Task Allocation Table (TAT)

The operator will need both information related to the current weapon-target assign- ments and information about the ability to re-task a weapon to any other target. An overview of the layout of the grid (named the TAT) can be seen in Figure 6.7 with no information presented within the Weapon-Target Status Boxes.

Figure 6.7: Task Allocation Table (TAT) Before Launching Weapons - Each Weapon to Target Status Box is Empty. Only the First Target Set and First Two Salvoes are Shown

There will be a potential of 32 LRAGMs and 8 SAM targets, needing up to 256 different Weapon-Target Status Boxes to be presented on the user interface at the same time. This raises an issue of salience. Important information needs to be highlighted in a way that allows the user attention to be focussed when it is necessary [151, 165]. There are specific times at which this is needed. Firstly, when a weapon is approaching the final 20 seconds of flight it will become critical for the operator to monitor it in case the

weapon is intercepted and a re-task is needed. And secondly, when a re-tasking option is nearing the point at which it is no longer able to be made.

Further, when weapons are intercepted in flight, or have hit their targets, it is nec- essary for their salience on the interface to be reduced because the information they provide to the operator is no longer time dependent. This allows the operator to have a clearer picture of where attention is needed on the interface.

In practice, the availability of BDA is difficult to achieve in real-time. At best, the operator can be made aware of a weapon being destroyed in flight, due to the cease of data link messages received from the in-flight weapon (although this doesn’t account for any system malfunction). The actual effectiveness that a weapon system has against a target can only be properly assessed based upon visual verification from a surveillance asset, which would need to be transmitted to the operator of the system. For the pur- poses of this trial, an operator was instructed that two missiles on target was sufficient that the TLAR could be considered destroyed, otherwise the trail would have become too complex to run in a laboratory condition. Further, the need for real-time BDA is not strictly necessary as a surveillance asset could begin assessing the damage once the primary target set were deemed destroyed and report their findings with only a short delay. The mission commander could then choose whether to re-engage any remaining TLARs or whether the mission was successful.

The Weapon-Target Status Boxes have four different primary conditions, and hence different levels of salience, these are:

• In flight towards target (Highest Salience).

• Possibility of re-task (High Salience).

• Hit target (Low Salience).

• Destroyed/intercepted by enemy (Lowest Salience).

Figure 6.8: Elements of the Task Allocation Table and the Weapon-Target Status Boxes Showing AGM011 Hit Tgt status, and AGM012 Destroyed/Failed

Figure 6.8 shows the layout of the TAT with the various types of Weapon-Target Status Boxes shown. The different conditions are clearly distinguishable from one another. In addition to displaying key information within the TAT, operators must be able to interact with the different weapons to either abort or re-task them. There were several options that could be used to allow for this interaction.

• Drop-down list of weapons and a drop-down list of targets, followed by a button.

• Re-task button that creates a new window or panel that allows for re-tasking orders to be made.

• Placing a button in the TAT for each weapon-target re-tasking option and abort options.

To analyse these options a Cost-Benefit Analysis was carried out taking into account the following issues:

• Ease of Use Overall

• Clarity of System

• Feedback to User

• Ease of Multiple Re-tasks

• Speed of Re-task

• Likelihood of Mistake

A table was drawn up and the options given a relative score based upon rank in each category, 1 being best, 3 being the worst, with no two scores being the same in each category. As can been seen in Table 6.3 the best option is the individual button for each potential re-task or abort that might need to be made. It reduces the clarity of the TAT compared to the other two methods, however, it allows for easy and fast re-tasking, that only requires the operator to use a single button, rather than have to scroll through menus or occlude the main window by bringing up a second panel to carry out a weapon re-task or abort.

Table 6.3: Rating of Each Element in Cost Benefit Analysis Ease of Use Ov erall Clarit y of System Feedbac k to User Ease of Multipl e Re-tasks Sp eed of Re-task Lik eliho o d of Mistak e Total Drop-down 2 2 2 2 2 3 13 Re-Task Window 3 1 3 3 3 1 14 Individual Button 1 3 1 1 1 2 9

Figure 6.9 shows the layout of the weapon-target status box based upon TTG and cur- rent targeting conditions. To minimise the risk of making a mistake, additional safety features have been implemented into the design. Upon pressing a button to make a re- task or abort request the operator is prompted to then confirm their command before any messages are sent to a weapon. This acknowledgement procedure is good practice in networked systems and was necessary for compliance with VMF type messaging ar- chitecture outlined in Chapter 3. Figure 6.10 shows the flow diagram of the change in button state when a command is issued.

If TTG > 20

If 20 >=TTG > 5

If 5 >= TTG

Hit Target

Time Remaining

To Re-Task

(5 Second

Increments)

Re-Task Will Be

Unavailable

Within 10

seconds

Re-Task

Unavailable

AGM Failed

Figure 6.9: Weapon-Target Status Box Display, Left - Weapon Currently Assigned to This Column, Right - Weapon Not Currently Assigned to This Column

Confirm Pressed 5s inactivity

5s inactivity

Transmission Delay

Figure 6.10: Re-Task/Abort Button Press Flow Diagram

In addition to the individual re-task and abort buttons for each Weapon-Target Status Box, an additional feature was developed for the interface. When the first SAM site has been successfully destroyed, there will be up to 16 LRAGM still in flight towards the primary target (assuming that 8 are intercepted and 8 hit their targets). To ease and simply the re-tasking of up to 16 missiles to the secondary SAM site a re-task salvo button was created. This button re-tasks an entire salvo from their current distribution against the primary SAM site, to the same distribution against the secondary SAM site. In scenarios with 4 weapons per salvo, this reduces the number of actions needed to re-task a salvo from the primary to secondary SAM site by 4 – significantly reducing the time to effect a decision once it has been made. Figure 6.11 highlights the Re-task Salvo button, which has the same two stage confirmation protocol as the standard re-task and abort buttons.

5s inactivity

Confirm Pressed

Transmission Delay