Transforming Projectile System Combining Lethality and Intelligence

Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE Systems and Information Engineering Design Symposium, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA, April 23, 2010 FPM2Dec.1 Transforming Projectile System Combining Lethality and Intelligence Melvis Chafac, Kenneth Howell, Carson Williams and Jason Sexton, West Point, Systems Department Advisor: Dr. Timothy Elkins Abstract The objective of this research was to develop a framework to design a transforming projectile system that has the ability to convert from a simple projectile into a guided projectile that can perform multiple tasks depending on its payload and guiding keyboard. This projectile would be launched from existing standard platforms. Our objective is to determine which design alternative potentially provides the greatest value relative to cost. The end result will be a tool kit that can be used to model transforming projectile alternatives. With this tool, we will be able to assess multiple alternatives and determine which best suites stakeholders needs, foremost being the soldier. The motivation behind this project stems from the need to accommodate and support soldiers in the quickly changing battlefield. The unconventional nature of the enemy and the battlefield makes weapon technology advancement crucial to adapting to the fight. We apply the Systems Decision Process (SDP) to develop the tool which is a decision analysis and support system. Using this we develop a functional hierarchy detailing the capabilities desired of our potential alternatives which can be used to create a value model based upon value scoring from our users. The value model will use the functions and capabilities of each projectile in order to determine each projectile s value to potential users. This will become a framework to assess the relative goodness of the various feasible alternatives. Our results will be a model that clearly defines the value of all feasible alternatives, which can then be compared to cost in order to allow decision authorities to understand the trade space between the total value (and where the value is derived) of the feasible alternatives relative to their expected cost. We will also have the capability to conduct a sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulations to determine how the scoring of our various value measures impacts the overall scoring and selection of alternatives. T I. INTRODUCTION HE purpose of the project is to design a projectile that could have the destructive force of standard rounds and the ability for military intelligence reconnaissance. The Army Research Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC) proposed the project to the West Point team to provide systems engineering support. The West Point team worked in close collaboration with the ARDEC team and other groups involved with the project so as to come up with a solution tailored to the first three years of the project. The other teams across the nation include: West Virginia University (WVU), Clarkson, Wilkes, University of Hartford, University of Connecticut, University of Bridgeport, ARDEC, University of Binghamton, and Imperial Machining. The first phase of the development project is a technology demonstration and will focus on the 60mm and 120mm mortars. We first established a baseline from the existing technology, the 60 and 120mm mortar rounds. Next, we expanded our research to technology that could be related to our transforming projectile such as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. II. METHODOLOGY The Systems Decision Process (SDP), developed by the Systems Engineering Department at West Point, is a quantitative approach to decision making. It is comprised of four phases: (1) Problem Definition, (2) Design, (3) Decision Making, and (3) Implementation. The SDP was can be used as a tool for improving existing systems or for the design of new systems. We used the process to establish a decision making template for the ARDEC team, for use on the technology demonstration (pilot) development with the 60mm and 120mm rounds, and subsequently to adapt later for developing additional rounds. A. Problem Definition Often the initial problem statement is not the real (correct) problem. This phase is designed to establish the needs of the client through the use of Stakeholder analysis, functional U.S. Government work not protected by U.S. copyright 187

analysis and value modeling. The end-state of this phase is to have a clearly defined and accurate problem statement, a solid set of screening criteria, and a quantitative methodology for evaluating solution alternatives, i.e. a value model. The purpose of stakeholder analysis is to identify the objectives, functions and constraints of a system decision problem and the values of decision makers. There are three techniques that are used: interviews, focus groups and surveys. Each of the three methods stated above have their own advantages and disadvantages. Those differences include cost, times, and difficulty to conduct each technique. Stakeholder analysis also identifies who the key stakeholders are in the project, what positions they hold and the effect that they will have on the project decisions. This is generally done in the first meeting during introductions. After Stakeholder Analysis, Functional Analysis is conducted to identify the system functions and interfaces required to achieve the system s objectives. Based upon the stakeholder analysis the key functions and objectives of the system will be identified and succinctly represented in a functional hierarchy. After stakeholder analysis, the quantitative value model is created as a model to use the information, tests, and data to show with actual numerical backing which option is the best fit based on stakeholders needs and wants. We weigh each value measure based on importance from a scale of 0 to 100. During this portion we will further normalize scores using return to scale functions that will give a more accurate true value for each function. B. Soution Design As in Problem Definition, there are three steps in the Design phase, ideation, alternative generation, and solution enhancement. Idea generation consists of creating basic ideas that will eventually become parts of a potential solution. During idea generation a number of methods including brainstorming, affinity diagramming, Delphi, morphology, and groupware are employed in order to create new ideas that can potentially become new solutions. Alternative generation consists of converting the basic ideas of idea generation into reasonable alternatives by comparing them to requirement and constraints put on the system by the stakeholders. A list of feasible alternatives is created during the alternative generation phase. The alternatives are then chosen to be presented to the decision maker based upon both qualitative and quantitative measures so that only the best alternatives make the cut to become final solution candidates. Feasible solutions are further enhanced during the solution enhancement phase in order to create the most valuable possible solutions. During this phase the strengths and weaknesses of each alternative are compared in order to develop a projectile that is composed of only strong characteristics in order to insure maximum value. C. Decision Making The Decision Making phase is the point where all of the data that has been gathered in the prior steps is prepared and used to make recommendations to the client in seeking their approval of a design solution. During this phase our goal is to receive approval from the decision authority. There are three steps in this phase, too: (1) Scoring, (2) Sensitivity Analysis, and (3) Value-Focused Thinking. During the Scoring phase, the value model developed in the first phase of the SDP is used to score the various alternatives from solution design. Many methods can be used to score the alternatives: Testing, Modeling, Simulation, and Expert Opinion. The second step is Sensitivity Analysis. During this phase we examine how our alternatives total value score can change by manipulating the weight of the value metrics. This allows us to see whether our decision can be effected based on the clients priorities. If a clients priorities for a decision change it could greatly affect the overall outcome of our candidate solutions. The third step is Value-Focused Thinking. Value-Focused Thinking concentrates on the values of each alternative. During this phase, alternatives, after having been scored in Scoring, are compared and analyzed. The stacked bar chart and cost vs value charts are useful tools during this phase. Both allow for a visual representation of results of scoring each alternative, which allows often times an enhanced solution to be created, a solution most often consisting of a higher value than the other alternatives. D. Implementation The final phase, solution implementation, occurs after the client has come to a sound decision. Like the other phases this phase has three steps, planning for action, execution and assessment and control. This phase was not reached in our project but is discussed under Future Work in the Analysis section. A. Problem Definition III. ANALYSIS During this phase we discussed with our stakeholder the problem that the transforming projectile would be solving. Further we discussed all of the objectives that our client had for the model such as its ability to complete certain tasks, reach certain speeds, or travel certain distances. After that U.S. Government work not protected by U.S. copyright 188

Value we developed techniques for scoring the data received on each potential solution. Problem Definition Stakeholder Analysis Functional Analysis Value Modeling Stakeholder Analysis The purpose of stakeholder analysis is to identify the objectives, functions and constraints of a system decision problem and the values of decision makers. There are three techniques that are used: interviews, focus groups and surveys. Each of the three methods stated above have their own advantages and disadvantages. Those differences include cost, times, and difficulty to conduct each technique. Stakeholder analysis also identifies who the key stakeholders are in the project, what positions they hold and the effect that they will have on the project decisions. This is generally done in the first meeting during introductions. During our stakeholder analysis we conducted focus groups where we discussed the potential characteristics that our projectile should have. We also discussed the capabilities and basic parameters of the projectile in order to develop a general idea of the end product. After that, we conducted surveys with various members of ARDEC in order to determine and further narrow the specific characteristics of the solutions to our projectile problem. The survey was given to the decision authority as well as to lead engineers who we believed would play a role in developing the many pieces that would contribute to our different alternative solutions. main function of the functional hierarchy is Launch Projectile. This function pertains to all the factors that affect the movement of the projectile. To analyze the projectile s launch capability value measures such as weight, speed, damage to structural integrity, volume and aeroballistics characteristics were chosen. The third function was Transform to UAV Characteristics. This means that the projectile should be able to transform from a round fired from a tube to a UAV once it is launched from its platform. This function has as its value measures Time, Damage to UAV and Stability Post Transformation. The fourth function for the TPS was Guided Flight. This function describes all that goes into guiding the projectile from takeoff until contact with target. The value measures developed for this function include trajectory algorithms control and the ability to maneuver. The fifth main function was Survey and Target Selections, the projectile s information gathering capability. This includes visual quality, strength of lens, number of surveillance tools, signal distance and visual signal. The final function was Guide to Target. This function considers all that goes into getting the projectile from one spot to a designated area in the desired manner. Thus it has to do with controlling the direction. The value measures for this function include distance from target, distance over which it is effective, number of inputs, deployment time, and standard deviation. Quantitative Model When creating the quantitative model we started by collecting raw data for our candidate solutions: Baseline, B, C, D, E, and the ideal solution. This data was given to us from ARDEC who provided us with data ranges to be used for each candidates value measures. This raw data was then compared to a value function in order to give it an actual value. Value Function Functional Analysis From the stakeholder analysis we were able to determine the functions that all alternative solutions must be able to perform in order to be considered. This functional hierarchy defined the future transforming projectiles capabilities, objectives, and functions. For the transforming projectile system, the fundamental objective was to deliver a projectile with enhanced capabilities. From this fundamental objective we established six main functions. The first function essential to the transforming projectile system was that it should be able to communicate wirelessly with the user. We then developed five value measures to help us measure and analyze the transforming projectile system s communication abilities. These value measures include checking the fuse, transformation confirmation, trajectory confirmation, target confirmation and final location confirmation. The second 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 95.0% 96.0% 97.0% 98.0% 98.5% 99.0% 99.5%100.0% % Grade (Raw Data) Next, the actual value scores were normalized so that the most important values measures were given a greater weight. In doing so we were able to determine the exact U.S. Government work not protected by U.S. copyright 189

value of each candidates individual value measure in order to produce the total value for each candidate. B. Design Idea Generation For the Transforming projectile this step started with the systems engineering team coordinating with the client in order to determine whose contribution was necessary to form the solution design. Using the problem definition the systems engineers worked closely with the stakeholder to determine the proper design teams. Through a combination of brainstorming, affinity diagrams, and Delphi methods we were able to generate the ideas that would eventually lead toward alternatives. During brainstorming our group created a pool of ideas centered on the theme under discussion. For affinity diagramming, the ideas brought up are grouped for further analysis. Delphi methods include submitting a questionnaire to the design team, collecting and analyzing the results of the questionnaire, discussing issues brought up from the first questionnaire and doing a second round of questioning. With these ideas we were able to move on toward our next phase, alternative generation. Alternative Generation Design Idea Generation Alternative Generation Enhancement Our functional hierarchy highlighted six functions that our transforming projectile must perform including: communicating to the user, launching the projectile, transforming the projectile, guided flight, survey and target capabilities, and guide to target. Using this, a survey was created for the design team that would determine how important they considered each of the value measures. This data was developed into a swing weight matrix. The five value measures with the highest swing weights were chosen and used to create four alternatives: A, B, C and D using an alternative generation table. The five value measures with the highest swing weights were stability after transformation, damage to UAV, damage to integrity, ability to maneuver, and aeroballistics. The alternative generation insures that our alternatives span the decision space and cover every possible feasible solution. The alternatives were then passed through a screening matrix that established a baseline of performance, based upon the design teams feedback, that each alternative must adhere to in order to be feasible. In this situation the stability post transformation had to be greater than 95%, the damage to the UAV had to be less than 2000Gs, the damage to structural integrity had to be less than 2000Gs, the ability to maneuver had to be greater than 1000 Meters, and it had to have less than 5% aeroballistics. All alternatives were forced to meet these standards in order to be considered feasible. Enhancement We conducted solution enhancement by combining the most valuable value measures from each of the candidate solutions. By combining their greatest value measures, we were able to create an alternative with a total value score of 84 compared to the value score of the ideal which was 100 and candidate C which had a total value score of only 56.6. enhancement gave us the capability to decrease the value gap between an actual candidate and our ideal. C. Decision Making Scoring To begin the Decision Making stage, we began by scoring each alternative in excel using the value models created in the Problem Definition stage. Using a weighted model, we calculated the total value for each alternative. is the weight assigned to the specific value measure designated by the decision maker, and is the value of alternative when evaluated at value measure. is the sum of all of the values that each alternative scores regarding that particular value measure. The sum of the individual value scores is refered to as the total value of the alternative, or. The total values were: U.S. Government work not protected by U.S. copyright 190

Candidate Total Value Score V(x) A 41.29459378 B 49.85548869 C 60.51477432 D 51.6083651 E 54.87900256 Ideal 100 Sensitivity Analysis When we examine the sensitivity analysis we are looking at how an increase or decrease in the weight of a value metric can affect which alternative solution we choose. In our project we examined the check fuse value metric. We saw that as we increased the weight of the check fuse metric candidate solutions B and D became sensitive with one another. We can see that D, which generally dominates B in value, becomes dominated by B as the weight of check fuse increases. Though this is one demonstration of how to analyze the sensitivity we must analyze all value metrics for our client to see which value metrics are most elastic. Overall the sensitivity can show us how the clients alternatives can change simply based on the weight that each value metric possesses. IV. CONCLUSION In conclusion, we were able to return to the stakeholder an excel template that not only scored the value measures from the functional hierarchy, but would also be able to be altered as needed for future interests regarding transforming projectiles. A recommendation for the best solution, uncertainty within the project, cost vs value of each solution, and an enhanced solution were presented to the stakeholder. Also, the template created is flexible and therefore can used as a systems engineering tool for any future transforming projectile interests. REFERENCES [1] G.S Parnell, P.J Driscoll, D. L. Henderson, Decision Making in Systems Engineering and Management, Wiley-Interscience, 2008. Value-Focused Thinking After scoring the solutions and conducting sensitivity analysis, the value of each solution was analyzed. Initially we compared each solution by analyzing the value scores of each individual value measure within each individual solution. In doing so we were able to determine the strengths and weaknesses of each solution. Doing this helped us to strengthen our solutions by allowing us to see how we could improve specific value measures within a solution. Using the strengths of all of our solutions we were able to create an enhanced solution. This enhanced solution is essentially a combination of strong attributes of our previous solutions that together create value measure scores which creates higher total value. This design would be the closest solution to the ideal solution that our client was looking for. Future Work Future Work will need to be done in order to determine the best methods for deploying and using the transforming projectile in an actual combat situation. Studies will need to be conducted on how the round performs in different environments to insure that it performs well under extreme conditions. U.S. Government work not protected by U.S. copyright 191