Military Embedded Systems Spring 2005 Volume 1 Number 1

In the System
MILITARY EMBEDDED SYSTEMS Resource Guide
Wearable tactical computers
as embedded training systems
By Joan Wood
Meeting the challenge of building
embedded training platforms on small,
low-power man-worn operational
computer systems.
When it is not practical to send troops
stateside for retraining and not feasible to
set up traditional training facilities in the
field, it is essential to find alternate ways
for soldiers to maintain readiness, develop
and learn new tactics, and build team
cooperation and communication through
training. Recent advances in wearable
tactical computers may provide the necessary
platform for such dismounted
infantry training activities, in addition to
the C4ISR functions currently planned for
these systems.
The original concept of Embedded
Training (ET) as outlined in numerous
papers – Navy OPNAVINST on ET
(1985), Air Force Study Plan for ET
(1989), Army TRADOC ET Concept
(1996) – was to build capabilities into
operational systems that would enable
personnel to train using their own equipment
while in the field. Over the past
20 years, that idea has developed into a
general forward-looking directive, embodied
in the Army’s Future Combat Systems,
that all new deployed operational systems
must contain ET. We are now somewhere
between building capabilities and mandatory
embedded training.
Extending ET into man-worn
tactical computer systems
For a vehicle-embedded system, such
as an onboard tank computer, ET may
mean the possibility of adding training
scenarios to the tactical software package
to allow the tank crew to conduct mission
rehearsals or update field tactics to stay
sharp during down time. Existing technology
infrastructure inside the vehicle such
as embedded visual displays and extended
power resources help in the implementation
of ET for the tank crew. However, for
ET to be available and useful on a manworn
tactical computer system there are
different, much greater challenges to be
overcome.
The first big obstacle is accurately representing
the dismounted soldier’s first
person view of the synthetic environment
on a very small, low-power, tactical computer.
The level of complexity needed to
simulate a fast-moving, real-time 3D scenario
is far more demanding than the limited
world-view required for tank driver
training. And the dismounted soldier’s
field of view must be properly oriented,
convincingly navigated, and realistically
represented in order for immersive synthetic
environment training to be useful.
This requires not only that more layers of
technology be appended to the operational
wearable tactical computer with items
such as motion trackers and head-mounted
displays, but that there be powerful new
3D graphics technology incorporated into
the operational unit design as well. For
this to be a valid design direction, the ET
elements should not result in a degradation
of the operational equipment. All ET
system size, weight, and power requirements
must be accounted for in the design
and any additional functionality needed
just for training should not have a negative
impact on the computer’s primary
operational functions. Table 1 lists some
key issues to evaluate the potential for ET
on a wearable system.
Functional scalability and
flexible I/O: Keys to tactical
and training coexistence
Imagine an advanced notebook computer,
only smaller, lighter, more power efficient,
and more durable, and then make it
wearable. Remove the screen, keyboard,
and mouse. Add some specialized I/O,
rugged connectors, and long-life batteries
and you have the basis for the operational
version of a wearable tactical computer.
The primary functional differences between
most wearable computers and one
that can fully support an ET real-time 3D
synthetic environment simulation are in
the advanced 3D graphics capabilities, and
in accompanying increased power requirements.
So the challenge is to expand the
3D capabilities and performance with an
advanced graphics processing unit to support
immersive training, but implement it
such that power requirements can be automatically
scaled back as needed.
To do this requires smart power management,
on-the-fly scalable graphics capa-
“A Guide for Early Embedded Training Decisions”
Whitmer & Knerr U.S. Army Research Institute, July 1996
Can ET be integrated into the operational system without interfering with operational
capabilities?
Do safety and training requirements suggest ET or other simulation alternatives?
Can the operational system support ET, given MPT and RAM requirements?
Will the operational systems be available for a sufficient amount of time to support ET?
Do the skills and knowledge to be taught suggest ET?
Does the ET system require visual system or motion system simulation?
Can weapon system motion and/or direct vision be simulated in a stand alone system?
Would an appended training system interfere with the operational system?
Can appended training system reliability, availability, maintainability requirements be met?
Table 1
42 / 2005 MILITARY EMBEDDED SYSTEMS Resource Guide