We are publishing an article written by an employee of a vendor in order to educate and spark debate. The Author, Trevor Finklaire MBE is Director of Business Development at Kord Defence Pty Ltd in Australia. He is a Veteran of the British Army having served operationally in Northern Ireland and Iraq for Desert Storm/Provide Comfort. Since emigrating to Australia he has worked for contractors on the Australian Land 125 program, UK FIST, Austrian Soldat 2015 with some exploratory work with the USMC. Kord Defence is not an advertiser with SSD.
“Engage Quicker – Stay Safer”
The mission of the infantry is to defeat the enemy through close combat. The Infantry closes with the enemy by means of fire and maneuver in order to destroy or capture him or to repel his assault by fire, close combat, and counterattack (US FM7-8, Infantry Rifle Platoon and Squad). Historically, to achieve this, the infantry soldier was equipped to defeat the enemy and to survive both battlefield threats and the environment in which he operates. Until quite recently, it was easy to equip an infantryman as he basically had clothing, load carriage equipment and a rifle with iron or optical sights. Little regard was paid to how this equipment worked together when carried by the soldier. However, in the late 90s, with rapid advances in technology, NATO’s Land Capability Group 1 defined a Soldier System as “Integration of everything the soldier wears, carries and consumes for enhanced individual and collective (small unit) capability.” To further break down this definition, five NATO capability domains were established: mobility, sustainability, C4I, survivability and lethality. This heralded the inception of a whole new area of development and innovation! A soldier version of “Robo Cop” was envisaged. NATO set up committees and global conferences flourished attracting the military, defense industry and academia. The vision of a fully integrated soldier system was born.
Initial enthusiasm centered on command, control and information and how the soldier could be included in “the network”; utilizing technology to allow soldiers to know where they are, where their mates are and where the enemy is. Digital radios and battle management systems were developed but were generally cumbersome, heavy and power hungry. Advances in technology have brought down the weight and size to manageable levels, but rather like early mobile phones; they work but there has not yet been an explosive uptake. The C4I equipment needs to be smaller, more reliable and easier to use in the field.
Surprisingly, very little work was conducted on the lethality system which is the tool that defines the infantryman and is a significant percentage of the weight he carries. I have come to the opinion that common themes across international soldier modernization programs today are disappointment at the rate technology has matured, a lack of innovation with integration of electronic devices on the soldier and a realization that this whole business of soldier systems is pretty difficult! Continued conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan exacerbated the need to get some of the kit into the hands of soldiers quickly. Lofty ideals of an integrated Soldier System went out the window. The result was Rapid Procurement Initiatives and Urgent Operational Requirements of individual devices that make a real difference – personal role radios, night vision equipment and weapon laser pointers. But these have not been integrated into any form of system. As is now often said, the war fighter has become a Christmas tree. Many programs have ceased developing a complete integrated system and moved to one based on incremental development.
That is not to say that these devices have not made a huge difference and increased operational capability. Many regularly feature on this industry daily website but are presented as individual pieces of equipment and not a system. Few soldier systems have entered service. The French FELIN and German Idz have achieved initial operating capability. US Land Warrior saw operational service at unit level and is to be replaced by a simpler Ground Soldier Ensemble through the Nett Warrior program. These are first generation systems with undoubted lessons learned.
Size, Weight and Power (SWAP) have dominated equipment design but the soldier is still overburdened with equipment and also with the unexpected result of an increased cognitive load. Each new piece of electronic equipment has at least one control. A simple flashlight has an on/off switch and a control for the IR filter. When looking at the control problem, it is useful to break down the soldier system into the lethality sub system and the torso or body sub system.
Let us therefore first investigate the lethality sub system and electronic devices on the assault rifle and light machine gun. Many infantrymen mount a minimum of a night aiming device such as PEQ2 and a flashlight on the weapon rails. Optical sights generally do not have controls but a thermal weapon sight, which is likely to be carried by one soldier in the Squad, has in excess of 4 control switches. Zoom (magnification), polarity change (white hot to black hot) and gain are those that might be used in combat. The thermal sight is passed around individuals in the Squad as operations dictate, so all soldiers need to be proficient in the controls. The infantryman could therefore have up to six switches on different devices in different locations on his weapon without taking into account remote push to talk switches for radios. Manufacturers of these devices have seen the problem and many provide a remote tail switch. This is fine in isolation, but when aggregated, the soldier can end up with 2 or 3 remote pressure switches.
On his body, the infantryman carries a personal role radio and wears night vision goggles on his helmet. The radio has push to talk, volume and channel controls. New night vision goggles with data input and image fusion have a number of controls. In addition, Commanders carry a combat net radio. Software defined radios have a large control panel but in combat the most common switches used are push to talk, volume and channel change. Some devices are carried in places where they cannot be easily controlled except by removing body armor and load carriage equipment. Radio manufacturers have produced remote controls, some of which can be weapon mounted. Battle Management System computer controls are not included in this analysis as they are likely to be used only in planning stages and not in actual combat. Combined with the weapon accessories, a commander could therefore have in excess of ten switches to access different functionality during combat, all in different locations. This adds to his cognitive load, decreases his situational awareness as he looks down at equipment controls, increases movement and reduces engagement times whilst he takes his hand off his weapon.
Emerging international soldier systems have some form of control but these are mostly for the C4I functions only and are worn on the body. The French FELIN system has a set of buttons on the rifle fore grip to control the multi-function integrated sight. The sight is linked to the communications system so that target images can be transmitted through the FELIN communications network. However, the control is both weapon and sight specific and cannot be fitted to the Giat FR-F2 7.62mm sniper rifle or the FN Herstal Minimi 5.56mm light machine gun carried in the squad. When the soldier is the platform, the human machine interface is paramount. Integration requires a central point to control the system core functions.
Kord Defence has developed a unique and simple way of controlling legacy and future electronic equipment soldiers carry. This device, called the SmartGrip Rifle Input Control (RIC), is a weapon mounted programmable control which provides the soldier with a fast, simple and safe way of remotely controlling weapon mounted and body worn electronic devices without taking eyes off task or hands off the weapon, even on the move. The five-button control attaches to the weapon rail system and is operated by pressing single or multiple buttons (chords), similar to a computer game. It does not replace the standard device controls. Operational benefits of using the RIC are reduced cognitive burden and increased situational awareness, performance and safety. A significant improvement is the ability to multi-task. The infantryman can operate the night aiming device, illuminator and both radios whilst continually looking through a sight or night vision goggle making target indication and hand off quicker and easier; all whilst keeping both hands on the weapon in the ready position. This decreases target engagement time. Unnecessary movement is significantly reduced, decreasing the probability of detection.
Training on the RIC is quick and simple. A training package has been developed using VBS2 software and comprises four short interactive lessons. Muscle memory and full competency is achieved after no longer than 90 minutes, including practice time.
The RIC has been interfaced to control electronic devices such as thermal weapon sights, infra-red sensors, night aiming devices, laser range finders, radios, flashlights and computers. It has been fitted to M4, SA80A2, Steyr AUG and Beretta ARX 160 but can be mounted on any weapon with a Picatinny or NATO rail beneath the barrel. This low cost option turns legacy equipment into a more efficient system now with a growth path to future weapons and electronic devices.
The concept of a soldier system and the need to integrate all the equipment a soldier wears, carries and consumes is even more important now than it was when NATO provided us with a definition 15 years ago. The aim of improving individual and collective capability must not be forgotten. Miniaturization in the electronics industry and new materials will spawn even more electronic equipment to improve the infantryman’s capability to achieve his mission. However, when drafting Requirements for the soldier system and its component electronic devices do not forget the human machine interface and the very real need for a simple central control that can be used without taking hands off the weapon or eyes off task.
Trevor Finklaire MBE, Kord Defence Pty Ltd
Tags: Kord Defence Pty Ltd
Very interesting article, hope to read more from Kord Defence.
By the way, CGUI… like Ocarina of Time
Trevor’s article is spot on in terms of vision; however, in spite of technological advancements, the devil remains in the details. For example, we have yet to standardize on power requirements, a common source and power distribution. Failing to do so leaves us with equipment that exhibit larger foot-prints than necessary, so we end up with a weapon system that is less maneuverable. that desired. We still look forward to an effective integrated weapon “fire control” system to provide range, detection and correction. There’s been a considerable amount of “chatter” about addressing the control dynamic with Bluetooth technologies. Although, in concept, this appears to be an elegant solution, it’s important to recognize that for the past 11 years we have been engaged in a conflict with relatively ill equipped and poorly trained combatant. In considering integration one has to seriously contemplate and design for combat with a combatant of comparable technical sophistication. So, integration is dependent on a plethora of details of which control is but one.
Superb article and it’s step one of a not so obvious solution.
Thanks for your post Trevor.
Sal, Thanks for your informed and supportive comments. I agree the devil is in the details and power is a key issue for the dismounted war fighter. The design of Kord’s rifle input control concentrated on size, weight and power. A single CR123 battery lasts over 12 months and the RIC can be readily interfaced with future data and powered rails when a central power supply emerges.
I agree that integration is dependent on a plethora of details of which control is but one. Most Defense Departments have an acquisition cycle beginning with an endorsed Requirement. Most often serving officers draft these Requirements. They have a great understanding of what soldiers need, but do not always know what new ideas are out there.
By way of example, many cars today have controls on the steering wheel for the entertainment system and cruise control. These enable the driver to maintain “situational awareness” looking through the windshield whilst muscle memory enables him to switch channel, mute or change volume without taking hands off the wheel. Going back to an older car without these controls seems dangerous as we lean across to turn the volume switch and look at the radio rather than the road ahead. However, no driver wrote this “Requirement”. It’s a great safety innovation from the automotive industry. We would not dream of putting a QWERTY key board on a steering wheel but we still provide one for our combat soldiers to control elements of a soldier system.
So yes there are a plethora of details in soldier integration; but we need to work with Defense Departments on “Requirements” that harness industry innovation.
Thanks for your comments Sal.
You lost me at “he has worked for contractors on the Australian Land 125 “
I hope this clears it up a bit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_125
This concept on soldier system is quite amazing which will create complete and well-rounded soldiers ready to face any type of situation in battles. With the fast-paced advancement in technology, soldiers are equipped with gadgets and other technological warfare thereby reinventing the meaning of a combatant. This is taking war into a different level where we usually see only in video games, but now this is closer even to reality. It has its disadvantages though. The more the gadgets used the more difficult the operationality which will somehow slow down the soldier’s reaction to certain situations. Nevertheless, this soldier system may yet need more studies and careful considerations for its true potential to emerge.
Harry, Many thanks for your constructive comments. I especially enjoyed your insightful statement that the more gadgets used the more difficult it is to operate the system in combat, slowing down reaction times. This is exactly why a central control with instantaneous muscle memory response is required. We recently spoke to an SF operative in the US. He said he set the controls on his Thermal Weapon sight because he did not have time in combat to use them! So the soldier is not making maximum use of the capability he has been provided. When he saw that he could look through the thermal sight, maintain aim, change the zoom and polarity as well as use his laser pointer whilst talking to his team on the radio he saw the benefits of a weapon mounted central control. Thanks for your comments.