out of formation (number of meters) 

○ Direction of deviation 

○ Speed deviation (kph under over speed) 

• Criticality of deviations 

• Recommend action(s) to decrease/eliminate deviation 

○ For example, vehicle 2 needs to speed up to X kph (to minimize formation 

oscillations). At some point, it will then need to slow back down to its previous 

formation speed. 

• Vehicle speeds 

• Vehicle headings 

• Obstacles 

• Malfunctions 

3.3 Development and Evaluation 

The development of the current RC SMI represents the culmination of prior SMI development 

and evaluation efforts. The Vetronics Technology Integration (VTI) program developed a 

multimodal SMI for on-the-move operations. Intelligent vehicle technologies, autonomous 

mobility provided by waypoint navigation, obstacle avoidance, tactical behaviors, and 

vehicle/road following were integrated onto a modified Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicle platform 

as shown in figures 5 and 6 (9). 
11 

Figure 5. The Crew Automated Testbed Advanced Technology 

Demonstration (CAT ATD) (left) and the Robotic Followers 

Advanced Technology Demonstration (RF ATD) (right). 

Figure 6. VTI crewstation. 

Formation functionality has been previously implemented on the VTI SMIs in the form of one 

formation parameter, which was displayed on a high level vehicle information status bar for each 

vehicle in the formation (figure 7). Each status bar provided the vehicle’s distance from the 

formation leader in text. Formation progress could also be monitored on the map surface, which 

provided GPS-updated icons, much like FBCB2 (figure 8). A map-based formation screen was 

also developed for configuring and monitoring a formation (figure 9). 

Figure 7. VTI asset status bar (formation information not shown in this image). 

Figure 8. VTI map display. 
12 

Figure 9. VTI formation screen. 

Subsequently, a series of field test formation trials were performed to categorize and quantify the 

current state of development of the tactical behaviors/formations interface. These combinations 

of tools were tested at RUX06 field experiment (8) and shown to be problematic. The map level 

detail was insufficient if the operator needed to view the entire mission space. Further, when the 

vehicle was moving, the status bar information was not comprehendible. 

Additional lessons learned were documented and improvements recommended from a series of 

engineering evaluations (10–12). The users preferred one screen that would provide full control 

of all assets involved in a convoy formation, including monitoring and intervening in the 

behavior of the assets. The users preferred automation within some of the map interactions. For 

example, they preferred the center of the map to follow the formation and have the map zoomed 

based on the spacing of the vehicles. The capability to display the vehicles with their true 

orientation or have the formation always directed towards the top of the screen would allow the 

operator to monitor a vehicle’s orientation to the world or simplify the monitoring of a vehicle’s 

orientation to the others in the formation. The users preferred access to information on the 

parameters set for a formation, but also wanted status on the relation of the vehicle positions and 

orientations to one another using symbology on a map and relevant vehicle parameters such as 

speeds, heading, and communications status. Additionally, users were not interested in 

determining how far out of formation a vehicle was, but only that it was out of formation. The 

users requested an indicator on the formation screen to highlight the vehicle in trouble. The 

users also wanted the capability to assign a formation type to portions of a route or an entire 

route (i.e., designate within a plan, select a waypoint, and tell asset “this formation type here”). 

They also wanted the ability to change formation parameters on the fly. These recommendations 

were addressed in the current RC SMI design discussed in the next section. 

3.4 Design Features 

Based on the engineering evaluations and lessons learned to date, multiple formation features 

were integrated into the RC SMI. The goal of these formations features is to reduce operator 

workload, while providing an indication of formation status that can be used to maintain a 
13 

formation and easily communicate formation status to others. Multiple features have been 

implemented with the goal of prioritizing which features are most successful. When SMI 

presentation space is limited, it is important to determine the most critical information to display. 

The RC ATO used the menu structure shown in figure 10, which is a derivation of the current 

FCS menu structure, modified to support specific technology development activities. 

RC Menu Structure Overview

RC – Sept 07

Setup Plan

Look & Feel

User

Login

States & Modes

Engineering

Exit

UGV Control Situational

Understanding

System Status

Data

Log

Instrumentation

Log

Maneuver Plan

3DSA

Reports

Asset List

Replan UGV

Teleop UGV

Driving Overlays

Guarded Teleop

Overlays

Mobility

MGV Control

Replan MGV

Guarded Driving

Driving Overlays

Monitor UGV Monitor MGV

Alerts 

(WCAN)

Maneuver Plans

Formations

Orders

Received

RC – Sept 07

Setup Plan

Look & Feel

User

Login

States & Modes

Engineering

Exit

UGV Control Situational

Understanding

System Status

Data

Log

Instrumentation

Log

Maneuver Plan

3DSA

Reports

Asset List

Replan UGV

Teleop UGV

Driving Overlays

Guarded Teleop

Overlays

Mobility

MGV Control

Replan MGV

Guarded Driving

Driving Overlays

Monitor UGV Monitor MGV

Alerts 

(WCAN)

Maneuver Plans

Formations

Orders

Received

Figure 10. RC menu (navigation) structure. 

3.5 Formations Large Portal 

Based on features identified in the task analysis and previous lessons learned, a large portal 

screen dedicated to formations was created within the FCS navigation structure (figure 11). The 

decision to dedicate a screen was primarily based on the amount of information and control 

options that could be presented to a user in a test environment. When attempting to combine 

these features into other existing COP-like FCS screens, it was difficult to accommodate all the 

desired features, while leaving the original functionality of that FCS screen intact. The flexible 

navigation structure of the FCS SMI allows certain tabs and associated subtabs to be provided to 

a user based on their role. 
14 

Figure 11. Situation understanding (SU)-formations large portal. 

The formations large portal screen provides unique map control options in the toolbar and the 

View menu. Features that are expected to be mission critical or frequently used have been 

placed in the toolbar. Other features that may be one-time setup or less frequently accessed have 

been provided in the View menu: 

• Track Vehicle: to keep the map centered on a selected vehicle. 

• Zoom Vehicle: to auto zoom map to a TBD level, centered on an asset. 

• Zoom Convoy: to auto zoom map to a TBD level, centered on the middle of the convoy. 

• Track Up: to orient map with the selected vehicle/convoy facing up. When not selected, 

north is up (Track Vehicle or Track Convoy must be selected for this to be available). 

• Track Convoy: to keep the map centered on the center of the convoy. 

• Change map type, background: to declutter the screen. 
15 

3.6 Formation Parameters 

Multiple formation parameters are used to define a formation. These parameters then become 

essential in determining whether vehicles are in formation. Current applications do not directly 

associate formation parameters with a formation status. Doing so may decrease the amount of 

workload associated with monitoring the formation as well as increase the passing of critical 

information along in order to maintain the formation. 

FCS provides a Details part containing detailed information related to a task within the large 

portal zone (figure 12). The RC SMI uses this concept to display formation parameters. 

Figure 12. Details part. 

Much of the feedback from previous efforts indicated a desire to view status information on an 

entire formation in one view as well as to be able to view information at the vehicle level. Both 

of these concepts have been incorporated into the FCS Details structure. A user can select any 

vehicle within a formation to review the details associated with that vehicle (figure 13). 
16 

Figure 13. Individual vehicle parameter details. 

A user may also select the lead vehicle to review parameters at the vehicle level as well as an 

FCS table containing critical parameters for all vehicles within a formation (figure 14). 

Customization of the table columns allows the user to tailor the information to their needs/role. 

The formation Details part also allows users to update formation parameters on the fly, 

increasing the ability to maintain a formation when mission changes arise (figure 15). 

Figure 14. Formation parameter details. 

Figure 15. Formation parameters update. 
17 

3.7 Map Overlays 

A series of map overlays are intended to allow a user to more quickly assess formation status. 

One set of overlays is intended to be “on” at all times, providing an unobtrusive indication of 

how the formation vehicles are doing. Another set of overlays may clutter the map very 

quickly, but could be used to get more specific information on a vehicle in order to communicate 

the status of that vehicle. The following map overlays are intended to be useful for general 

monitoring of formation progress. They include the Leader Plan overlay, Plan History overlay, 

Planned Location Box overlay, Planned and Current Distance overlay, and Alert Notifications. 

The expectation is that the overlays would be turned on for the entire duration of a mission. 

In order to make the overlays more visible and readable against varying map backgrounds, a 

white shadow style is used behind lines and text (not represented in all figures below). Color is 

also used throughout most of the overlays to distinguish them from one another and as a 

secondary indicator of vehicle formation status (alerting). The Leader Plan shows the path 

the lead vehicle will take, whether in autonomous mode or not (figure 16, left). The waypoint 

icons may be toggled on/off independently from the plan line for additional decluttering 

purposes. The Plan History overlay (gray portion of route) shows the path the lead vehicle has 

completed (figure 16, right). 

Figure 16. (a) Leader Plan overlay and (b) the Plan History overlay (gray portion of plan). 

The Planned Location Box (yellow and blue in image) is associated with each following vehicle 

in the formation. The overlay shows where each vehicle should be according to the leader’s plan 

and the formation parameters set by the user (figure 18). Box color is used to indicate the 

formation status of each vehicle. The colors are based on FCS SMI guidelines. 

• Blue—within thresholds. Blue seems most visible on multiple map background types. 
18 

• Yellow—caution, out of thresholds 

• Red—warning, way out of thresholds 

The Deviation Line (shown with vehicle 4 in figure 16) is present when a vehicle crosses the 

threshold and is “deviating” from the formation parameters. The Deviation Line extends from 

the Planned Location Box to the vehicle icon (figure 17). It is intended to show the path the 

vehicle needs to take to get back into formation. The same color assignment is used to denote 

formation status. The Deviation Line overlay also provides the distance, i.e., number of meters 

the vehicle is out of formation (not shown in figure 17). 

Figure 17. Planned Location Box and 

Deviation Line overlays. 

The Planned Distance from Lead Line and Current/Actual Distance from Lead Line overlays are 

intended to be used for troubleshooting formation deviations. It may be useful to allow a user to 

toggle them on/off for the entire formation or just for a selected vehicle. The Planned Distance

from Lead Line extends from the back of lead vehicle to front of the Planned Location Box 

(figure 18, left). Blue indicates that it is a planned distance (to distinguish it from the 

Current/Actual Distance overlay). Text can also be turned on to display the planned distance 

from the lead vehicle. The Current/Actual Distance from Lead Line extends from the back of 

the lead vehicle to the front of the vehicle icon (figure 18, right). Green indicates that it is a 

current/actual distance (to distinguish it from Planned Distance overlay). Yellow and red are 

used to indicate a caution and warning threshold has been exceeded. Text can be turned on to 

display the current distance from the lead vehicle. 
19 

Figure 18. (a) Planned Distance from Lead Line and (b) the Current/Actual Distance 

from Lead overlays. 

The Planned and Current Aft Distance and Planned and Current Lateral Distance overlays are 

also thought to be useful for troubleshooting formation deviations at an individual or entire 

formation level. The overlays allow the user to overlay information specific to individual 

formation parameters (e.g., aft and lateral distances), whereas previous overlays provide a 

straight line distance between vehicles. The Aft Distance from Lead overlays provides 

information related only to the aft distance parameter entered by the user (figure 19, left). The 

Planned Aft Distance Line extends from the back of the lead vehicle to the front of Planned 

Location Box, perpendicular to the asset. This overlay is always blue to distinguish it from the 

Current Aft Distance. The Current Aft Distance Line extends from the back of the lead vehicle 

to the front of vehicle icon, perpendicular to the asset. This overlay also provides threshold 

information by changing colors. Green indicates that it is a current distance within the threshold 

value (to distinguish it from Planned Distance overlay). Yellow and red are used to indicate a 

caution and warning threshold has been exceeded. The Lateral Distance from Lead overlays 

provide information related only to the lateral distance parameter entered by the user (figure 19, 

right). The Planned Lateral Distance Line provides a visual indication of the lateral distance 

from the lead vehicle in terms of the Planned Location Box. This overlay is always blue. The 

Current Planned Distance Line provides a visual indication of the lateral distance from the 

lead vehicle in terms of the actual vehicle icon. This overlay also provides threshold information 

by changing colors. Green indicates that it is a current distance within the threshold value (to 

distinguish it from the Planned Distance overlay). Yellow and red are used to indicate a caution 

and warning threshold has been exceeded. 
20 

Figure 19. (a) Planned and Current Aft Distance overlays and (b) the Planned and Current Lateral 

Distance overlays. 

3.8 Alerts 

The RC SMI uses a Warning, Caution, Advisory, and Notification (WCAN) system (6) 

developed for FCS to provide alert notification in multiple zones within the SMI so that a user 

will be aware of a WCAN without having to refocus from the task they are completing when the 

alert comes in. Figure 20 illustrates the zones within the SMI where one individual alert will be 

indicated (Map Surface, Details Part, Alert Portals, and Alert Counter on Tab). 

Figure 20. Alert notification. 

The RC design reflects the FCS alert structure in its entirety. There were, however, no alerts 

defined specific to monitoring coordinated movement. This section documents the concepts 

defined to alert a user to issues within a formation. FCS features a set of general status 
21 

indicators that use shape and color to indicate generic, alert, equipment, and network status 

(example in figure 21). The basic generic indicators were modified to create a set of formation 

status indicators. 

Square with 

transparent 

background

Schedule viewer – on schedule 

projected milestone

OnScheduleFuture

Square with OK Color

background 

Schedule viewer – on schedule 

past milestone; also, 

supplements the OK color 

(“Green”)

OnSchedule

Triangle with Caution 

color background 

Used to supplement the 

caution color (“Amber”)

Caution

Octagon w/ Warning 

color background 

Used to supplement the 

warning color (“Red”)

Warning

Generic Status Indicators

Square with 

transparent 

background

Schedule viewer – on schedule 

projected milestone

OnScheduleFuture

Square with OK Color

background 

Schedule viewer – on schedule 

past milestone; also, 

supplements the OK color 

(“Green”)

OnSchedule

Triangle with Caution 

color background 

Used to supplement the 

caution color (“Amber”)

Caution

Octagon w/ Warning 

color background 

Used to supplement the 

warning color (“Red”)

Warning

Generic Status Indicators

Figure 21. FCS generic status indicators. 

An arrow shape is used in place of the stop sign and triangle to provide general formation status 

to the user (figure 22). Figure 22 indicates that XUV4 is 11 m southeast of where it should be 

(10 m back and 1 m east). This information is highlighted in red and the triangle caution symbol 

indicates that the aft distance is the critical reason for the deviation. 

Figure 22. Formation alerting example. 

At low map zoom levels, this arrow also becomes the map icon for the entire formation (figure 

23). The arrow status indicator/icon is used in the parameter details area of the formations large 

portal as well as an available asset list small portal (figure 23) that provides basic status 

information on all vehicles involved in a user’s mission. The arrow provides formation alert 

status as well as directional information on where the asset is in relation to where is should be 

(see example in figure 23). Parameters related to a formation deviation are also highlighted 

using color and the FCS alert status indicators so the user can quickly identify and communicate 

what the vehicle is doing to cause it to fall out of formation. 
22 

Figure 23. Formation map icon (yellow arrow). 

The goal of every formation alert is to not only notify the user of a problem, but also provide as 

much information on the deviation, so the user can effectively communicate the issue and 

correction without drastically increasing their workload. It should also be noted that the RC SMI 

software provides flexibility in setting parameter thresholds (e.g., distances that trigger an alert). 

This flexibility improves the ability to analyze alerting procedures. 

3.9 Vehicle Sensors 

Given the nature of FCS closed hatch operations, vehicle sensors available to the user may 

replace rear-view mirrors and head-out-of-hatch monitoring. If bandwidth allows, it may be 

beneficial to extend this concept to provide the Platoon Leader with access to sensors on multiple 

vehicles within the formation. A concept that requires further exploration includes alerts, status 

information, or other aids as overlays on sensor video imagery. For purposes of this effort, the 

Platoon Leader has access to sensor feeds on vehicles within his formation. These sensor feeds 

are accessible from the RC Unmanned Ground Vehicle (UGV) Control – Teleop large portal 

(figure 24). 

Figure 24. UGV Control – Teleop large portal. 
23 

The end results of these interface features is a functional SMI that implements FCS concepts. 

The features described in the preceding sections were developed to support the tasks of 

monitoring and maintaining coordinated movement of platoon size units. The next step in the 

design cycle is evaluation of the interface concepts. 

4. Modeling and Simulation Environment 

4.1 General Description 

A series of experiments are being conducted to evaluate the benefits afforded by the FCS-like 

formation features in the RC SMI on Soldier performance. To this end, the RC SMI is being 

compared to current force technology. Additionally, different user roles and responsibilities 

associated with maintaining coordinated movement are being tested. The results of the 

experiments are not presented in this report; however, our approach for this experimentation and 

follow-on interface design and evaluation efforts are described in detail. 

Human-in-the-loop simulation is being used in the development and refinement of the RC SMI. 

The environment allows for repeated testing with high face validity and analytical rigor. 

Through the use of this environment, we can conduct high fidelity simulation experiments and 

provide design recommendations quickly and more cost effectively than through field testing. 

This approach is not intended to supplant field testing but to complement and potentially enhance 

the results of field testing. Human-in-the-loop simulation can be used as an initial step to test out 

concepts in interface design, manning, techniques, and procedures. 

The environment used to administer these experiments consists of several modeling and 

simulation subsystems operating within a service-based architecture and communicating within a 

private simulation sub-network (figure 25). The distributed processing components share a 

common network hub class that facilitates data exchange. The system components are described 

in detail in the following sections. 
24 

Figure 25. Simulation environment software components.

4.1.1 Intelligent Systems Behavior Simulator 

The Intelligent Systems Behavior Simulator (ISBS) is a modeling and simulation environment 

that facilitates the development and execution of models representing intelligent agents. The 

ISBS provides the ability to define behaviors, allocate behaviors to human or computer (software 

agent) deployments, and analyze deployment effectiveness within specified scenarios in 

accordance with a set of metrics. 

For example, for the formations experiments, the ISBS models an Autonomous Mobility (AM) 

as the mode of vehicle navigation. The AM model is used for the mobility of all vehicles 

without alteration based on vehicle type. The AM system model controls the progression of each 

vehicle along the assigned route. The ISBS uses a laser radar (LADAR) sensor model to build a 

cost map based on the terrain features of the virtual environment. The AM model uses the cost 

map to determine the best options for maneuvering the vehicle along the route (e.g., avoiding 

obstacles, capturing waypoints, etc.). 

The AM planning process is performed in a control loop that balances considerations of the 

current vehicle state (from the Embedded Simulation System (ESS)), the emerging cost map, and 

the a priori route, which is a series of waypoints spaced at approximately 10 m intervals. 
25 

The planning result, a temporary steer-to point, is used to determine adjustments to the vehicle 

actuator data (steering and speed control). The actuator data is then sent to the ESS at the end of 

each processing cycle to update the vehicle state. 

4.1.2 Embedded Simulation System 

The ESS represents the virtual operational environment for the experiment, including a virtual 

platform (vehicle) representation and instantiation of the One Semi Automated Force (ONESAF) 

Test Bed (OTB) objects, which represent environmental entities and scenario event triggers. It 

provides stimulus to the modeled intelligent agents over a wide range of channels from 

communication traffic to a simulation of visual information (e.g., LOS testing). 

The ESS also provides the vehicle dynamics modeling for this experiment. All four vehicles in 

convoy are created by the ESS as separate instances of a ground platform with its own dynamics 

model. Each vehicle object receives the vehicle actuator data, which includes steering, throttle, 

and brake levels as input, and produces corresponding vehicle position and attitude data based on 

the vehicle dynamics model calculations. 

4.2 Specialized Simulation Components for SMI Evaluation 

A key concept in conducting an experiment is to provide a controlled environment in which all 

events can be scripted. For the SMI evaluation and roles experiments, a Formation Manager 

model was developed to control vehicle position within the formation during the road march 

until commands from the event server were received to cause formation deviations. A Formation 

Management model is implemented to ensure that the vehicles maintain a valid formation until 

they encounter scripted events that force user intervention. While this attempt to provide a 

strictly deterministic measurement of formation deviation handling by the participants is highly 

effective, it is not one hundred percent foolproof, i.e., there can be occasionally unscripted 

formation deviations, a situation which needs to be accounted for in the final data analysis. 

A column formation has been modeled for the first SMI experiment. Specific values for lateral 

and aft separation determine whether a following vehicle was considered to be “out of 

formation” (or deviating) with respect to the lead vehicle. The convoy was established using a 

leader-follower technique in which the lead vehicle left “bread crumbs” (or intermediate 

waypoints) at timed intervals for each of the remaining vehicles to follow. Thus, all followers are 

independently tied to the leader using this method. Figure 26 illustrates the concept of the bread 

crumbs and the distance measuring method. 
26 

Figure 26. Vehicle following technique. 

A formation deviation is the circumstance in which one of the following vehicles moves outside 

of the area specified as its position. If a following vehicle moves too far to the left or right, or 

too far forward or backward with respect to the follower, it is considered to be out of formation. 

The purpose of the Formation Manager model is to monitor vehicle position and adjust the speed 

as necessary to keep the vehicle in formation with respect to aft separation. The leader-follower 

technique inherently keeps vehicles within the lateral separation boundaries. In order to 

introduce the scripted deviations, which challenge the participant to recognize and react to the 

problem, the Event Server sends commands, based on the position of the lead vehicle, to the 

ISBS for the various types of misbehaviors. The Formation Manager is designed such that the 

misbehavior messages from the Event Server affect only the intended vehicle. 

4.2.1 Scenario Event Service 

The Scenario Event Service is a system component that monitors the position of the virtual 

vehicles via the simulation network and interjects commands designed to trigger vehicle 

“misbehaviors.” All scenario events are scripted as “event zones” using pre-determined 

geographic coordinates in the OTB. As the lead vehicle in the convoy enters the event zones, the 

Scenario Event Service issues an appropriate event command to the ISBS, which in turn 

overrides the Autonomous Navigation System (ANS) for the designated vehicle. Established 

event types for these experiments are shown in table 1. 
27 

Table 1. Scenario event list. 

Number Enumeration Description 

1 POSCOMM Positive communication (call sign) 

2 NEGCOMM Negative communication (call sign) 

3 XYOFFSET Position misbehavior (heading offset) 

4 SPEEDABS Absolute speed value 

5 SPEEDDELTA Speed misbehavior (speed offset) 

6 CONVOYSpeedDelta Speed offset for the entire convoy 

7 CancelMisbehavior Cancel current event for specified vehicle 

8 Stop Stop 

4.2.2 Data Analysis and Reporting Tool (DART) 

The ISBS and SMI log scenario event data, vehicle data, and participant user-interface actions 

during data collection. DART (figure 27) is a MATLAB application that is used post-mission to 

collate data from simulated vehicle log files and the crew station log file. Additionally, an audio 

recording of the mission is transcribed for each test run. The data reduction process is complete 

upon analyzing the event data and calculating the experiment measures from the raw data. 

Figure 27. DART.
28 

DART provides an interactive analysis capability, allowing the experimenters to review data for 

errors and anomalies by checking the complete list of merged events that were logged during a 

mission. The report writing function is useful for exporting the experiment measures for use in a 

statistics package.

4.3 Hardware Components 

The simulation environment consists of several distributed systems connected via the simulation 

network. Table 2 lists the platforms used to host each of the system components and figure 28 

illustrates the hardware interface. 

Table 2. Hardware inventory. 

Component Item Quantity 

ESS Mobility model—Shuttle XPC Barebone SD39P2 with Intel 

Core2 Duo E6700 2.66GHz processor, 19 in. flat panel display 1 

ESS Display channel—Shuttle XPC with Intel Pentium 4, 3.2 GHz 

processor, 19 in. flat panel display 1 

Event Server Shuttle XPC Barebone SD39P2 with Intel Core2 Duo E6700 

2.66GHz processor, 19 in. flat panel display 1 

ISBS Dell Inspiron 9400, Intel Core 2 Duo processor T7200 

(4MB/2.00GHz/667MHz) with 17 in. display 4 

Misc. Speakers (pair) 1 

Misc. USB microphone 1 

Misc. Ethernet hubs 2 

MMWS 

(SSMI) 

Computer 1, Intel Core 2 Duo 2.16 GHz, 1.0 GB RAM, GDLS 

Custom Video Card 1 

MMWS 

(SSMI) 

Computer 2, Intel Core 2 Duo 2.16 GHz, 2.0 GB RAM, GDLS 

Custom Video Card 1 

OTB Dell Inspiron 8600, 15 in. 1920x1200, 2 GHz Intel Pentium M, 

1 GB RAM 1 

Note: GDLS = General Dynamics Land Systems, SSMI = Scalable Soldier Machine Interface, and 

USB = universal serial bus. 
29 

Figure 28. Hardware configuration diagram. 

A clock synchronization command is issued as part of the setup and configuration procedures 

that are performed prior to the beginning of each test run. This procedure is intended to establish 

a common source for time, since mission log files were being generated on six different systems, 

each with its own clock. 
30 

4.4 System Deployment 

The simulation environment features a service-based architecture, implemented in an objectoriented design. Figure 29 illustrates the processing deployment, indicating the specific 

functionality for each system component and the associated system interfaces. 

Figure 29. Object deployment diagram.
31 

5. Conclusions 

FCS is the U.S. Army’s program at the heart of the Army’s transformation efforts. It is to be the 

Army’s major research, development, and acquisition program consisting of 14 manned and 

unmanned systems tied together by an extensive communications and information network. A 

primary objective of the RC ATO has been to create a SMI that is directly relevant to the FCS 

program and this effort focused on functionality specifically associated with military maneuvers 

and formations for the future force. 

This report discusses the challenges associated with military formations for the future force. In 

general, the forms of maneuver, tactical formations, and movement techniques will remain the 

same, but the TTPs for implementing them will change (7). In the future, the Army will be 

integrating firepower either as separate vehicles or as part of the logistics supply vehicles. Small 

combat units will continue to use standard movement formations (e.g., wedge, column) and 

techniques (traveling, traveling overwatch, and bounding overwatch). Further, these formations 

and movements will occur in a larger battlespace and will include advanced technologies such as 

sensors (unmanned and manned), information superiority, and networked fires. This 

modification will increase the complexity of Soldier tasks and will pose new challenges for 

conducting military movements. We discussed the generic information needs to support future 

formations. These information needs are applicable to the current and future force, including 

operation with manned and unmanned systems. 

We provided example designs (i.e., RC SMI) that support these information needs and that fit 

within FCS design parameters. More specifically, RC SMI facilitates some of the key mission 

applications including mission planning and preparation, situational understanding, battle 

command and mission execution, and warfighter-machine interface. Wherever possible, the FCS 

design has been directly emulated and additional functionality not currently addressed by FCS 

was added. The RC SMI uses the screen zone concept defined by FCS, which includes small 

portals, large portals, tabs, subtabs, and helper zones (toolbar). The RC SMI incorporates 

enhanced design elements, such as automated map overlays and alerts, to aid the future Soldier 

in conducting missions (e.g., convoy monitoring, robot monitoring and control, maintaining SA 

of the area of operations). An assessment of these design parameters is not included in this 

report. 

To enable future assessments of these design parameters, a simulation environment was 

developed and a detailed description of this capability is included in this report. The simulation 

provided a realistic representation of the vehicle behaviors across a variety of terrains and 

featured distributed processing of the vehicle models, user interface, and scenario event services. 

Conducting experimentation within a high-fidelity simulation environment enables the 

participant to have an immersive experience with the SMI, which in turn provides the 
32 

experimenters with a richer data set to evaluate the SMI. The data capture capability of the 

experimental environment is the final element of the operational environment, which allows 

researchers to analyze the data collected with confidence in the reliability of the statistics. 

Through experimentation, our goal is to identify key features of the RC interface that support 

the monitoring and maintenance of formations. More specifically, with our simulation capability 

we can quantify the benefits of the RC SMI over current force technology. Further, we will be 

able to evaluate how the task of maintaining and monitoring a formation may change with the 

introduction of unmanned systems and depending on the Soldier’s role in this mission. The 

results of our design and evaluation efforts will provide much-needed feedback from the 

engineering community as well Soldiers to FCS. The lessons learned from our efforts will 

continue to drive future advancements as part of the RC ATO as well as future joint Science 

and Technology efforts between TARDEC and ARL’s Human Research and Engineering 

Directorate (HRED). 
33 

6. References 

1. Johnson, T.; Manteuffel, C.; Brewster, B. Crew Multi-tasking and Driver Workload 

Modeling for Robotic Controller, DCS Corporation: Alexandria, VA, June 2007. 

2. Field Manual 3-90.2 The Tank and Mechanized Infantry Battalion Task Force. 

Headquarters, Department of the Army: Washington D.C., 11 June 2003. 

3. Field Manual 2-0 Intelligence, Headquarters, Department of the Army: Washington D.C., 

May 2004. 

4. Dungrani, S. Military Movement, U.S. Army RDECOM/TARDEC: Warren, MI, June 2007. 

5. Convoy Leader Training. Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures, Center for Army Lessons 

Learned (CALL) Handbook, vol. II; Feb 2005, 4–27. 

6. Fineberg, M.; Önal, E.; Önal, O.; Dresel, K. M.; Chappell, S.; Everhart, N.; Little, K. Future 

Combat System (FCS) System Development and Demonstration Phase Soldier-Machine. 

Interface Standard May 2007, 1–5. 

7. The United States Army Future Combat Force Operational and Organizational Plan for the 

Future Combat Systems Brigade Combat Team; TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-90; Unit of 

Action Maneuver Battle Lab., Fort Knox, KY, 40121. 

8. Nunez, P.; McDowell, K.; Cosenzo, K.; Perala, C.; Sterling, B.; et al. RDECOM – UAMBL 

Experiment FY06 (RUX06) Final Report; TARDEC- ARL Final Report to PM MSI, 2006. 

9. Franks, E. Advanced Warfighter Machine Interface. Proceedings of the SPIE Defense & 

Securities Symposium, 2005. 

10. Wood, B. NAUS Development; DCS Corporation, Alexandria, VA, May 2007. 

11. Wood, B. NAUS Testing; DCS Corporation, Alexandria, VA, March 2007. 

12. Arfa, J.; Biggs, H.; Miller, W. Tactical Behavior / Formation Trials Final Report; General 

Dynamics Robotics Systems: Westminster, MD, 12 March 2007. 
34 

Bibliography 

Acton, S.; King, B. Future Combat Systems Warfighter Machine Interface Services (WMIS) 

Reconnaissance Troop Command Goal Directed Task Analysis, 19 Jan 2007. 

Chappell, S.; Craddock, C. Future Combat Systems Warfighter Machine Interface Services 

(WMIS) Robotech Goal Directed Task Analysis, 10 Oct 2006. 

Cosenzo, K. Notes on Convoy: From a Sensing Session with NJ National Guard; U.S. Army 

Research Laboratory: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, July 2007. 

Dunard, Colonel M. Logistics Convoy Security for Distributed Operations: Post-deployment 

Lessons and Observations from Operation Iraqi Freedom 05-07. Marine Corps Center for 

Lessons Learned Report. 5 July 2007. 

Field Manual 21-305 Manual for the Wheeled Vehicle Driver. Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, Washington DC, 27 August 1993. 

Field Manual 3-21.5 Drills and Ceremonies. Washington D.C., Headquarters, Department of the 

Army, 7 July 2003. 

Field Manual 5-10 Combat Engineer Platoon. Headquarters, Department of the Army, 

Washington DC, 14 Dec 1990. 

Field Manual 55-10 Movement Control. Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington 

DC, 9 Feb 1999. 

Field Manual 55-15 Transportation Reference Data. Headquarters, Department of the Army, 

Washington DC, 27 Oct 1997. 

Field Manual 55-30 Army Motor Transport Units and Operations. Headquarters, Department of 

the Army, Washington DC, 27 June 1997. 

Field Manual 7-10 The Infantry Rifle Company. Headquarters, Department of the Army, 

Washington DC, 14 Dec 1990. 

Field Manual 71-1 Tank And Mechanized Infantry Company Team. Headquarters, Department 

of the Army, Washington DC, 26 Jan 1998. 

Field Manual 7-8 Infantry Rifle Platoon and Squad. Headquarters, Department of the Army, 

Washington DC, 22 April 1992. 

Field Manual 7-92 Infantry Reconnaissance Platoon and Squad. Headquarters, Department of 

the Army, Washington DC, 23 Dec 1992. 
35 

Hansen, N.; Acton, S.; Lamb, C. Future Combat Systems Warfighter Machine Interface Services 

(WMIS) Reconnaissance Troop Command Function Analysis, 19 Jan 2007. 

Hansen, N.; Chappell, S.; Craddock, C. Future Combat Systems Warfighter Machine Interface 

Services (WMIS) Robotech Function Analysis, 10 Oct 2006. 

Logistics Convoy Security. Marine Corps Center for Lessons Learned Newsletter August 2007, 

3 (8), 3–4. 
36 

Acronyms 

AM Autonomous Mobility 

ANS Autonomous Navigation System 

ARL U.S. Army Research Laboratory 

AWACS Airborne Warning and Control System 

BFT Blue Force Tracker 

BlueFOR Blue Force 

CAT ATD Crew Automated Testbed Advanced Technology Demonstration 

RF ATD Robotic Followers Advanced Technology Demonstration 

BML Battle Management Language 

COP common operating picture 

DART Data Analysis and Reporting Tool 

EPLRS Enhanced Position Location and Reporting System 

ESS Embedded Simulation System 

FBCB2 Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below 

FCS Future Combat System 

GDLS General Dynamics Land Systems 

GPS global positioning system 

HRED Human Research and Engineering Directorate 

ISBS Intelligent Systems Behavior Simulator 

LADAR laser radar 

LOS line of sight 

METT-TC Mission, Enemy, Terrain, Troops Available, Time and Civilians 

MGV Manned Ground Vehicle 

MMWS Mission Module Work Station 
37 

NAI named areas of interest 

ONESAF One Semi Automated Force 

OTB ONESAF Test Bed 

RC ATO Robotics Collaboration Army Technology Objective 

SINGARS Single-Channel Ground-Air Radio System 

SITREPs situation reports 

SMI Soldier Machine Interface 

SSMI Scalable Soldier Machine Interface 

TAI target areas of interest 

TARDEC U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research Development and Engineering Center 

TTPs techniques, tactics, and procedures 

UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 

UGV Unmanned Ground Vehicle 

UML Unified Modeling Language 

USB universal serial bus 

VTI Vetronics Technology Integration 

WCAN Warning, Caution, Advisory, and Notification 

WMIS Warfighter Machine Interface Services 
38 

NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION 

 1 DEFENSE TECHNICAL 

 (PDF INFORMATION CTR 

 only) DTIC OCA 

 8725 JOHN J KINGMAN RD 

 STE 0944 

 FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-6218 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 IMNE ALC IMS 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRD ARL CI OK TL 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRD ARL CI OK PE 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 AMSRD ARL HR ML J MARTIN 

 MYER CENTER RM 2D311 

 FT MONMOUTH NJ 07703-5601 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 AMSRD ARL HR MZ A DAVISON 

 320 MANSCEN LOOP STE 115 

 FT LEONARD WOOD MO 65473 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 AMSRD ARL HR MD T COOK 

 BLDG 5400 RM C242 

 REDSTONE ARSENAL AL 35898-7290 

 1 COMMANDANT USAADASCH 

 ATSA CD 

 AMSRD ARL HR ME DR HAWLEY 

 5800 CARTER RD 

 FT BLISS TX 79916-3802 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 AMSRD ARL HR MM DR V J RICE 

 BLDG 4011 RM 217 

 1750 GREELEY RD 

 FT SAM HOUSTON TX 78234-5002 

NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 AMSRD ARL HR MG R SPINE 

 BLDG 333 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 07806-5000 

 1 ARL HRED ARMC FLD ELMT 

 AMSRD ARL HR MH C BURNS 

 BLDG 1467B RM 336 

 THIRD AVE 

 FT KNOX KY 40121 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 AWC FIELD ELEMENT 

 AMSRD ARL HR MJ D DURBIN 

 BLDG 4506 (DCD) RM 107 

 FT RUCKER AL 36362-5000 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 AMSRD ARL HR MK MR J REINHART 

 10125 KINGMAN RD 

 FT BELVOIR VA 22060-5828 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 AMSRD ARL HR MV HQ USAOTC 

 S MIDDLEBROOKS 

 91012 STATION AVE RM 348 

 FT HOOD TX 76544-5073 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 AMSRD ARL HR MY M BARNES 

 2520 HEALY AVE 

 STE 1172 BLDG 51005 

 FT HUACHUCA AZ 85613-7069 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 AMSRD ARL HR MP D UNGVARSKY 

 POPE HALL BLDG 4709 

 BCBL 806 HARRISON DR 

 FT LEAVENWORTH KS 66027-2302 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 AMSRD ARL HR MJF J HANSBERGER 

 JFCOM JOINT EXPERIMENTATION J9 

 JOINT FUTURES LAB 

 115 LAKEVIEW PKWY STE B 

 SUFFOLK VA 23435 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 AMSRD ARL HR MQ M R FLETCHER 

 US ARMY SBCCOM 

 NATICK SOLDIER CTR 

 AMSRD NSC WS E BLDG 3 RM 343 

 NATICK MA 01760-5020 
39 

NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY-HRED 

 AMSRD ARL HR MT J CHEN 

 12423 RESEARCH PKWY 

 ORLANDO FL 32826 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 AMSRD ARL HR MT C KORTENHAUS 

 12350 RESEARCH PKWY 

 ORLANDO FL 32826 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 AMSRD ARL HR MS C MANASCO 

 SIGNAL TOWERS 

 BLDG 29808A RM 303 

 FT GORDON GA 30905-5233 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 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 RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 AMSRD ARL HR MF C HERNANDEZ 

 2421 NW AUSTIN RD STE 220 

 FT SILL OK 73503-9042 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 AMSRD ARL HR MW E REDDEN 

 BLDG 4 ROOM 332 

 FT BENNING GA 31905-5400 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 AMSRD ARL HR MN R SPENCER 

 DCSFDI HF 

 HQ USASOC BLDG E2929 

 FT BRAGG NC 28310-5000 

 1 ARMY G1 

 (CD DAPE MR B KNAPP 

 only) 300 ARMY PENTAGON ROOM 2C489 

 WASHINGTON DC 20310-0300 

 1 DCS CORPORATION 

 E CAPSTICK 

 10145 STOCKWELL DR 

 FISHERS IN 46038 

 1 DCS CORPORATION 

 TONY JOHNSON 

 1330 BRADDOCK PLACE 

 ALEXANDRIA VA 22314 

NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 R POMRANKY 

 4506 JOKER STEEET 

 FORT RUCKER AL 36362 

 1 TARDEC 

 INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS 

 S DUNGRANI 

 6501 E. 11 MILE ROAD 

 WARREN MI 48397-5000 

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

 8 DIR USARL 

 AMSRD ARL CI OK TP 

 S FOPPIANO 

 AMSRD ARL HR MR 

 F PARAGALLO 

 AMSRD ARL HR SE BLG 459 

 K COSENZO (5 copies) 

 AMSRD ARL CI OK TP (BLDG 4600) 

31 (1 electronic, 1 CD, 29 HCs) 
40 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.