LD5655.V855 1992.D937

Operator
Task
Analysis
Electronic
of
Warfare
a
Shipboard
System
by
Captain
Robert
Thesis
Virginia
in
partial
M.
Dyess,
submitted
Polytechnic
fulfillment
of
Jr., United
to the
Institute
the
Masters
Faculty
and
Army
of the
State
requirements
of
States
for
University
the
degree
of
Science
in
Systems
Engineering
APPROVED:
_ ASL Leatoss
Robert J. Beaton, Chairman
DesyemicS Biases
Paul T. Kemmerling, Jr.
Benjamin
8 April, 1992
Blacksburg,
Va.
S. Blanchard
LD
5059S.
VE5S
qe
D137
Operator
Task
Analysis
Electronic
of
a
Warfare
Shipboard
System
by
Captain
Robert
M.
Committee
Dyess,
Jr., United
States
Chairman:
Robert
J.
Beaton
an
electronic
Systems
Army
Engineering
(ABSTRACT)
~The
system
of this
work
a
human
factors
began
by
from
evaluation
and
goal
included
looking
a functional
to evaluate
engineering
at
the
top
analysis
man-machine
interface.
Once
two
trade-off
separate
was
a
perspective.
level
system
of critical
warfare
The
requirements
components
of
the
critical
operator
task
was
identified,
studies
provided
objective
data
for
redesign
of this
work
recommendations.
The
first
section
requirements
and
system.
is the
This
requirements
The
for
second
AN/SLQ-32(V)
maintenance
the
first
step
defines
the
operational
electronic
concept
for
an
defining
the
human
in
warfare
interface
system.
section
provides
a brief history
Electronic
Warfare
System.
of the
Although
U.S.
Navy's
recognized
as
an
integral
part
of the
missiles,
several
U.S.
Navy's
incidents
defense
indicate
this
a
work
against
for
system
defines
the
AN/SLQ-32(V).
next
section
of
definition
starts
from
a macro-level
and,
then,
the
system.
level
necessary
to understand
conduct
and
document
a task
operator
and
the
tool
compare
to
The
final
information
system
Consoles
system
section
from
design
naval
features
requirements
in
This
included
the
radar
intercepts
design
changes.
This
redesign
of the
work
operators
and
critique
of
actual
and
simulated
in
anti-ship
were
the
and
these
to
the
system
The
was
to
goal
between
the
used
as
a
acquisition
of
analysis
the
was
assessment
simulated
data
and
of
existing
Display
Control
considered
electronic
detect,
missile
developed
The
discusses
interface
involved
The
required
improvement.
options.
actual
time
of the
task
from
(DCC).
recommendations
analysis
AN/SLQ-32(V).
anti-ship
need
The
to the
low-flying
warfare
operator
task
scenarios.
analyze,
and
act-upon
From
this
evaluation,
for
DCC
system
defense.
justified
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would
like
to
gratefully
advisory
committee
in
the
preparation
A
special
thanks
to Dr.
Robert
Investigator
for
goes
the
NAVSEA
also
like
acknowledge
of
the
this
J. Beaton
contract
and
assistance
of my
project
and
who
was
Principle
the
inspiration
was
report.
for this
report.
I would
Tech/NAVSEA
Force
and
to the
overall
Richard
EWCS
organizing
home
in
my
supported
other
Capt.
Miller.
members
Sandy
Their
A.
of the
Virginia
Moscovic,
professionalism
and
commitment
which
to work.
a good
Hayes,
U.S.
Navy
was
extremely
helpful
in
coordinating
two
visits
made
by
the
author
to
Virginia.
These
trips were
sequence
diagram
Fleet in Norfolk,
documentation
in
this
the
operational
the
report.
loving wife
me
of
with
Air
this
the
group
U.S.
made
Tommy
is detailed
To
and
H.
project
and
team:
port of the Atlantic
essential
that
contract
to thank
all the
Sharon,
who
way
during
iv
put up with me
my
graduate
on a daily
school
basis
activities.
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ...0.........cccececeeceeeeceececeeeecceesesaeneeneneeeeeneesees
LIST
OF TABLES ...0.... 0... sc ceceececeececeecsceeenceceecaeaeeeseeeseecssnssseseeeeesneeeeas
GLOSSARY ..........cccccccececnceececnceeceneceenceeeeeecaeceeeseeeseeeeseensneaeseeeseeneeeees
T. INTRODUCTION 1.0.0... eee
Il. BACKGROUND ..... 0...
2.1
Development
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.2.1
2.2.2
cececee cnc eeeeneceenceeceaeeeeneesseeessenseeceseeeneenen
e ccc cec ec ee nec ececeeeeeecteneeee sence seeeeeneeneneeeenen
ees
of
System
Operational
Requirements........................008.
Requirements..................cccccccceeeeeees
2.1.1.1
Mission
Profile.........
2.1.1.2.
Physical
Parameters...................ccceceeeeeees
2.1.1.3
Power
2.1.1.4
Operational
2.1.1.5
Environmental
Maintenance
ec cecceceecseeeeeereeees
Consumption...............cccccsececseeseees
Life
Cycle...
eee
Protection....................068.
Concept..............cccccccceecececeeenceseseees
2.1.2.1
Organizational
Maintenance....................
2.1.2.2
Intermediate
Maintenance....................04.
2.1.2.3
Depot
Maintenance.............cc
cece eseeeeees
2.1.2.4
Software
Upgrades.............cccccccccececeeeeeees
Nature
of
2.2.1.1
Falklands
2.2.1.2
U.S.S
Stark
2.2.1.3
U.S.S.
Vincennes
Incident........................
2.2.1.4
Next
Generation
Anti-Ship
Total
Quality
the
Existing
Islands
Deficiency......................00
War
Lessons.................
Attack...
cee eeeeeeeeeee
Missiles..........
Management...................ccceceeeeeeeees
2.3
System
Definition..........
cece ees eesceeeeeeneeeeeeeeeeenenens 24
2.3.1
System
Deployment...............
ccc ccccecececeseeeeeeeen 25
2.3.2
Core
Subsystems
2.3.3
The
AN/SLQ-32(V)
on the AEGIS
Electronic
Class
Ship............ 27
Warfare
SYStOM. 00... ccecececececea cea ecececeeeteneceeenenensnseceeeseseseeeseseenes 30
2.3.4 A Partial EW
2.4
Functional
2.4.1
Module ............
ce ccececscecescsceeeeeees 32
Anal ysis..............ccccccsccecscessscscececeescceesessseesees 32
Functional
2.4.1.1
Flow
Diagram.................cccccccceeeeeceeees 34
Function
Allocation .............cceeseeeseeee
eee 36
2.4.2
Operational
Sequence
Diagram.......................0606 40
2.4.3
OSD
Estimates..........
ec ccccsccseceeceeceeeees 41
Time
2.4.3.1
MODAPTS
2.4.3.2 Definition
definition...............cc
ccc cece eens 43
of MODAPTS
"Move"
|) Co) 0)0
44
Ill. SYSTEM TRADE-OFF EXPERIMENTS .............::ccsceceececcecesecnscecneeseeees 55
3.1
3.2
Input
Device
Trade-Off
Experiment.............. cece eee eee 55
3.1.1
Equipment
and
3.1.2
Results
and
Discussion..............
cece ceeeceeece ee eeeeees 57
Display
Trade-Off
Experiment ................c.
ccc ceccceeeceeneeeeeees 62
3.2.1
Equipment
and
3.2.2
Methods..................ccceceeeeeeeeeeee
eee 55
Methods..................cccccccseseceeeeeees 62
3.2.1.1
Primary
Display
Format.......................066 64
3.2.1.2
Emitter
Symbol
Set............ cece
3.2.1.3
Color
Coding ...............cccccccccecencecenceeenseees 65
3.2.1.4
Emitter
Density
Results
and
eeeee eens 64
Levels..................cccceeeeees 65
Discussion...............cccceccsecesceceeeeeeeees 67
vi
TV. CONCLUSIONS
4.1
4.2
000...
cece cece cece ee eeeeeeeeneeeeeenenenseeeseneeenenenea
eens 72
Recommendations...........c
4.1.1
Input
4.1.2
Display...
4.1.3
The
4.1.4
Function
Future
cece ce cececeeeceeeeeeceeeeeeeeetenenens 72
Device...
Use
ccc ce neeeeeeen ete cnenseneeeeneas 72
cece cece cece ec ecececeaeeeeeeseeaeseneseneeees 73
of Color oo... ccccccceceeecscenecensceeesenenens 73
Allocation .........
ccc ccceeececeeeeeeceneeees 74
Directions ..............cc
ccc ccece eee nceceneeeceteeeseecsseeseseenees 75
REFERENCES ........ 0c cccecccecececececeenenceeeeneeeneee
eens ene eeeeee tena eeee eee ee een enen ens 79
VITA 2c
eee cc cence cece eee e nen e nee e eens ee ee ee ee en ease eeeeeeeeeea se eeseeeaeneesesenen seen
Vii
8 3
LIST
Figure
1.
Overview
Figure
2. Mission
Figure
3.
Figure
4. Timeline
Figure
5. Deployment
Figure
6. Diagram
Figure
7.
in
Figure
Partial
U.S.
8.
profile of a CGN
concept
of the
U.S.
in
project............... 2
Missile
Cruiser.............. 5
AN/SLQ-32(V).
............ccccecee
eee 9
Stark
Attack...
class
combat
electronic
Navy...
electronic
cee ee ees 17
AN/SLQ-32(V). ...........cccccececeeeseeeneeees 28
of the AEGIS
the
employed
Guided
for
of the U.S.S.
AN/SLQ-32(V)
deployed
ILLUSTRATIONS
of methodology
Maintenance
The
OF
system...................... 29
warfare
system
ccc eecsecceceecneceeeecscescesssceecesceees 31
warfare
module
deployed
in
the
Navy.....cccccccccccenceceteceeeneneneeceseneneneeseceseenseseseseaseseeesesenseseeeaenenes 33
Figure
9.
System
Figure
10.
Functional
flow
Figure
11.
Functional
flow
Figure
12.
Symbology
GiAQTAM........
level
functional
13.
Figure
14. Experimental
Shows
SXPCTIMENE........
15.
SXPECTIMENE........
Figure
16.
diagram
diagram
in
diagram. ....................ccceeeee: 35
for
system
for EW
the
operation............... 37
watch...................ccccee0 38
operational
sequence
eee ccc cec ec ec ec ncncnencneneeeeseeeencn
ees eneaensnsaeneaseeseseseseseeeseeeees 42
Figure
Figure
used
flow
the
Operational
Sequence
conditions
used
Diagram..................... 45
in the input
device
ce ceeeececcscseceeeececneeeenseneeeseeeseneeeneceseeseseseeeeeseeeneneceees 56
Main
effect
of device
in display
trade-off
ccc cece cece sc ee ncn cec nace eeeececesceneecececeessseceeeeeeeeeeceeeeeeeees 60
Emitter
symbol
set used
in the
display
trade-off
SX PCTIMENE.........ccececcceceeec
ec ecnenenteee esse ee enes eens ee nees sees esesesensceeseneeaeeees 66
Vili
Figure
17.
Main
SXPCTIMENLE.....
Figure
18.
19.
SXPCTIMENl......
of display
format
in display
trade-off
ccc cccccccec ese ncec ee eececeneeeeaenseseececeaeeeeeeeseseneeaeaseceraseens 69
Main
EXPCTIMENE.......
Figure
effect
effect
of symbols
type
in the
display
trade-off
cc ccccc ence ne ceeeeeeceeeeeeeneeseeeeseceaensaseeeseneeseseesaeaensenes 70
Main
effect
of color
coding
in display
trade-off
cece cce cess nce eeeeeee esse neneeseseeeeeseseseseseseseenseseteeesanees 71
ix
Table
1.
System
Mission
Table
2. ANOVA
Summary
Table
3. Emitter
Density
EXPeTiMEnt...
OF
Profile
and
Table
Levels
TABLES
Operating
Hours.................... 4
for the Input Device
in Display
Study.......... 59
Trade-Off
cece cee cec ec ecneee ec eceeeeseceeneeeeseeseseensaeeeesenseeeeeeeeenes 67
Table
4. Mean
Time
Table
5.
Operator
EW
LIST
to Hook
Emitters
Attentional
in Trade-Off
Resource
Experiment......6
8
Allocation................... 74
GLOSSARY
AECM
(Active
Electronic
countermeasures
involves
This
includes
the
negate
the
capabilities
AEGIS
- A
system
missile
control
Countermeasures)
active
broadcast
of
radio
frequency
of electronic
hostile
of complex
signals
-
Electronic
(RF)
radiation.
to
confuse
or
forces.
radar,
computers,
missiles,
and
systems
developed
to
improve
ship
air
defense
Early
Warning)
-
System
with
the
ability
capabilities.
AEW
(Airborne
monitor
the
airspace
and
control
AN/SLQ-32(V)
-
A
passive
energy
combat
system
resources.
that
receives
radio-frequency
and
can
detect
and
analyze
signals
from
surrounding
the
ship.
The
system
provides
identification
sources
the
bearing
and
to
AWACS
(Airborne
Early
Air
Force
system
the
and
control
with
friendly
is the modified
combat
Boeing
the
any
source
from
the
Warning
and
Control
ability
monitor
resources.
707-320B.
Xl
to
The
bearing
of
energy
ship.
System)
potentially
hostile
airframe
currently
-
U.S.
airspace
used
CIC
(Combat
contains
to
the
operate
Information
command
Center)
and
control
and
identify
threats
DCC
(Display
Control
Console)
where
the
operator
tube
ship.
-
Portion
display,
an
function
principle
of
a cathode-ray
fixed-
Intelligence)
Number
-
Number
assigned
keys.
Support
actions
identify
radiated
electromagnetic
threat
(Electronic
to
radiation.
involving
Measures)
taken
to
-
search,
energy
A
part
of
intercept,
for
the
electronic
locate,
purpose
and
of
recognition.
Warfare) - Military
electromagnetic
energy
hostile
the
to
determine,
electromagnetic
Supe (Electronic
often operates
auxiliary
assorted
electromagnetic
of
(LED)
and
warfare
use
diode
keyboard,
(Electronic
immediate
consist
alphanumeric
(Electronics
specific
needed
The
DCC
light emitting
equipment
machine.
of
display,
that
AN/SLQ-32(V)
devices
visual
and
ship
the
input/output
the
on-board
of
the
ESM
EW
the
with
ELINT
EW
functions
interfaces
indicator
a
Area
operator
(CRT)
action
to
-
the NTDS
warfare
console
action
involving
the
use
of
exploit,
reduce,
or
prevent
The
EW
Supervisor
spectrum.
supervisor)-
which
xii
is located
beside
the EW
operator in the CIC.
board
ship.
LORA
(Level
of
The
Repair
least-cost
maintenance
minimize
logistic
LSA
(Logistics
EW
policy
support
NTDS
(Naval
Tactical
linking
consoles,
ships,
and
tactical
data.
(Oscilloscope)
-
instantaneous
varying
RF
(Radio
energy
Sea
voltage
to
establish
influence
design
in
order
Analytical
process
used
for
a new
system.
-
computerized
-
support
Display
System)
aircraft
An
display
Frequency)
frequencies
Trials
- Period
training
used
-
from
for
A
processing
and
electronic
instrument
on
screen
a CRT
that
electromagnetic
100
to
as
hertz
100
a group
a fighting
of
produces
time-
Xili
radiation
gigahertz.
of sailors and a ship
unit.
to
system
sharing
representing
Coherent
of time when
exercises
a
to
signals.
at
perform
logistic
visual
activity on-
- Analysis
to
Analysis)
the
an
and
all EW
cost.
Support
necessary
also monitors
Analysis)
establish
O-Scope
Supe
Soft
Kill - The
target
through
rendering
the
Standard
Missile
anti-ship
missiles.
Super
RBOC
use
of
of
- U.S.
(Super
a weapon
harmless
non-destructive
EW
missile
used
Rapid
Bloom
Off-Board
- The
AN/SLQ-32
Countermeasures
(Tactical
command
of
chaff
Action
tactical
cartridge
launching
an
intended
techniques.
Navy
Launchers)
TAO
to
to defend
system
ships
against
Chaff
used
with
the
set.
Officer) -
operations
The
for
senior
naval
officer
a particular
ship
or
in
battle
group.
ULQ-16
- Spectrum analyzer
an
operator
EW
given
additional
used
with
information
emitter.
XIV
the
about
AN/SLQ-32(V)
the
parameters
to
give
of
a
I.
The
(EW)
goal
of this
system
evaluation
INTRODUCTION
work
was
to evaluate
an Electronic
from
a human
factors
engineering
examined
the
top
level
system
analysis
of
critical
a functional
interface.
Once
a
trade-off
studies
critical
operator
provided
objective
task
perspective.
requirements
components
of
was
data
the
The
and
included
man-machine
identified,
for
Warfare
two
separate
redesign
recommendations.
Il.
2.1
Development
A
an
major
part
BACKGROUND
of
System
of this
project
EW
operator
in the performance
several
different
methods
recommendations
methodology
from
used
in
this
factors
system
operational
A
step
description
in
the
to document
of a portion
Figure
project
requirements
the
1
(Blanchard,
design
requirements
and
of
the
examine
and
then
to make
the
general
1992).
were
derived
the
system
operator's
mission
was
requirements
definition
process.
Based
analysis
operator and
maintenance
functions
requirements
was
a
was
accomplished
were
prerequisite
identified.
for
of
task,
the
a functional
activities
of his
task,
shows
in
information,
system
was
to accomplish
redesign.
Human
concept.
first
for
Requirements
initially
maintenance
an
in
essential
on
this
which
Analysis
determination
of
of
system
SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
- Operational Requirements
- Maintenance Concept
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS [
e Ecological considerations
e Operational functions
e Economical considerations
® Political considerations
e Societal considerations
e Maintenance functions
e Technological considerations
HIERARCHY OF
HUMAN ACTIVITY
e Functional Flow Level 1
e Functional Flow Level 2
¢ Functional Flow Level 3
e Operational Sequence
Diagram
PERSONNEL FACTORS
Y
e Anthropometric factors
e Human sensory factors
e Physiological factors
e Psychological factors
PRELIMINARY
SYSTEM ANALYSIS
(trade-offs)
Y
HUMAN FACTORS REQUIREMENTS
AND
REQUIREMENTS ALLOCATION
feedback to system
design
<4-—---
Figure
1.
— SYSTEM DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENTH@—
Overview
of methodology
employed
in
project.
functions,
from
since
requirements
Top
these
of
these
level
(Meister,
function
descriptions
human
functions
give
factors
are
inherent
in
and
derived
logically
general
in
nature.
Although
the
system,
the
1985).
descriptions
helpful
are
insight
into
often
dictates
a lower
level
report
documents
three
levels
requirements
breakdown
of
functions.
This
functional
flow
diagram
for
a
task.
the
hierarchy
of
human
operational
sequence
diagram
was
necessary
assessments.
the
Once
necessary
to
make
2.1.1
Operational
portion
activities
used
of
the
of
reaches
the
third
show
the
detail
to
Profile.
A
or pictorial
model
of the
mission
has
several
missions,
profiles
for each
mission.
A
period
in
the
system
profile
(Meister,
1985).
Figure
2
shows
mission
profile
a nuclear-powered
individual
If a system
cruiser
with
shows
a breakdown
the
regularly
This
information
the
logistics
is
of
six
system
mission
essential
for
to
the
the
mission
that
of
month
system.
1USS Virginia shipboard visit, 6 Dec 1991.
is
a system
segment
a
is expected
to draw
is a typical
deployments.!
profile
system
profile
it is necessary
mission
scheduled
requirements
level,
Requirements
Mission
to perform.
a
operator's
2.1.1.1
graphical
time
the
specified
definition
Table
and
operating
designers
to
1
hours.
determine
Table
1.
System
Mission
Profile
and
Operating
Hours
a
1. Mission Scenario
Operations
Maintenance and Calibrations
Training
Percent of Life
71
23
6
2. Operating hours for one system during an 8.5 month cycle
Sea Trials
24 hours/day x 15 days
Deployment
24 hours/day x 30 days/month x 6 months
Maintenance
8 hours/day x 5 days/week
x 8 weeks
|_3. Total operating time during an 8.5 month cycle = 5000 hours
MISSION PROFILE
USS Virginia - Nuclear Powered Cruiser
;
6 YEARS
.
2 YEARS
|
,
ee
REFUEL/
REFIT
DEPLOYMENT
—
¥
\
\
~
|
we
\
1
A
}
\
\
\
\
IN PORT
SQ
~~
No
we
~e
\
SN
NA
\
(
\
Nu
~ KL
AN
\
\
Sse
8.5 MONTHS
SEA,
! TRIALS
{
DEPLOYMENT
SA .
SS
'
|
f
!
I
i
J
STAND
REPAIR
DOWN = AVAILABILITY
Figure 2. Mission profile of a CGN
Guided Missile Cruiser.
2.1.1.2.
Physical
Display
Control
Console
(NOSC,
1 April
1991):
powered
on,
power.
When
more
than
Parameters.
(DCC)
-Height
60"
-Width
26"
-Depth
24"
-Weight
550
2.1.1.3
Power
meets
more
the
is
switched
Watts
of electrical
than
the
console
consumes
no
power.
The
DCC
is equipped
with
separately
fused
and
The
switched
off
automatically
the
console
Operational
Life
on
ships
until
the
year
2020.
New
until
1993,
and
they
will
have
an
cycle
of 27
years.
to remain
manufactured
operational
life
2.1.1.5
designed
when
switched.
is
on.
2.1.1.4
be
is
off,
are
expected
DCC
the
of electrical
that
switched
When
Watts
heaters
are
dimensions
2000
anti-condensation
heaters
following
Consumption.
no
200
AN/SLQ-32(V)
pounds
it consumes
system
the
The
to
requirements
meet
Environmental
the
following
(Gumble,
1988):
Cycle.
Current
Protection.
militarized
hardware
systems
will
expected
The
performance
DCC
is
is
a.
Shock:
Capable
for a duration
of 11
milliseconds
non-operational
mode
b.
Hz
to 50
withstanding
: a) During
the
following
operation
shock
- 20g+.
b) In
vibrations
from
30g+
Vibration:
Capable
of
withstanding
Hz.
c.
requirements
centigrade.
degrees
-
of
Temperature:
within
Also,
mode
all
performance
to
+50
degrees
temperatures
from
-62
temperatures
can
centigrade
operational
Can
withstand
when
and
in
meet
meet
range
O
to
+71
a non-operational
status,
and
return
to
all
requirements
within
30
performance
minutes.
d.
exposure
Humidity:
Meet
to
relative
humidity
intermittent
periods.
This
operational
state,
including
from
water
or
either
e.
f.
withstanding
of
performance
95%,
includes
both
conditions
for
both
the
requirements
continuous
operational
where
and
condensation
after
and
nonresults
frost.
Fungus:
non-operational
all
Fungus
resistant
in
both
operational
and
and
is capable
of
states.
Salt
salt
Spray:
fog
and
The
unit
is sealed
spray
conditions.
4
g.
blowing
Blowing
operated
millibars
with
Pressure:
Meets
over
range
for
the
operations
of
withstanding
console
2.1.2
levels:
is
full
performance
of pressures
the
effects
of
system
Is
fully
capable
of meeting
when
inclined.
The
degrees
from
60
uses
a maintenance
(O),
the
full
maximum
horizontal
for
range
angle
both
is
personnel,
but
no
electronics
conducted.
There
detailed
is
a
performed
either
a Navy
depot
level
maintenance
Support
small
on
the
and
Analysis
between
Concept
consisting
of
(I),
Depot
(D).
performed
amount
or at the
tasks
concept
Intermediate
maintenance
Maintenance
+250
Concept
Organizational
relationship
to
maintenance.
Organizational
Logistics
-250
pressure.
Maintenance
maintenance
from
requirements
ambient
requirements
and
The
to
Inclination:
performance
tested
the
respect
i.
of
Capable
dust.
h.
when
Dust:
and
and
by
work
of
system.
trained
on
shipboard
intricate
parts
intermediate
level
Depot
is
repair
at
Exact
O,
I, and
D
determined
by
a
facilities.
procedures
are
a Level
of Repair
levels
(Blanchard,
1990).
is
performed
contractor's
the maintenance
three
Analysis.
is shown
The
in Figure
3,
Organizational Maintenance
-Personnel (at least apprentice skills)
-Operating Environment
-Equipment Test/Evaluation
-Minor Repair Supply Support
-On-site Corrective and
Preventive Maintenance
3
Intermediate Maintenance
-Supply Support
Depot Maintenance
OOo
Oyo
-Personnel (High skills)
-Manufacturing
- Initial Testing and
Engineering Evaluation
Software Development
-Personnel (High skills)
- Software development and
Engineering Evaluation
- Modifications to Design
- Modifications to Design
Figure
3.
Maintenance
concept
for
AN/SLQ-32(V).
2.1.2.1
Organizational
maintenance
Navy
rank
Organizational
maintenance
that
of Petty
Officer
Corrective
System
are
the
performed
third
following
types
by
personnel
trained
class
(Godshall,
1990):
and
alignment
of
adjustments
mechanical
2)
includes
actions
1)
Maintenance.
of
of
electrical
and
components;
testing
using
Built-In-Test
(BIT)
fault
location
to
monitor
performance
and
detect
system
and
replacement
capability
the
faults;
3)
Removal
of Lowest
Replaceable
Units
(LRUs);
a)
electronic
modules,
b)
circuit
card
c)
lamps
and
d)
chassis
e)
mechanical
assemblies,
fuses
mounted
Discard
of
selected
within
the
components
of Repair Analysis.
2.1.2.2
Intermediate
includes
between
the
organizational
maintenance
maintenance
organizations.
The
likely
are
no
corrective
located
actions
supply
in the
and
as
determined
and
on
10
the
by
the
Intermediate
administrative
intermediate
home
performed
organizational
Maintenance.
maintenance
most
and,
capability;
Level
the
parts,
parts
maintenance
4)
piece
support
depot
level
maintenance
facility
port
of a vessel.
Since
there
the
components
of
system
the
are
at
the
intermediate
integrated
with
maintenance
other
supply
2.1.2.3 Depot
facility,
and
repair
and
overhaul
of
system.
Maintenance
at the
depot
and
includes
the
following
1.)
Testing
electronic
all
of
fault
activity
level
Depot
be
maintenance
components
of
the
performed
by
trained
will
be
the
Contractor
at
maintenance
isolation
could
activities.
repairable
personnel
types
and
support
Maintenance.
includes
mechanical
this
facilities
and
actions:
of the
returned
system
components;
2.) Disposition
(repair
or
discard
of Repair
3.)
4).
of the Lowest
Reassembly
and
testing,
as
required
requirements
as
manuals
and
technical
repair
Return
of the
system
components
inventory
as
required.
2.1.2.4
Software
changes
can
have
far-reaching
development
has
its
deployment
2.2
Need
for
The
purpose
may
System
be
of
detailed
by
the
Level
operational
and
the
to the
system
technical
Navy
for
create
supply
development
requirements.
will
training
in
meet
Software
consequences
software
to
standards;
Upgrades.
changing
components
determined
operating
meet
own
as
Units
Analysis);
to
The
of Replaceable
at failure
initiated
costs.
level
Any
system
a new
is
system
life-cycle
system
which
requirements.
Redesign
of a system
must
developed
to
be
defined
provide
11
the
so
that
desired
system
output
for
a
given
set
possible
the
of inputs.
Once
defined,
to
establish
a measure
system
performs
(Blanchard,
U.S.
The
next
Navy
recognized
flying
section
the
system
purpose
of effectiveness
indicating
it
how
provides
a brief
history
AN/SLQ-32(V)
Electronic
Warfare
System.
Although
as
integral
part
Navy's
defense
against
missiles,
several
anti-ship
well
1990).
report
an
of this
makes
of the
incidents
indicate
of the
low-
a need
for
system
Lessons.
The
improvement.
2.2.1
Nature
of
2.2.1.1
development
and
era in naval
tactics.
offensive
the
Existing
Falklands
Islands
deployment
The
capability
vessels
to
a need
for
defensive
new
mechanisms
examined
in
Although
1970s,
1982
this
new
and
missiles
Argentina
the
loss.
the
any
created
surface
vulnerability
These
mechanisms.
anti-ship
One
of the
AN/SLQ-32(V)
not
Islands
War.
navy
of
a
new
an
naval
missiles
created
resulting
system
which
is
see
was
deployed
in the
mid-
significant
combat
usage
until
conflict between
Great
The
provided
a glimpse
of the destructive
three
that were
hit, only
Of
believed
to
detonated.
missiles
caused
fires
system
did
weapon.
have
gave
AN/SLQ-32(V)
in the Falklands
Britain
missiles
missile
work.
the
anti-ship
anti-ship
increased
was
War
the
catastrophic
defensive
this
new
which
surface
of
Deficiency
which
ships
one
missile
the
three
However,
the
impact
of
led
loss
of the
destroyer
to the
12
power
HMS
is
of
SHEFFIELD
and the aircraft-carrying ship HMS
and
the destroyer
damaged
Committee
on
The
Armed
Exocet
HMS
GLAMORGAN
Services,
missile
aircraft,
missile
shore
launching
sites.
or
sonic,
sea-skimming
projectile
The
with
a
Navy
studied
the lessons
potential
new
threat
of the
to
Congress
in
defeat
the
new
First, each
U.S.
These
aircraft
provided
around-the-clock
early
warning
of
hostile
air
the
long
range
plan
to
Senate
that can
The
360-pound
U.S.
1983
CONVEYOR,
1983).
anti-ship
vessels,
its report
(U.S
is an
naval
of the
ATLANTIC
be
missile
fired
from
is
sub-
a
warhead.
of the Falklands
War
in light
Navy
made
anti-ship
missile.
The
outlined
a four
point
defensive
Hawkeye
AEW
aircraft.
and
threat.
carrier had four E-2
attacks
and
and
around-the-compass
controlled
defending
fighters.
Second,
Tomcat
provided
the
weapons/radar
opportunity
for
early
capability
intercept
of
of
the
F-14
attacking
planes.
Third,
the
U.S.
Navy's
with
3-D
radars
and
the
ship
an even
fitted
to give
anti-ship
missile
the
cruisers
Standard
greater
and
missile
capability
destroyers
were
which
designed
against
were
all
sea-skimming
missiles.
Fourth,
the
Navy
provided
Sparrow
all battle-force
defenses:
the
Sea
Systems.
For
soft kill, all battle-force
AN/SLQ-32(V)
ECM
system
missiles
and
and
the Phalanx
ships
chaff/decoy
13
ships
were
with
Close-In
fitted with
launchers.
The
close-in
Weapons
the
AN/SLQ-
32(V)
could
detect
and
deception,
the
defense
against
Services,
the
radar
of
hostile
AN/SLQ-32(V)
missile
attacks
missiles.
Through
jamming
a vital
element
in
became
(U.S
Senate
Committee
the
on
Armed
a highly
reliable
weapon
damaging
large
1983).
The
anti-ship
missile
the
Falklands,
capable
The
U.S.
responded
Navy
war-fighting
proved
of
doctrine,
to be
destroying
to the
given
or
threat
by
reviewing
naval
and
in
vessels.
updating
the
capabilities
of
its
existing
Stark
Attack.
In
order
to
from
the Persian
Gulf,
President
Reagan
Kuwaiti
super
tankers
in early
its
defensive
mechanisms.
2.2.1.2
world
supply
ordered
the
1986.
This
auspices
reflagging
of eleven
was
in cooperation
done
Straight
Navy.
of merchant
The
Stark,
of oil flowing
of the U.S.
destruction
war.
U.S.S
U.S.
Navy
of Hormuz
with
escorts
for
the
through
to the
Indian
Ocean.
17
May
1986,
frigate,
was
struck
by
resulted
in
on
May,
9:05
the
p.m.
17
AN/SLQ-32(V2),
search
mode.
The
Iraqi
aircraft
they
Also,
37
dead
the
Iran-Iraq
the
the U.S.S
two
Exocet
sailors
and
21
wounded
Stark's
EW
operator
1987).
about
radar.
class
tankers
the
On
which
the
to stop
in
missiles
with
was
belligerents
anti-ship
the
of the program
the
Perry
in
the
by
provided
the
under
shipping
Hazard
monitoring
and
object
Oliver
At
Kuwait
The
an
(Morrocco,
oil
protect
they
heard
detected
shipboard
about
were
the
the
a Cyrano-4
personnel
observing
Iraqi
14
plane
on
radar
operating
correlated
this
signal
their
air
search
from
own
the
AWACS
aircraft,
which
identified
About
one
minute
U.S.
Armed
Forces
any
electronic
along
later,
EW
that the
Mirage
F-1 as
Contact
Number
the
AWACS
radar
operator,
who
employed
Stark
to
provide
Stark
passed
operating
identification
its identification
The
the
operator
signal
Representatives,
it had
of the
also
could
procedures,
Mirage
activated
be heard
Committee
on
asked
track
the
2202.
Cyrano-4
a loudspeaker
radar
to the
on
AN/SLQ-32
in the CIC
(U.S.
on
Armed
Services,
thereafter,
the
EW
operator
mode
of the
Cyrano-4
radar
from
the
"search"
control
or
change
also
The
operator
loudspeaker
This
the
darkened
CIC.
Tactical
Operations
Officer
(TAO),
operator
asked
the
TAO
permission
located
on
deck
above
the
in
mode.
the
operator
which
took
for
the
sent
his
assistant
about
30
seconds.
After notifying the EW
on
and
after
the
passage
up
The
to
to
to
later,
the
aircraft
radar
again
and,
later,
returned
to
was
about
this
second
seconds
after
of two missiles impacted
missile's flight. Figure
to
the
the
The
launchers,
permission,
and
launchers,
Coontz,
of the lock-
the
to the
radar
chaff
chaff
7 seconds,
7
10
on
announced
the
Some
seconds
perceptible
granted
radar back
5
fire
the
Cyrano-4
about
to the
arm
a shift of the
seconds
the
locked-on."
detected
10
in
been
prepare
5 to
a shift
was
TAO
so
of
mode
control ship, U.S.S
of about
AWACS.
1988).
detected
"We've
CIC.
the
House
Shortly
"lock-on"
The
2202.
operator
search
mode.
locked-on
the
ship
the
mode.
It
search
lock-on
that
the
first
the ship. See Figure 4 for timeline of the
4 shows
the small
15
amount
of time
that the
Stark's
to
crew
impact
had
to react
took
to the
approximately
incoming
three
missiles.
minutes
to
time
second
missile
took
approximately
half
to
distance
that
the
aircraft
had
closed
missile
is fed
tracking
the
just
the
Cyrano-4
data
carries
that
a tracking
radar
aboard
the
over
the
distance
guides
the
missile
The
can
select
one
of three
pilot
miles
from
emitting.
detect
the
At
target
best,
there
the
missile
The
EW
would
less
than
be
on
Stark
claims
Exocet.
The
contain
the
Exocet
signal
parameters
should
have
been
able
to make
32(V)
had
made
the
proper
signal
indicated
The
operator
because
too many
alarm,
begins
to the
target.
2, 4, or 6
will
a minute
the
begin
in which
to
operator
the
that he
never
detected
the
said
the
AN/SLQ-32(V)
did
its
memory
in
identification.
and,
If the
therefore,
AN/SLQ-
it would
have
and
a video
symbol
on
the
operator's
he
had
turned
off
the
audible
signals
were
being
received
actions
analysis
tasks.
that
distracted
Moreover,
The
signal
for the Exocet
missile.
operator
at the
time
of the
was
operators
on
the
ship.
16
from
operator
video
incident
him
one
provided
alarm
that were
the
the
experienced
radar
near
identification,
requiring
signal
Exocet
radar
radar.
either
audible
to a point
- approximately
tracking
from
an
final
the
signal
both
missile
- at which
tracking
operator
points
due
by
That
point,
minutes)
ship.
to launch.
At
The
the
prior
and
saw
(1.5
Stark.
with
data
the
first missile
the
Exocet
emitting
other
reach
The
target.
the
that
The
feature
setting
off
performing
claims
he
AN/SLQ-32(V)
of the
screen.
most
never
Ly
bt 0M
| |
TE
0905 hours
0909
AN/SLQ-32(V)
F-1's radar
detects search
mode of Iraqi F-1
|
|
0910
[|
[|
0911
|
0912
missile
impacts
she
to ship for
5 seconds
F-1's radar
Second
"locks-on"
to ship for
5-7 seconds
of the U.S.S.
17
Stark
missile
impacts
Attack.
4
0913
First
"locks-on"
Figure 4. Timeline
|
Based
on
the
evidence,
the
Navy
AN/SLQ-32(V)
performed
as
failed
the
signal
because
was
distracted
to detect
the
and
because
was
a great deal of activity in the CIC
32(V)
he
it should
operator
communicate
a near-by
with
had
the
TAO
congressional
attack
discussion
October
centered
on
defense
Rowden:
"Have
sophisticated
have,
that
the
operator
alarm
was
turned
visual
signal.
but
audible
the
at that time. The
to watch
his
and
another
we
that
automation
is
reaction
time
computer,
but
House
Strategic
with
scope,
This
but
EW
off
There
AN/SLQalso
had
operator
it is no
to March
allocation
the
of
to
on-board
part
of
functions
in
the
anti-ship
where
prudent
Admiral
systems
are
so
appropriate
to
have
the
or
Rowden
replies,
“I think
able
to provide
for
things
that
can
be
substitute
for
the judgment
Representatives,
Critical
Materials,
a critical
system.
The
Navy
process
and
respond
decide
which
functions
reaction
time
without
properly
page
that the system
to the potential
to
program
removing
the
18
for the
was
threats.
into
in
programmed
in
of a man..."
Seapower
and
42).
life-cycle juncture
realized
on
the
that certainly
a reduction
Subcommittee
1989,
the
asked
be
is no
the
One
to
those
concerning
1988.
Foglietta
point
longer
Admiral
testimony
necessary
of
was
heard
Representative
reached
there
and
1987
the
system.
in the loop'?"
(U.S.
the
missed
subcommittee
from
missile
‘man
only
that
ship.
A
Stark
not
and
concluded
the
operator
AN/SLQ-32(V)
not fast enough
The
solution
was
computer
to
from
decision
the
reduce
to
to
a
cycle.
There
was
allocations
in
for
an
assessment
man/machine
system,
particularly
the
2.2.1.3
U.S.S.
Vincennes
Incident.
was
noted
1987
when
the
Some
experts
plane
need
the
32(V)
defense
a recognized
in a separate
U.S.S
Vincennes
maintained
system
incident
should
that
have
the
been
down a
system
uses
multiple
bands
and
has
a lens-fed
multiple
detecting
hostile
signals
beam
identify
antennas
and
power
against
probably
could
been
accomplished
weather
or
properly.
Although
revealed
that
over
Gulf often
in
It is difficult
were
in
any
since
the
voice
recorders
area
in
capable
of
all
intense
Identification
if the Airbus
be
determined,
it later was
as
aircraft flying
had
well
routinely
were
its
that cannot
(as
they
had
and
military)
turned
off their
working
system
the noise levels of chaff said to be
(Jaszka,
to assume
1988,
that the
page
responsible
for the
downing
Iranian
government
never
turned
examination.
However,
19
60).
AN/SLQ-32(V)
way
for
approaching
on
commercial
the
missile
reception
array
them.
Airbus.
turned
in order to reduce
common
Iranian
concentrating
of jamming
radars
for
beam
amounts
the
civilian
in July
the
to
The
radars
Gulf
able
airliner.
main
AN/SLQ-
anti-ship
a commercial
have
interface.
AN/SLQ-32(V)
as
_ rapidly
The
in the Persian
shot
of function
of the
over
the
or its operator
civilian
airliner
airliner
cockpit
investigations
into
the
incident
revealed
that
an
unknown
incorrectly
identified
the
contact
Committee
on
Armed
Services,
that
led
to
the
downing
radar
is
one
of
F-14
radar
would
Foe).
The
EW
unique
signal
the
signal,
IFF
information
the
transmit
operator
as
an
2.2.1.4
The
advent
1988).
signal
would
be
able
Since
distances
at
sea-skimming
the
generation)
(
both
war
and
merchant
ships
A
major
technical
revolution
released
by
Iran-Iraq
conflicts
from
in anti-ship
Associates,
a market
Year
2000
predicts
20
this
not present
not rely
him
to
on
the
analyze.
Missiles.
the
vulnerability
done.
super-sonic
p.
speeds
in
vulnerability
of
20).
the
missiles.
Forecasts
the
or
had previously
1988,
to anti-ship
an
over-the-horizon
(at
nations,
Through
did
for
highlighted
Market for Anti-ship
did
increased
seafaring
The
airliner
weapon
Friend
identify
operator
upon
entitled,
Systems
the
Baranauskas,
and
impact
(Identification
altitudes
Falklands
events
Also,
missile
launched
of
AN/SLQ-32(V).
Generation Anti-Ship
be
chain
the
Next
can
Senate,
of emitter
available
Such
(U.S.
a
that
anti-ship
was
CIC
identification
that the EW
as no other naval
profound
started
to positively
of the warship
new
F-14
system
of the
missiles
Vincennes
The
of
IFF
The
study
This
airliner.
Tomcat.
of the
Iranian
an
F-14
the
an
functions
this indicates
from
as
of the
primary
member
missiles
according
to
intelligence
Missiles
will
a
have
a
report
firm.
The
and
Defensive
that a new
generation
of
supersonic,
sea-skimming,
already
deadly
missiles,
such
threat,
but
subsonic
as
the
will
The
use
missiles
Harpoon
become
Falklands
successful
anti-ship
of
and
and
Persian
vastly
increased
speed
of the
new
countermeasures
built
into
them.
another
Defensive
seconds
may
Associates
major
will
revision
replace
a
serious
obsolete.
conflicts
demonstrated
the
difficulty
be
compounded
not
only
by
electronic
but
also
believe
the
introduction
anti-ship
missiles
will
by
of
naval
tactics
(Baranauskas,
1988,
p.
system
reaction
times
already
are
about
60
noted
in the
Stark
4).
This
be
reduced
further
to
attack
down
timeline
with
the
to
in Figure
deployment
of
study
concludes
that
supersonic
sea-skimming
can
shift
the
naval
balance
that
small,
craft
armed
them
will
have
naval
vessels.
agile
the
capability
of sinking
2.2.2
Total
Quality
Management
Total
Quality
Management
management
(TQM)
approach
that
quality
during
all phases
of the life cycle
overall
system
hierarchy
(Blanchard,
the-fact
orientation
to
quality
and
large
can
described
addresses
and
1990).
focuses
21
be
on
time
missiles
with
as
a total
system/product
at each
TQM
20).
supersonic
The
so
the
dictate
missiles.
integrated
the
of defending
missiles,
analysts
the
generation
remain
and
will
supersonic
will
in
(as
need
Exocet,
missiles
difficulties
technology
Present
Gulf
them.
advanced
today.
of
against
Forecasts
soon
technologically
anti-ship
These
missiles
level
in the
provides
a
system
design
beforeand
development
logistics
activities,
support,
TQM
based
on
data,
The
related
looking
compared
causes
uses
the
than
quick
as
Total
of TQL
customer
satisfaction
to
practice
of accomplishing
minimum
requirements.
"fleet"
users
of any
given
and
to
influence
provide
problem.
to
the
It is necessary
develop
permanent
2) Emphasis
improvement,
processes.
and
The
anticipate
as
the
to system
design,
(TQL).
Some
primary
objective,
as
as
as
in
little
This
possible
includes
surveying
providing
those
end-users
recommendations.
These
comments
needed
to
to identify
identify
the
the
causes
root
root
with
causes
of the
of the
problem
solutions.
is placed
applied
goal
system
design
insight
seeking
Leadership
is the
the
often
and
are:
to
means
decisions
of problems,
Quality
conforming
a
making
approach
Total
the
as
fixes.
this life cycle
program
characteristics
1)
for the root
U.S.
assembly,
functions.
described
rather
Navy
manufacturing,
approach
solutions
adopted
specific
and
is a scientific
permanent
but
production,
to
on
the iterative practice
engineering,
of continuous
resources
and
production,
improvement
training
of continuous
and
support
is to look-ahead
necessary
for
a
successful
processes,
the
effects
system.
3)
An
individual
variation,
and
the
required.
If individuals
understanding
application
are
to
of the
of
process
be
contributors
22
control
methods
relative
of
is
to continuous
improvement,
their
every
To
they
must
knowledgeable
inherent
characteristics.
4)
emphasizes
TQL
group
in
accomplish
not just
this
objective,
U.S.
to
AN/SLQ-32(V).
5) Under
changes
to
be
words,
design
the
make
the TQL
the U.S.
Navy
is much
there
is empirical
Scholtes
quality
the
in The
Team
collection
more
people
think
they
know
the
before
they
even
start
the project,
are
committed
hunches
must
be supported
be
right,
you
can
lot about
how
to make
solution
turns
out
to
be
system
support
points
out;
TQL
process
provides
The
the
evaluation
scientific
1990,
the
p.
convinced
approach,
exercise
by
often,
turn
out to
learning
though,
a
the
different from
5).
framework
for
of the AN/SLQ-32(V)
23
are
If the hunches
this
change.
they do. But if all
entirely
The
the
In
of a problem
something
(Scholtes,
to make
to
More
expected
changes
requires design
change.
you
design
and probably
still benefit from
the
of
willing
cause
by data.
what
improvement.
to
a team
data.
they have a perfect solution. And maybe
members
group.
of meaningful
data
Handbook,
Often
team
for
and
involving
control
formed
process, the U.S. Navy
by
processes
approach,
recommendations
up
when
various
the
Navy
backed
changes
Peter R.
and
of
organizational
organization,
to examine
the
a total
the
experts
other
be
system
by
the Displays
and
Controls
University
Laboratory
helped
to
recommendations.
stages
provide
Although
of
the
process,
investment
in
time
the
of
updates
costs
2.3
System
This
to
the
The
analysis
focus
data
for
system
more
time
is
spent
end
the
user
the
a better
and
State
design
in
the
beginning
is
defined
better.
product
and
product/system
of the
from
of this
report
The
can
reduce
AN/SLQ-32(V).
The
system
life-cycle.
describes
the
a macro-level
and,
then,
to
the
system.
understand
work
was
of the AN/SLQ-32(V)
work
is
on
the
encompasses
a broad
range
task
will
used
analysis
Institute
the
during
necessary
goal
of the
Polytechnic
Definition
starts
level
the
gives
section
discussion
at Virginia
be
to conduct
DCC
as
the
document
a task
and
for a specific
man-machine
of the
discusses
Since
the
interface,
the
chosen
task
duties
at the
DCC.
The
operator's
a tool
task.
system
to compare
system
acquisition
of
system
redesign
options.
The
work
effort
involved
the
information
naval
operators
and
the
assessment
of
existing
features
from
actual
and
simulated
DCC
units.
The
critique
in
actual
EW
data
considers
such
as
the
intercepts
in
operator
time
required
anti-ship
recommendations
task
are
requirements
to
design
analyze,
and
act-upon
missile
defense.
From
this
evaluation,
developed
and
justified
for
DCC
24
of these
scenarios,
detect,
changes.
from
radar
design
2.3.1
The
informally
System
Deployment
AN/SLQ-32(V)
is
an
referred
the
"Slick-32".
to
passive
receiver
of
analyze
signals
from
provides
an
the
source
matching
radio-frequency
countermeasures
The
basic
energy
that
any
bearing
surrounding
identification
of the
energy
Rapid
from
the
programmed
as
electronic
the
ship.
characteristics
library
(U.S.
of
system
can
the
is a
detect
ship.
and
and
The
unit
the
bearing
to
identification
of signals
is made
by
the
received
emitters
Committee
on
Senate,
source
system,
with
Armed
a preServices,
1988).
Five
configurations
manufactured
1970s
by
Raytheon
to present),
Systems,
as designated
— provides
identification,
AN/SLQ-32(V)1
suite
smaller
ships.
support
e (V)2
was
below
and
with
basic
(JANE’s
Electronic
Division
Radar
and
(mid-
EW
Measures
(ESM)
of
radar-guided
was
designed
for
Knox-—class
frigates
ESM
capabilities
for early
expanded
bearing
of
navigational
launch
designed
for DDGs,
FFGs,
e (V)3
- provides
expanded
Counter
Support
bearing
missile
Electronic
Systems
all
and
— provides
identification,
associated
Electromagnetic
system,
1991-1992):
e (V)1
warning,
of the AN/SLQ-32(V)
Measures
platforms.
and
25
The
targeting
as well
warning,
radars
suite
destroyers.
as additional
for jamming
The
and
AN/SLQ-32(V)2
Spruance-class
ESM
(AECM)
and
missiles.
for
targeting
Active
radars
and
deflection
designed
of
for
cruisers
e (V)4
carrier
hardware
for
separation
operator
Tube
Sidekick
class
display,
keys.
workstation
functions,
as well
RBOC)
Navy.
has
electronic
Hughes
the
1973,
warfare
and
suite
to
the
processor
to
(V)3
additional
supplement
differ
of the
across
the
Oliver
DCC
consist
Diode
keyboard,
control
Super
AN/SLQ-32(V)
identically.
AN/SLQ-32(V)
affording
late
plays
1980's
budget
The
(LED)
auxiliary
assorted
is designed
of various
Rapid
principle
of a Cathode—Ray
and
DCC
ESM
Bloom
and
early
For Proposal
(RFP)
an
outgrowth
of
the
suite
(DTPEWS)
program.
Raytheon
remained
in
the
26
in the
1990's,
Navy.
as
item
a critical part
for the
initial Request
in
an
to
designed
as the MK36
the
fixed-—
as an
and
AECM
Off-Board
Chaff
launchers.
a major
The
released
The
as
capabilities.
alphanumeric
AN/SLQ-32(V)
During
been
are
was
antennae.
module
(V)2
devices
an
interactive
The
the
visual display, Light Emitting
function
(Super
of
suite
ships.
includes
subsystems
DCCs
AN/SLQ-32(V)3
capabilities
- Add-on
hardware
input/output
indicator
same
frigates
operator
(CRT)
action
the
The
larger
The
Although
the
other
ships.
Perry
suites,
and
the
e (V)5
Hazard
missiles.
- provides
class
compensate
launched
the
After
competition
U.S.
AN/SLQ-32(V)
for the
Navy's
modern
system
was
design-to-price
1974,
only
for
DTPEWS
the
contract.
In
Hughes
AN/SLQ-31
The
1977,
Raytheon
(Rawles,
AN/SLQ-32(V)
production
that
the
is
The
program
to
of
the
system
system
has
been
as well
as a number
variants
of
classes
of ships
the
Navy
The
silhouettes
ships
which
carry
that
2.3.2
Core
Subsystems
core
6
(Stroud,
Figure
TAO
on-board
subsystem
provide
on
400
about
are
version
1991).
to
located
on
the
AEGIS
feedback
in
tactical
mission
a rapidly
class
to
perform
changing
threat
these
systems
is
performance
of
the
ship
and
its
battle-group.
subsystems
are
designed
to
electronically
while
other
subsystems
The
internal
electronic
communications
means,
is
essential
voice
crucial
the
effort.
27
where
predict
vessels,
the five
the
different
Ships,
1991-1992).
of the
classes
of
Ship
ship are shown
and
is designed
the
of
network
with
operators
the
Each
to
The
effective
Some
whether
to
process.
environment.
to
in
information
communications
subsystem,
to
and
naval
decision-making
among
on
U.S.
Class
provide
interactions
rely
one
old,
AN/SLQ-32(V).
subsystems
the
a particular
the
1997.
among
Fighting
represent
of the
The
aid
over
Analysts
5 shows
(JANE'S
figure
years
through
subsystems on the AEGIS
ship
has
the
19
continue
ships. Figure
1-5
is
1993.
deployed
in the U.S.
in
selected
through
could
AN/SLQ-32(V)
The
currently
continue
of allied
shown
was
1987).
expected
purchases
AN/SLQ-32(V)
by
the
to
one
another,
the
TAO.
voice
or
knowledge-collection
AN/SLQ-32(V)1
AN/SLQ-32(V)2
senile
liar
U.S.S. Raleigh
U.S.S. Arleigh Burke
Type of Ship
Type of Ship
AE-21,AE-34,AE-36
AMMUNITION
AFS-1 COMBAT STORES
AGF-3,AGF-11 COMMAND
DD-963 DESTROYER
DDG-2 GUIDED MISSILE DESTROYER
DDG-51 GUIDED MISSILE DESTROYER
LKA-113 AMPHIB CARGO
FF-1052 FRIGATE
LPD-1 AMPHIB TRANSPORT DOCK
LSD-36,LSD-41 DOCK LANDING
LST-1179 TANK LANDING
FFG-1,FFG-36 GUIDED MISSILE FRIGATE
WMEC-901 MEDIUM ENDURANCE CUTTER
WHEC-715 HIGH ENDURANCE CUTTER
AN/SLQ-32(V)3
AN/SLQ-32(V)4
Type of Ship
Type of Ship
AOE-1,AOE-6 FAST COMBAT SUPPORT
AOR-1 REPLENISHMENT OILER
CV AIRCRAFT CARRIER
BB BATTLESHIP
CVN AIRCRAFT CARRIER
CGN GUIDED MISSILE CRUISER
CG-16,CG-26,CG-47 CGN GUIDED MISSILE
CRUISER
DD-993 DESTROYER
DDG-37 GUIDED MISSILE DESTROYER
LCC-19 AMPHIB COMMAND
LHA-1 AMPHIB ASSAULT
LHD-1 AMPHIB ASSAULT
LPH-2 AMPHIB ASSAULT
AN/SLQ-32
(V)5
U.S.S Oliver Hazard Perry
Type of ship
FFG 7 GUIDED MISSILE FRIGATE
Figure
5. Deployment
of the
28
AN/SLQ-32(V).
A eben
SUBSYSTEM
SURFACE STRIKE
SUBSYSTEM
CLOSE-IN
WEAPONS
SUBSYSTEM
LAUNCHER
SUBSYSTEM
ELECTRONIC
WARFARE
|
COMMAND AND
CONTROL
Figure
SUBSYSTEM
SPECIAL
SENSORS AND
WEAPONS
HELICOPTER
SUBSYSTEM
SUBSYSTEMS
CONSOLE
6. Diagram
FORCE
DATA LINK
SUBSYSTEM
of the
CRYPTOLOGIC
SUPPORT
_SUBSYSTEM
NAVIGATION
SUBSYSTEM
WEAPONS
CONTROL
SUBSYSTEM
SUPERVISOR
SUBSYSTEM
~~
DISPLAY
SUBSYSTEM
NTDS EW
SURFACE
SEARCH
RADAR
GUNS
SUBSYSTEM
CORE SUBSYSTEMS
SUBSYSTEM
A eee
ANTESURFACE
SUBSYSTEM
AEGIS
29
INTERNAL
COMMUNICATIONS
SUBSYSTEM
class
combat
SUBSURFACE
SUBSYSTEM
system.
In this
goal
report,
the
is to document
trade-off
experiments,
objective
data.
the
and
subsystem
a portion
of the
and
is beyond
the
6.
pointed
out
that
be
viewed
within
This
is an
scope
of this
The
Figure
7 is a simplified
antennas
located
superstructure
signals
are
present.
A
pulse
indication
that
there
is
able
to
a receiver
identify
schematic
on
through
detected
chain
of the
emitter
chain,
that
the
then
appears
on
the
emitter
cannot
be
identified
The
appear
AN/SLQ-32(V)
presented
operator
spends
signals
chain
of similar
bearing
the
on-line
operator's
from
the
on-line
emitter.
his
time
identifying
the
more
advanced
with
the
the
operator
jam
hostile
30
emitters.
the
specific
library,
emitters
versions
capability
is
The
as a
of
provide
to
DCC
most
AN/SLQ-32(V)
processor
library.
unknown
are
(location)is
is compared
an
However,
electronically
The
for
display.
and
System
a symbol
his
chaff
on
is
Warfare
When
information
emitter
operator
research
same
present.
classified
the
future
ship.
if a pulse
in
the
for
all
AN/SLQ-32(V)
parameters
If
possible
of
the
emitter
symbol.
context
on
changes
AN/SLQ-32(V)
from
an
the
based
of the
by
to determine
a pulse
the
The
conduct
design
Electronic
are
the
task,
changes
any
for
interest.
work.
signals
passed
an
area
AN/SLQ-32(V)
Radar
operator's
be
2.3.3
subsystem.
EW
design
should
in Figure
is of particular
recommend
It should
AN/SLQ-32(V)
subsystems
EW
to
of
launch
that
the
\
of
ANTENNAS
~RECEIVERS
-PROCESSORS.
DCC - DATA PROCESSOR,
CONTORLS AND
DISPLAY
CHAFF
LAUNCHERS
Figure
7.
The
ELECTRONIC
JAMMERS
AN/SLQ-32(V)
electronic
the U.S.
31
Navy.
warfare
system
deployed
in
2.3.4
A
The
Partial
EW
AN/SLQ-32(V)
Module
was
system
for the
EW
added
to
the
command
Currently,
the
AN/SLQ-32(V)
environment.
EW
Subsystem
or
and
shipboard
visits
added
to the
and
task
(Shipboard
visit,
partial EW
module
The
a radio/telephone,
holder,
of
Navy
ships.
console
make
obtained
during
aid
additional
the
and
In addition,
a
equipments
operator
in
1991).
the
EW
there
a radar
and
operator
up
the
interviews
have
been
the
performance
of
Figure
8 represents
a
Supe's
console
is an internal
device,
an
comprise
intercom
oscilloscope,
a
frequency
analyzer
with
equipment
require
attention
over
years
monitor.
These
additional
pieces
resources
of
the
operator,
and
they
were
added
help
the
operator
perform
his
job
more
efficiently.
2.4
Functional
Functional
was
Navy.
DCC
system,
publications
system.
structure
6 December
AN/SLQ-32(V)
EW
system
Data
in the U.S.
the base
NTDS
supe
to
a stand-alone
the
the EW
that
as
then,
and
indicate
module
originally
Since
control
Module.
EW
his
designed
of
supporting
the
to
Analysis
analysis
approach
to
system
process
of
translating
specific
qualitative
process
breaks
down
is
design
a logical,
and
development.
operational
and
and
quantitative
top-level
deductive,
support
design
requirements
32
It
and
systematic
constitutes
requirements
requirements.
into
the
finer
into
The
detail
by
A - Shipboard
Sound-Powered Phones
B - Radar Device
C - Oscilloscope
D - Publications Holder
E - ULQ-16
Figure
8.
Partial
electronic
warfare
Navy.
33
module
deployed
in
the
U.S.
determining
the
inputs
and
outputs
needed
to
meet
each
describes
the
functions
requirements.
This
detailed
analysis
performed
the
system.
These
by
implications
in
machine
and
process
is
of
terms
the
of
the
operator
iterative,
and
is
diagrams,
representation
of
the
basic
flow
system
system
evaluate
(see
Figure
the
provide
on
to
be
both
the
analysis
development
a graphical
Diagram
functional
terms,
Figure
and
9.0,
to
identify
allocation
of
of
to
the
system
System",
purposes
to
of
indicate
interfaces.
should
requirements
not
has
be
The
made
been
top-level
functions.
In
scope,
the
author
chose
in
top-level
a reasonable
“Operate
the
functional
functions
functional
9 shows
project
Function
through
into
scope
this
functional
requirements
complete
limit
The
for
until
to
1985).
developed
the
order
impose
were
organization,
defined.
they
diagrams
concerning
clearly
which
Flow
decision
the
that
of the
system.
Functional
structuring
behavioral
accomplished
flow
Functional
have
demands
(Meister,
functional
2.4.1
functions
level
the
structure
9).
Most
of the
operation
of
the
shipboard
interviews
possible
system
system
maintainers,
system
system.
were
changes
which
problems
Also,
both
used
in
also
identified
during
the
operator's
expertise
the
should
is not
were
evaluation
consider
within
34
the
the
scope
the
and
of the
system.
effect
on
of this
the
project.
Any
to
11.0
REDESIGNI,
SYSTEM
1.0,
DEFINE
SYSTEM
REQMNTS
2.0
DESIGN
SUPPORT
EQPMNT
3.0
DESIGN
PRIME
EQPMNT
Figure
9.
PERFORM
SYS TEST &
INTEGRATION
5.0
PRODUCE
PRIME
EQPMNT
6.0
9.0
8.0
PRODUCE |] [ Fietp |
{iseeFig 10
7.0
MAINTAIN
SUPPORT
ELEMENTS]
LSYSTEM | | 10.0
PROCURE
SYSTEM
SUPPORT
ELEMENTS
System
level
OPERATE
SYSTEM
functional
35
flow
diagram.
12.0
[ DISPOst
SYSTEM
In
1987
made
to
review
32(V)
DCC
a result
and
functional
system
as
flow
would
the
operator.
created
a feedback
diagram.
of
disposing
a review
of
the
shows
operation
represent
the
entire
when
he
comes
on
off duty.
This
operators
during
Virginia
in Norfolk,
This
Instead
10
the
next
lower
EW.
He
receives
duty,
and
he
briefs
his relief personnel
functional
flow
diagram
was
1991
shipboard
friendly
and
During
provides
information
hostile
radar
is
spent
processing
functional
flow
diagram
of this
2.4.1.1
Function
analysis
does
The
functions
by
the
a machine
a watch
verified
combat
time
whether
of items
visit
briefing
as
he
with
actual
to
the
goes
USS
is an essential part of the ship's Combat
(CIC).
potentially
the
series
flow
Va.
operator's
Once
the
in the functional
of the
a 6 December
the
requirements.
watch
operator
operator,
level
in
system,
This
the EW
human
system
loop
system.
Center
out.
of the
was
AN/SLQ-
of the
AN/SLQ-32(V)
carried
the
between
the
functional
a decision
interface
for
Information
tactics,
man/machine
diagram
The
naval
the
undergo
Figure
of changing
or
a
not
function
(Sanders
are
should
and
emitters.
of
the
Figure
11
how
the
functions
carried
out
by
a machine,
of
a
should
be
there
may
be
both.
determined,
performed
McCormick,
a
task.
development
of
36
shows
The
determine
be
Most
emitters.
critical
be
operations,
concerning
Allocation.
could
peacetime
to the TAO
new
combination
functions
or
by
1987).
a human
an
option
operator
or
9.0
From fig 9
OPERATE
SYSTEM
o1
RECEIVE
WATCH
BRIEFING
92
7
1
9.3 “7
READ
EMITTER
LOG
)
READ INTEL
UPDATES IN |
MESSAGE LOG
VERIFY
EMITTERS
=
J
READ
FPASS DOWN"
LOG
|
INFORM OWN
|
process
NEW] A | £ TI]
ac
9
INTTIATE
ELECTRONICf
WARFARE _|
9.10
9.12
9.13
| baunce
HL MSN
LY on-comne
CHAFF
EMITTERS
WATCH
9.11
| CONTINUE |
TO MONITOR
Figure
10.
Functional
flow
diagram
37
for
system
operation.
6
From fig 10
PROCESS NEW
EMITTERS
6.1
1
HOOK
TARGET
9.6.2)
READ CLOSE
CONTROL
PARAMETERS
—f{AND)
9.6.
9.6.5 |
©
LOOK AT
ULQ-16
6.4J
LOOK AT
O-SCOPE
HIT
SIGNAL
SELECT
‘| 9.6.6
LISTEN TO
AUDIO
SIGNAL
9.6.7
€ND)
9.6.8
DETERMINE |} |COMPARE SCAN
PRF AND | ITYPE ON ULQ-16
PULSE WIDTH| | WITH SLQ-32
9.6.9
DETERMINE
PRI
=(or)
9.6.10]
6.117
9.6.12.
DISAGREE WITH } | HAVE AN
AGREE WITH
CLOSE CONTROL] | UNKNOWN | | CLOSE CONTROL
PARAMETERS
EMITTER
PARAMETERS
9.6.13 L
WRITE DOWN
PARAMETERS
on
Figure
9.6.14
CHOOSE FREQ |
AS PUB SEARCH
PARAMETER
9.6.15
CHOOSE PRF
AS PUB SEARCH|
9.6.17
LOOK UP
9.6.18
HIT
IN PUBS
ID FAB
PARAMETER
9.6.16
CHOOSE PRI
AS PUB SEARCH [
PARAMETER
11. Functional
EMITTER
flow
38
DESIGNATE }
diagram
for EW
9.6.19
MAKE CHANGES
TO
PARAMETER
watch.
Based
on
consists
human
of four
1)
machine
U.S.
and
principles,
capabilities,
as
listed
below
the
human
or
on
requirements
should
be
made
first.
"in the
loop".
This
rules
of
system
the
operator
to remain
system,
but
operator
intervention
in
system.
human
and
For
the
requirements
by
the
or
consideration
of
3)
task
is
task
function
be
then
it may
the
two
rules.
the
relative
39
costs
be
is better
allocated
of each.
the
both
of the
humans
for
humans.
it should
If the
machine
next
then
for
be
the
is unacceptable
allocation
for humans,
allocation.
change
for
out
as
capabilities
unacceptable
or
The
must
involves
the relative
function
a mandatory
Consider
readily
Estimate
If the
human
identifiable
This
system.
machine
not
context.
of the
is unacceptable
level
or mission
the
if the
the
performance
redefine
it as
dictate
machine
then
treat
mandatory
are
not
and
If the
machines,
task
that
of steps:
machine.
machines,
does
human
to task
sequence
and
the
functions
allocations,
according
following
:
either
automatic
judged
strategy
to
a entirely
mandatory
allocation
allocations
wants
2)
the
Mandatory
based
Navy
machine
Conversely,
treated
as
performed
respectively
after
a
4)
need
for
Recognize
information
processing
the
to
unique
make
needs
of the
human,
such
as
decisions,
memory
limitations,
and
capabilities.
The
current
system
affords
operator.
However,
most
operators
upon
automatic
system
emitter
identification.
that
the
automatic
This
is especially
In
general,
most
allocation
system
operator
has
to
commented
for
area
the
loop
House
in part
the
criticality
of the
on
2.4.2
sequential
operator
the
mission.
Navy
of
Critical
identification.
AN/SLQ-32(V)
to an
the
wants
Materials,
system
to
task
analysis
of information
from
the
involved
with
flow
in this
40
the
operator
in
Subcommittee
1989).
ship
concern
is critical
Representatives,
in the
Information
emitter
the
still
objective
first becomes
erroneously.
system
Sequence
flow
performed
perform
Operational
major
a
on
U.S.
the
expressed
Based
the
and
or
emitters.
testimony,
Strategic
launching
chaff
that
Congressional
and
rely
time
classify
Seapower
rarely
they
decreased
and
(U.S.
that
the
identify
decision
are
in the
given
to
of automatic
to
of functions
functions
example,
commonly
prefer
redesign
automatic
capabilities
operators
The
improved
Operators
true in the
manually.
few
capabilities;
system
functions
A
the
This
on
is based
defense.
Diagram
the
was
point
the evaluation
in
system
instance
time
when
the
to completion
applies
of the
of
to operator
decisions,
AN/SLQ-32(V)
transmission
of
data.
one
to
portray
method
operator
The
control
Operational
graphically
activities,
and
Sequence
Diagram
sequential
flow
the
the
(OSD)
is
of
information.
The
the
flow
reception
responses.
in
the
of
of
See
information
information,
Figure
operational
useful
because
emphasizes
in
interrelationships.
sheet
to
the
equipment
for
the
operation,
showing:
1.
Manual
and
2.
Operator
decision
3.
Transmitted
4.
Time
and
estimates
operator
into
a
different
and
received
information
of
OSD
Time
There
were
three
methods
in the OSD.
The
first is called
estimates
from
the
and
top
each
of the
piece
separate
column.
sequences
of
of
operations
2.4.3
time
and
is always
points
of each
used
information
task
interactions,
project
symbology
analysis
entered
automatic
of the
of
AN/SLQ-32(V)
diagrams
control
It is
The
these
represent
1985).
of events
is
and
to
(Meister,
flow
Specifically,
MODAPTS
making,
integration
controls
symbolically
explanation
diagram
he
times
an
interfaces,
The
bottom.
that
12
decision
sequence
particularly
it
is portrayed
the
control
movements
above
Estimates
are
used
shown
41
to estimate
task
completion
MODAPTS
(Shinnick,
in the
with
OSD
1987).
The
a superscript
SYMBOLS
To pass information without changing its form
GT)
Receipt *
To receive information in the transmitted form
[)
Delay
To delay the transmission of information
[_]
Inspect, Monitor
To monitor or verify quanity or quality. An
re
Decision
To evaluate and select a course of action or
VW
Store
To retain information
©
Operation
inspection occurs when an object is examined
inaction based on the receipt of information
An action function to accomplish or continue a
process
* - Mode of transmission and receipts is indicated by a code letter
within the
cr»
and (®) symbols
V - Visual
E - Electrical
S - Sound
IC - Internal Communications
EX- External Communications
T - Touch
M - Mechanically
H - Hand Deliver
Figure
12.
Symbology
used
in
the
operational
42
sequence
diagram.
"1".
The
second
a specified
estimates
time
was
task
video
shown
in the
estimate
came
from
Polytechnic
the
with
a superscript
"3".
Standards.
input
Modular
a
"fair
day's"
distribution
centers,
and
predetermined
work
time
"2".
The
third
conducted
at
University
in July
1991.
are
shown
in the
MODAPTS
is
method
manufacturing
plants,
with
centers.
There
covering
a
the
The
OSD
an
Time
consistent
standards
concerned
tape
Predetermined
rehabilitation
time
is primarily
of
in
video
study
study
a fast,
work
performing
The
definition.
provides
determining
This
device
Arrangement
operators
a superscript
State
MODAPTS
MODAPTS
different
input
device
from
for
with
and
estimates
2.4.3.1
OSD
an
of EW
environment.
Institute
time
acronym
analysis
in a simulated
are
Virginia
tape
of
offices,
are
44
variety
of
MODAPTS
tasks.
measure
"MOVE".
Time
129
values
are expressed
milliseconds
or
MODAPTS
has
time
value
required
is the
MOD
The
the
time
called
MODS.
MOD
Each
movement
type
character
alpha-numeric
code.
The
numeric
to
the
activity.
This
complete
A
numeric
equals
in
is
the
character
multiplier.
value
of
required
to
complete
person.
or a slow
maintained
minutes.
MOD
experienced
pace
an
0.00215
in units
pace,
all day
It does
0.00215
the
not
undue
represents
activity
by
represent
but at a pace
without
minutes
a qualified,
someone
working
that is comfortable
stress.
43
"normal"
and
time,
thoroughly
at a fast
can
be
2.4.3.2
The
element
Move
action
usually
operator
will
be
Definition
is
an
action
of
MODAPTS
of
the
finger,
"Move"
hand,
or
arm.
is to or from
specific
articles
or locations.
deals
primarily
button
presses,
the
derived
from
small/light
with
movements
in
Element
This
Since
MODAPTS
conjunction
the
value
with
movements
of
objects
i.e.
(a
button
press).
a) M1
- Finger
Move;
performed
with
any
fingers
usual
performed
with
either
hand,
usual
award
the
palm
must
performed
with
the
forearm,
To
award
M3,
the
wrist
must
move.
arm
Move;
performed
with
the
full
arm
a usual
distance
of
To
award
M4,
the
move;
performed
with
the
distance
of 18". To
award
M5,
the
arms
and
body
distance
b)
M2
of
- Hand
distance
c) M3
Move;
of 2".
- Arm
distance
d) M4
1"
Move;
of 6".
- Whole
forward,
elbow
e) MS
To
must
arm
outward,
a usual
shoulder
must
- Trunk
trunk,
M5,
a usual
the
full
arm
move.
Move;
a usual
except
12".
move.
move.
- Extended
f) M7
M2,
performed
distance
distance
with
the
This
move
of 30”.
requires
the
trunk
is similar
to
body
to
be
is moved
in
moved.
The MOD
the
performance
values
are based on the body part which
of a task
as well
as the
44
type
of task
performed.
For
example,
a trunk move
multiplied
These
is M7.
The
by
7,
(i.e.
0.00215
minutes
values
can
be
used
the
complete
with
time is the MOD
x 7
OSD
=
0.01505
to show
minutes).
time
estimates
for
tasks.
designated
analysis.
2.4.3.3
Video
tape
portions
of the
OSD
tape
was
The
performed
video
a selected
OSD
is a further
functional
flow
diagram
Diagram.).
Once
the
shows
interaction
the
the
operator.
The
each
part of the
the
operator
must
evaluate
the
enough
information
estimated
while
of their
estimates
by
analysis/breakdown
reached
this
between
the
different
pieces
to
shows
the
OSD
begins
when
the
emitter.
the
screen
actions
The
OSD
classify
the
The
superscript
number
the
source
the
of
the
also
on
2 - Video Tape
Analysis
3 - Input Device
Study
45
the
OSD
equipment
required
to
emitter
identify
the
is
and
operator
time
estimate
and
perform
AN/SLQ-32(V).
to
when
of
Sequence
has
emitter.
by each
1 - MODAPTS
level,
a new
of the
ends
third-level
Operational
time
necessary
information:
tape
operators
of the
flow
operator
for
task.
functional
The
video
four different
shows
perform
new
Time
13
task.
to
be
made
(Figure
diagram
presented
analysis.
will
portion
The
shows
MODAPTS
in the OSD
The
| From Fig 10 |
block 9.5 SH
Loos
TIME
AN/SLQ-32(V) OPERATOR
OminOsec
DCC
|
O-SCOPE
From Fig 10-block 9.6
Decision
to proceed
Electrical to
Visual
(| Scan polar
display
Identify
a target
Move hand
Manual to
to input device
Electrical
Manipulate
61 4oms
cursor with
input device
Track movement
of cursor
Electrical to
Visual
Decide that cursor,
is located over
the correct target
Press the
HOOK FAB
Store target
location in
short term
memory
Manual to
Electrical
Store emitter
in memory
@
Compare bearing
line of close
control parameter
/
Electrical to
to threat list
Search to
match emitter
charcteristics
with library
entries
Visual
Inspect frequenc
of emitter
Bearing lines
match/decision
to proceed
516ms"
Move hand to
signal select
FAB
continued next page
Figure 13 - Operational Sequence Diagram, page 1
46
ULQ-16
TIME
AN/SLQ-32 OPERATOR
DCC
continued
280ms!
2000mé
Activate signal
select FAB
Listen to
audio signal
AN/SLQ-32
ULQ-16
Manual to
electrical
O->
Inspect scan
type on
O-SCOPE
LOK
Electrical to
L]
audio
T
lectrical to
Store scan type
oO
visual
in short term
memory
Move eye
Electrical to
visual
fixationfrom
DCC to o-scope
1 oooms
Monitor o-scope
for unique wave
form
Decide if you
have a known
emitter
.
Move eye fixation
from o-scope to
ULQ-16
>
G
designgte
emitter
Decision to
proceed
903ms"
258ms!
258ms!
Move hand to
numeric keypad
of ULQ-16
Enables menu
choice on ~
Press "gold"
key on keypad
R
Manual to
electrical
Press "1" on
ULQ-16 keypad
continued next page
continued next pag:
Figure 13 - Operational Sequence Diagram, page 2
47
TIME
AN/SLQ-32(V) OPERATOR
DCC
O-SCOPE
ULQ-16
continue d|
continued
800me
Inspect PRF
on ULQ-16
L
R
Electrical
to visual
Decide if PRF
on ULQ matches
the SLQ-32
Inspect single
digit number
located beside
the PRF
Store the numb
in short term
Manual to
memory
-
T
Press "Enter" on
258me
ULQ-16 keypad
Inspect pulse
T
width
Electrical
on ULQ-16
258M
electrical
to visual
1 |Press "gold"
25 Bms!
Enables top
level menu
|button on ULQ
=
Keypad
Enables sub
level menu
-
Press "4" on
ULQ keypad
~
2 Sams! Press "Enter"
ULQ-16 keypad
800ms~ Inspect scan typ
on ULQ -16
t
R
Electrical
to visual
Recall scan type
from SLQ-32
Decide if scan
type on ULQ
matches SLQ-32
continued
Manuai to
electrical
next page
Figure 13 - Operational Sequence Diagram, page 3
48
TIME
AN/SLQ-32(V) OPERATOR
DCC
O-SCOPE
ULQ-16
continued
Move eyes from
ULQ-16 screen
Enables sub
level menu
to keypad
258ms
1
258ms
[Press "advance
arrow" key on
ULQ-16 keypad
THO
T
Manual to
electrical
Press "right
arrow" key on
ULQ-16 keypad
I
Inspect PRI
on ULQ-16
;
Electrical to
visual
Store the number
in short term
memory
Enables PREF
screen
Press "right
WO
258ms! arrow” key on
ULQ-16 keypad
Move hand from
903ms
ULQ-16 keypad
to SLQ-32
Agree or disagree
with AN/SLQ-32
258ms
Pick up a pen
or pencil
Agree
Disagree
Make reports
and continue
to monitor
Look at
writing paper
Recall emitter
freq from short
300ms.
300ms'
term memory
Write down
frequency
Recall PRF from
short term
memory
Write down
PRF
continued next page
Figure 13 - Operational Sequence Diagram, page 4
49
TIME
DCC
AN/SLQ-32(V) OPERATOR
O-SCOPE
continued
Recall scan type
300ms.
300ms
from short term
memory
Write down
scan type
Recall PRI from
short term
memory
Write down
PRI
Recall pulse
duration from
short term
memory
300ms!
Write down
pulse duration
Decide which of
two pubs to
search
Decide which
parameter to
search by
Store type of
parameter in
short term memory
258ms. Put down
pen or pencil
Move eyes from
DCC to pub holder
516me
Move hand from
DCC to selected
pub
217ms
Secure selected
publication
Recall the type of
parameters in
short term
memory
continued next page
Figure 13 - Operational Sequence Diagram, page 5
50
ULQ-16
AN/SLQ-32(V) OPERATOR
—
TIME
DCC
O-SCOPE
continued
Open pub to are
of selected
parameter
Find start and stop
point of all emitters
with selected
parameter
Move eyes back
to paper with
parameters
Choose next
parameter to
cross reference
Find start and stop
point of all emitters
with selected
parameter
Move eyes back
to paper with
parameters
Choose next
parameter to
cross reference
Find start and stop
point of all emitters
4,000
ms
with selected
parameter
Move eyes back
to paper with
parameters
Choose next
parameter to
cross reference
Find start and stop
point of all emitters
with selected
parameter
Determine all
ELINT numbers
that fall within
selected parameters
continued next page
Figure 13 - Operational Sequence Diagram, page 6
51
ULQ-16
TIME
AN/SLQ-32(V) OPERATOR
DCC
O-SCOPE
continued
258ms
Pick up the pen
or pencil
3000ms! Write down all
ELINT numbers
that match selecte
parameter
f Choose an
ELINT number
Tum to ELINT
section of pub.
Find ELINT
Decide on
probability of
emitter
Move eyes
back to paper
with ELINT no.
Choose an
ELINT number
4470
ms ¢ 4
Tum to ELINT
section of pub.
Find ELINT
Decide on
probability of
emitter
Move eyes
back to paper
with ELINT no.
Choose an
ELINT number
Turn to ELINT
section of pub.
Find ELINT
continued next page
Figure 13 - Operational Sequence Diagram, page 7
52
ULQ-16
TIME
AN/SLQ-32(V) OPERATOR
DCC
O-SCOPE
continued
4470ms
Decide on
probability of
emitter
Recall other
ELINT definitions
Decide which
ELINT correctly
describes the
emitter
387ms.
Move hand to
"Designate ID"
FAB
258ms"
Press "Designate
ID" FAB
Inspect DCC
screen
Manual to
electric
Electrical
to visual
[_]
1-Spec msl
2-tgt rdr
3-Gen msl
387ms"
258ms"
“NS
Wa
Choose between
following choices:
Move hand
to keyboard
Press digit
of desired
choice
Inspect DCC
screen to verify
selection of
digit
continued next page
Figure 13 - Operational Sequence Diagram, page 8
53
ULQ-16
TIME
AN/SLQ-32(V) OPERATOR
DCC
O-SCOPE
continued
387ms!
Press keyboard
"return"
Manual to
electrical
Inspect DCC
screen
Electrical
to visual
Choose between
following:
1-AIR
2-SUR
3-LND
4-SUB
387ms"
Move hand to
258ms
Press desired
choice
keyboard
inspect DCC screen
to verify selection
387ms!
Press Keyboard
"return"
Manual to
electrical
Electrical
Inspect DCC scree
to visual
to verify status of
emitter symbol
t
GO TO FIGURE 10,
BLOCKS 9.7 AND 9.8
Figure 13 - Operational Sequence Diagram, page 9
54
ULQ-16
Il. SYSTEM
Usually,
goal
there
are
many
of a trade-off
study
is to quantify
varied
conditions.
performance
system
under
design
experimental
or
performed
to
reduction
of
task
TRADE-OFF
on
the
TQL
process
backed
up
be
actual
with
work,
a trade-off
study
examine
the
effects
of
several
variables
on
total
and
errors
time
involved
Trade-Off
was
1991
simulated
AN/SLQ-32(V)
the
device
3.1.1
in
the
was
the
performance
of
a
to
Experiment
conducted
Polytechnic
compare
study
design
Equipment
the
Institute
cursor
screen
in
Displays
and
and
State
University
devices
given
positioning
format.
The
following
is
and
instructed
to
use
positioning
devices
to
locate
a cursor
on
a highlighted
depress
selector
button,
and
sequence-number
into
or
either
another
another
trial
in
a
a review
of
Methods
were
entry,
Controls
plan.
participants
selection
that
this
June-July
data
dictates
For
at Virginia
numeral
The
data.
Laboratory
a
task.
of task
The
must
experiment
Ten
a particular
the merits
recommendations
Device
input
to perform
AN/SLQ-32(V).
3.1 Input
An
ways
EXPERIMENTS
subsequently
a
data
55
enter
entry
window.
emitter
icon
highlighted
sequence
various
was
initiated.
cursor
emitter
icon,
a random
Following
appeared
for
the
EMITTERS
PRESENTE
—»> |
—P—
L
=
a
8
oD
52
oa,
Sz
>
Oda
Ze
32
s oe
Y) 5
-
twa
O
Li —
L
2
w
0
£ax
VOL
>
Trackball
RN
Joystick
©
<S
r
&
<
Mouse
oe .
o?
Ss
©
e
Pa
INPUT DEVICE
Figure
14.
Experimental
conditions
used
in
the
input
device
experiment.
The
design
by
experiment
(Figure
input
device
was
a
3x3x3x2
14).
The
54
total
and
C/D
ratio.
trials
per
subjects
experimental
participant
That
is, participants
emitter
presentations
were
blocked
received
three
random
replications
of
before
changing
another
input
device
device
types
was
randomized
uniquely
show
a level
C/D
to
ratios
and
participant.
Each
participant
had
each
and
C/D
before
device
experiment.
A
input
three
with-in
ratio
simulated
to
type.
at each
C/D
ratio
Presentation
order
of
for
each
of proficiency
with
they
could
proceed
with
the
AN/SLQ-32(V)
Polar
Display
was
developed
56
3
with
a Macintosh
randomly
and
Each
IIfx.
The
highlighted
uniquely
for
each
trial.
subjectively
rated
participant
completion
The
of
the
devices
used
in
the
York,
New
2. Mouse
were
in
the
isometric
cost
Desktop
62360.
Microwave
Bus
Joystick- Gravis
by
Ltd.,
MouseStick
that
(force)
like
the
used
on
of
Apple
isometric
joystick
3.1.2
Results
and
error
factor,
within-subjects
Due
the
low
the
ANOVA
number
made
the
not
devices
the joystick
joystick
and
not
AN/SLQ-32(V).
Desktop
Bus
that
used
an
Due
to
(ADB)
possible.
Discussion
data
Analysis
of
results
an
was
Computer
be
(displacement)
procurement
processing
to the specific
isotonic
one
and
apply
an
and
New
Washington.
was
time
devices:
Limited,
Gravis
Bellingham,
should
The
the
Mouse
Advanced
of the experiment
compatible
<1%),
Model
mention
constraints,
to
civilian
Specific
study
following
standard
ADB,
Kensington
manufactured
results
used.
devices
generated
York.
Technology,
The
were
Mouse
by
- Apple
Isotonic
study
- Turbo
Manufactured
unit,
the
were
study.
1. Trackball
3.
emitters
were
subjected
to separate
of
Variance
(ANOVA)
errors
committed
by
for
dependent
variable
this
57
the
four-
procedures.
participants
were
(i.e.,
deemed
to
provide
no
useful
discussed
further
The
ANOVA
effects
and,
therefore,
for time is shown
Area,
factor
and
were
the
C/D
Ratio,
The
three-factor
interactions
Area,
C/D
and
Device
Ratio,
Sequence
interactions
and
in Table
were
Device
and
and
among
Area
Device,
also
were
all within-subjects
adjusted
according
to
the
Greenhouse-Geisser
violations
of
sphericity.
A
full
in
Beaton
The ANOVA
effect
of device.
devices
used
Area,
Sequence
(p<
and
effects
Area
and
0.05).
Sequence
and
(p < 0.05).
in Table
(1959)
of these
2 were
correction
statistical
for
findings
(1992).
three
in the
15
study.
at the
top
of each
shows
Each
bar
for
indicates
There
is no
selection
time
between
the
however,
is significantly
trackball
or the
mouse
a comparison
bar
emitters
graph.
that
and
as
Figure
highlighted
device
discussion
(p < 0.05),
for the main
the
bar
the main
or
in Table 2 indicated a P-value of .0001
select
each
shown,
significant
for
found
reported
Area,
of freedom
be
not
significant
between
Sequence,
Sequence
2. As
Degrees
can
are
herein.
of Device,
two
information
graph
all
the
shows
the mean
input
time
to
subjects.
The
small
“T"
located
standard
error
of the
mean
for
significant
mouse
of the
difference
in emitter
and
the
trackball.
The
joystick,
slower.
Based
on
this
data,
either
the
can
the
recommendation
for the
input
be
for the AN/SLQ-32(V).
Based
on
interviews
the
isometric
joystick
with
can
AN/SLQ-32(V)
be
difficult
58
to
operators,
it was
operate
under
noted
Table
2. ANOVA
Type Iii Sums of Squares
Summary
Table
Degrees
of
Freedom
Source
for the Input
Sum of
Squares
Mean
Squares
Subject
9
4.601E2
51.1243
Device
2
2434.7
1217.35
Device * Subject
94.5048
5.2503
Area
8.341E2
Area * Subject
58.6433
3.2580
CD_Ratio
14.5828
14.5828
CD_Ratio * Subject
31.9415
3.5491
Sequence
1.189E4
Sequence * Subject
18
Device * Area
Device * Area * Subject
36
Device * CD_Ratio
Device * CD_Ratio * Subject
18
Area * CD_Ratio
Area * CD_Ratio * Subject
18
Device * Sequence * Subject
36
Area * Sequence
Area * Sequence * Subject
36
CD_Ratio * Sequence
CD_Ratio * Sequence * Subject
18
Device * Area * CD_Ratio
Device * Area * CD_Ratio * Subject
36
Device * Area * Sequence
Device * Area * Sequence * Subject
72
Device * CD_Ratio * Sequence
Device * CD_Ratio * Sequence * Subject
36
Area * CD_Ratio * Sequence
Area * CD_Ratio * Sequence * Subject
36
Device * Area * CD_Ratio * Sequence
Device * Area * CD_Ratio * Sequence * Subject
Dependent:
72
5.9472E3
1.794E2
9.9694
90.3417
22.5854
40.0582
1.1127
99.0667
49.5334
62.8498
3.4917
41.1377
20.5688
17.8937
9941
8.959E2
Device * Sequence
417.0693
223.9714
62.5911
1.7386
3.369E2
84.2332
38.9836
1.0829
1.5696
-7848
33.4824
1.8601
13.1647
3.2912
31.6854
8801
37.3820
4.6727
45.2708
.6288
25.0104
6.2526
73.3285
2.0369
16.6145
4.1536
24.3722
.6770
13.2726
1.6591
48.6159
6752
Time
59
Device
Study
F-Value
P-Values
Greenhouse
Geisser
Correction
2.319E2
.0001
.0001
1.28E2
-0001
.0001
4.1089
.0733
.0733
5,966E2
.0001
.0001
20.2973
-0001
.0001
14.1862
0002
20.6910
0001
-0001
1.288E2
.0001
.0001
77.7865
.0001
.0001
4219
-6621
5532
3.7393
0121
.0306
7.4317
.0001
.0003
3.0697
0283
6.1353
.0007
.0035
2.4571
.0206
.0843
2520 wn
2
9 154
©
”
J
£
2 104
r
7
5
=
0
Figure
15.
r
r
Mouse
Main
conditions
of
Clark
and
Petty
their
forearm
yaw
effect
Trackball
of device
excessive
ship
in
Williams).
palm
on
the
makes
it difficult
to
position
Under
these
conditions,
operators
FAB
(Sequence
control.
device
the
when
to
place
selection
cursor
of
DCC.
in
the
the
(Interviews
with
operators
excessive
ship
cursor
precisely
can
roll,
a
dense
emitter
environment,
to
manipulate
in
of
close
ship
devices
for
emitter
high
60
quickly.
into
SEQ
close
the
cursor
with
(Beaton,
movement
has
control/display
and
of the
control
cursor
stabilize
and
an
the
Officer
pitch,
to place
the
1991).
implications
positioning
It is likely that any input device
(i.e.,
Petty
Button)
presence
movement
experiment.
often defer to the use
emitter
alternate
trade-off
Although
DCC;
preferred
unavoidable
AN/SLQ-32(V)
rapid
Action
interviewed
The
for
Fast
However,
operators
input
and
display
movement
Officer
Joystick
on
that allows
ratio)
will
be
the
susceptible
to
adjustment
for device
to
ship
movement
sensitivity
recognize
that
forearm
workstation
design
features
misplacement
of
Certainly,
gloves)
be
device
which
and
cursors
input
and
Thus,
an
is warranted.
Also,
it is important
palm
that
stabilization
minimize
under
types
vibration.
ship
(1.e.,
light
are
operator
movement
pens,
operator
important
fatigue
and
conditions.
touch
do
not
provide
forearm
and
palm
In a larger
study
of input
devices
conducted
screens,
data
stabilization
should
avoided.
(1986),
five
acquisition
mouse,
force
cursor
task.
control
The
touchpad,
joystick
(isometric).
subjects
that,
with
the
mouse,
trackball,
performance
was
obtained
devices
compared
best
the
measure
of
positioning
pronounced
and
at the
smallest
were
very
similar,
improved
relative
positioning
trackball
target
in
with
across
and
rate
target
smallest
target
sizes.
For
example,
were
significantly
better
than
all
size.
Results
the
performance.
the
exception
trackball
and
As
target
the
61
second
the
the
mouse,
size
controlled
devices
absolute
in
increased,
a
were
the
other
smallest
that
a
relative
size,
among
at the
and
general,
differences
with
to
were
(isotonic),
accuracy,
at the
mouse
trackball,
showed
the
When
following:
study
performed
joysticks.
the
Epps
on a target
Epps
the
worst
included
compared
joystick
from
the
were
Brian
displacement
results
touchpad;
very
devices
relative
The
devices
by
devices
target
size
touchpad
terms
of target
differences
among
devices
Significant
3.2
became
at the
Display
The
areas
less
largest
target
Trade-Off
following
trade-offs
e Primary
display
e Emitter
symbology
e Color
(Achromatic
performance
three
areas
during
the
emitter
densities.
performs
to
The
criteria
errors
in
a known
features
format
vs.
were
of the DCC
were
identified
New
iconic
examined:
(Polar
vs.
symbols
examined
Integrated
Task
identify
hooking
emitter
vs.
display
in
task consists
performance
the
emitter
were
AN/SLQ-32(V).
Methods
of the
AN/SLQ(V)
that a new
emitter
is present
¢
evaluating
information
about
¢
determining
(AN/SLQ-32(V)
This
interface
IT
was
design.
appropriate
and
IT
that
the
task
and
Manual,
task
consists
used
of the
62
is to
maintain
task
includes:
Intelligence
number
basic
emitter
Electronics
designating
Operator
the primary
The
the
operator
¢ recognizing
ELINT
three
on
time-to-complete
and
mission
emitter
under
that the EW
operator’s
the
operator
actions
The
for
of
performed
environment.
(ELINT)
symbols)
device)
context
(IT)
of the
an
as
icons.
Equipment
the
not
Range)
Multicolor
were
and
electronic
fact,
be
(Existing
for
primary
in
size.
could
IT
evaluate
3.2.1
The
The
and,
Experiment
display
in which
These
pronounced
the
emitter
with
the
proper
to the
user
1983).
to test changes
following
steps:
1.
Operator
hears
an
alert
and
new
emitters
appear
on
the
with
the
input
device.
of
information
to
(information
assigned
by
the
system,
may
or may
not
be
presentation
of
analyzer
acquiring
display.
2.
Operator
selects
an
emitter
3.
Operators
uses
the
following
evaluate
the
target
emitter:
a.
sources
Close
control
parameters
system,
which
like
the
(an
audio
real
accurate)
b.
Signal
Select
emitters
c.
A
4.
5.
frequency
Operator
searches
through
of
parameters
Operator
The
variables
errors
designates
trade-off
on
made
study
and/or
identification
the
emitter
was
designed
accurate
on-line
library
PRF)
publications
an
an
with
to
and
the
proper
test
the
confirmation
ELINT.
effect
to
complete
the
integrated
task
by
the
operator.
The
variables
manipulated
display
e Emitter
symbology
e Color
(Achromatic
eight
under
for
or
(for
time
¢ Primary
The
tested
spectrum
repetition
emitter
hooked
scan)
frequency
pulse
the
possible
three
format
(Polar
vs.
(Existing
vs.
different
Multicolor
emitter
63
the
number
of
were:
Range)
symbols
combinations
and
of several
of
density
vs. New
display
these
iconic
symbols)
device)
display
situations.
features
A
were
synopsis
of
some
of the
issues
given
below.
for
3.2.1.1
employs
Range
battlegroup
display
which
does
must
ascertain
be
the
designed
retrieved
from
other
system
emitter.
the
operator
in
through
location
type,
the
Range
display
assists
overall
"picture"
of
tactical
environment
and
scopes
the
the
AN/SLQ-32(V)
with
a Range
to identify
The
NTDS
Color
coding
emitters
in a Range
3.2.1.2
Emitter
more
likely
to
the
be
current
For
pictures
with
by
and
respect
range
with
Compatibility
would
descriptive
to
of the
providing
is consistent
CIC.
FAA
between
be
improved
icons
were
used
Set.
Research
in
icon
design
the
information
elements
are
understood.
The
current
symbol
that
do
not
a pictorial
manner.
trade
off
study
and
a set
of symbols
that
current
icons
for
Ea
in
to
Polar
of abstractions
symbols
example,
of
and
emitters
tested
and
the
interpretation
systems
Symbol
remembered
EW
operators
display.
consists
the
abstract.
CIC
AN/SLQ-32(V)
represent
the
in the
display.
representative
for
system
other
that
set
display
the
shows
the
Rather,
detection
coding
Range
and
While
quick
emitter
radar
operator
information.
missiles
for emitters.
of the
range
of
information
The
have
identification
the
view
is
display
information.
AN/SLQ-32(V)
of an
aid
effort
Range
a top-down
the
this
not
criticality
to
for
The
range
with
Currently,
information
was
displaying
operator
features
Format.
area.
range
format
Display
for
an
display
operating
a Polar
him
method
provides
uses
help
selected
Primary
a known
display
the
64
The
missiles
are
less
were
compared
to
new,
icons
for
hostile
airplanes
look
like
aircraft
( 4
Figure
16
more
representative
(a),
were
symbols
( A
),
and
current
compared
to
symbols
which
).
shows
a comparison
symbols.
All
friendly
symbols
symbols
use
straight
lines.
between
have
curved
Airborne
the
while
the
have
a top
face,
subsurface
emitters
use
the
lower
implies
an
altitude
rule
for
determining
where
belongs.
Surface
symbols
a diamond
Missiles
are
with
3.2.1.3
by
in
Color
of
new
concentric
Coding.
above
a dot.
Color
coding
may
this
of
the
face
is
shape
icon
enclosure.
represented
facilitate
by
the
an
EW
for
emitters.
The
current
uses
location
coding
friendly
targets,
and
to
distinguish
targets.
of
impact
color
the
unknown
that
times
processing
in
an
while
search/detection
presented
used
the
hostile
and
information
3.2.1.4
use
and
corners
It is assumed
new
errors
rings
hostile/unknown
of
“X”,
squared
reducing
presence
Land
a convoluted
inverted-U
tasks
and
and
faces,
emitters
face.
current
to
the
Emitter
the
large
amount
of
the
and
the
need
efficient
operator
the
trade-off
performance
Density
trade-off
missiles,
Considering
information,
on
system
of
study
the
¢ Caribbean
- Low
e Persian
- Medium
e Armageddon
- High
density
density
density
65
for
investigated
the
operator.
Levels. Three
study:
Gulf
the
density
levels
were
Hostile
Missile
Air
16.
Emitter
Ship
Unknown
Land
Friendly
Air
Ship
Land
Sub
NEW
Figure
symbol
set used
in
experiment.
66
the
display
trade-off
During
the
any
one
subject.
presented
each
and
level.
is shown
Table
an
initial
Subsequently,
at fixed
block
density
session,
time
the
in Table
3. Emitter
10
40
60
45
3.2.2
Results
Table
range
shows
of different
operators
display,
took
to
to
move
number
interval
was
different
for
on
information
Levels
in Display
Number
# of Starting
f
9
2
1
30
4
emitters
each
presented
to
were
of
emitters
each
emitter
emitter
density
in
level
3.
Time
70
of
initial
14
Number of
_38
76
4
126
Discussion
times
to
conditions.
These
values
look
threat
summary
at the
cursor
Total Emitters
4
4
mean
the
Experiment
Emitters
(at the end of
(in a block) | the trial)
1
and
the
Trade-Off
Blocks
(initially
presented)
emitters)
Armag |
was
blocks
The
Emitter | between | of Blocks |
Density | blocks
(during a |
(dummy | (secs)
trial)
Carrib
Gulf
of emitters
intervals.
specific
Density
Initial
additional
time
The
block
to
the
emitter.
67
hook
desired
an
emitter
over
the
the
time
that
list
and
the
primary
emitter,
and
to
select
include
the
Table
4.
Format
Polar
Polar
Polar
Polar
Polar
Polar
Polar
Polar
Polar
Polar
Polar
Polar
Range
Range
Mean
Time
Symbols |
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
New
New
New
New
New
New
Old
Old
Range
Old
Range
Old
Range
Range
Range
Range
Range
Range
Range
Range
to
Old
Old
New
New
New
New
New
New
Hook
Emitters
Color Condition
B/W
B/W
B/W
Color
in
Trade-Off
Density
Carribean
B/W
Gulf
Armag
4.481
5.247
Gulf
Armag
Carribean
Gulf
Armag
B/W
B/W
Carribean
Gulf
B/W
5.282
5.743
6.719
Carribean
B/W
B/W
Color
Color
Color
Time (sec)
Gulf
Armag
Carribean
Color
Color
Experiment
Armag
3.342
4.591
4.297
5.318
3.707
4.576
5.371
3.433
4.132
4.704
Color
Carribean
4.122
Color
B/W
B/W
B/W
Color
Color
Armag
Carribean
Gulf
Armag
Carribean
Gulf
4.497
3.625
5.146
5.571
3.320
4.191
Color
Gulf
Color
Armag_
68
4.671
2.194
The
Range
information
to
search
direct
than
for
provides
display
the
the
of
may
more
have
the
This
operator
display.
He
basically
range
bearing.
and
and
of the
the
Polar
type
increases
in
than
emitter
of the
to mistakes
by
one
can
lead
17
time.
Figure
faster
than
the
of
that the
has
two
same
Polar
coordinates
display
emitter
which
can
However,
when
the
Polar
the
more
display,
the
operator
same
type
along
the
operator
and
increases
Range
display
display.
wi
Range
Figure
17.
Main
effect
of display
format
experiment.
69
the
is significantly
i,
Polar
shows
the
with
The
display.
emitters
search
Time in Seconds
the
information,
to a portion
densities
bearing.
Polar
emitter;
bearing
him
provides
in display
trade-off
The
current
symbol
that represent
different
trade-off
compared
study
set.
faster
than
types
Figure
18
the
symbol
old
of emitters,
a new
shows
that
iconic
the
grouping
of lines
as
in Figure
shown
symbol
new
set
symbols
to
the
were
and
Figure
18.
Main
effect
of symbols
New
type
experiment.
70
in the
display
16.
The
significantly
set.
Old
dots
current
Time in Seconds
symbol
set is a cryptic
trade-off
In a study
four
different
shapes,
of visual
types
geometric
of the task
was
coding,
of visual
Smith
codes
in
forms,
military
to count
the number
which
included
many
results
showed
a clear
superiority
density
levels.
The
symbol
to be
same
symbol
(Sanders
and
was
different,
results
application.
Figure
19
significantly
faster
than
can
(1964)
used
task
(i.e.
aircraft
colors).
The
object
item from
of the
same
class.
for
the
color
codes
through
also
found
that
iconic
representations
superior
to the
geometric
McCormick,
1987).
be
utilized
for
shows
that
the
color
the
black
and
white
form
Although
the
Color
19.
Main
effect
emitters
were
emitters.
Black/White
of color
coding
experiment.
71
in
display
The
all
of the
the
task
AN/SLQ-32(V)
.
Figure
a large
items
Time in Seconds
the
and
of a given
other
study
of a military
a counting
symbols,
display
same
and Thomas
trade-off
V.
4.1
CONCLUSIONS
Recommendations
4.1.1
Input
Device
Since
the
trackball
experiment
and
in
can
be
made
subjective
the
and
mouse
rated
Epps
study,
several
the
selection
concerning
comments
were
taken
device
study
and
from
EW
damped
trackball
may
be
First, it
allows
with
the
console
for
Wrist
and
forearm
support
can
the
as
operator
device.
ratings
use
with
forearm
improved
stability
under
built into
palm
contact
sea
conditions.
rough
the
device.
The
devices
is a design
option.
Second,
trackball
can
configured
with
finger-activated
operator
to
raise
the
"hook"
FAB.
The
joystick
on
the
hand
away
from
device
the
to activate
requires
the
activate
the Hook
Based
simulated
the
operator
to
move
palm
the
cursor
of a
a
that
do
out-of-contact
with
the
the AN/SLQ-32(V)
the joystick
to
FAB.
AN/SLQ-32(V)
subjective
use
switches
on the results of the input device
and
a highly-
and
in
require
input
AN/SLQ-32(V).
trackball
not
the
the
recessed
be
to
Overall,
maintain
future
device
These
to
be
input
input
of an
for
the
observations
interviews.
best
in
subjective
auxiliary
operator
suited
highly
criterion,
positioning
study using
screen,
the
results
the
of
a trackball
input
use
device.
72
The
from
trackball
the
is
Epps
a
study,
recommended
was
used
in
as
the
OSD,
and
input
device
study.
4.1.2
Displays
A
the
time
Range
estimate
display
and
information
is acquired
display
"picture"
for
the
of
of travel
the
NTDS
the
EW
tactical
location
to
from
facilitates
the
hooking
is a recognized
information
Range
rate
for
The
in the CIC
range
on
AN/SLQ-32(V)
between
the
the AN/SLQ-32(V)
display
also
would
is consistent
Thus,
improve
the
compatibility
on
the
amount
of
needed
within
a noisy
CIC.
The
range
display
information
quickly.
Use
of
In a redesign
the
NTDS
The
AN/SLQ-
operators
the
about
the
emitter
and
only
a few
colors
are
helps
Color
of the AN/SLQ-32(V),
differentiate
systems.
with
the use of a
down
more
CIC
representation
cut
The
emitters,
true
would
4.1.3
established;
a
(e.g., the NTDS).
operator
on
giving
overall
This
more
based
of the
The
other
emitter
scheme
by
operators.
ask
not
the
to
CIC
to
would
select
needed
other
the
range
have
of emitters.
him
Currently,
other
ranges
the
operator.
the
operator
provides
EW
and
32(V)
communications
from
range
range
systems
came
to display
understanding
other display
display
target
way
or
environment
of emitters.
the
threat
a compatibility
red
for
missiles,
yellow
for
unknown
level
of emitters.
between
orange
(similar
emitters
73
color
to
(caution),
A
color
and
threat
red)
for
and
coding
was
hostile
green
(okay)
for
friendly
emitters.
each
other
faster
selection
and
4.1.4
An
was
times
analysis
performed
needed
This
colors
background.
for
Function
resources.
the
the
The
the
be
easy
to
discriminate
The
of the
new
symbols
emitter
densities.
use
operator
at
all
operational
sequence
to
examine
the
The EW
operator
receives
new
allocation
him
to
task.
The
additional
concentrate
his
pieces
diagram
operator's
of
the
information
primary
attention
resources
of equipment
added
to
the
operator
away
from
the
CRT
display.
This
misses
a visual
cue
from
the
system.
It could
also
add
during
the
conduct
of his
watch.
Table
operator's
attention
resources
attention
of the DCC.
diverted
the
on
the
resources
of the
EW
is critical
if the
operator
are
allocated
Resource
Allocation
to the
5
shows
during
the
task:
Table
5.
EW
Operator
Attentional
Area of EW Work Space
% of Operator's Attention
AN/SLQ-32(V) CRT screen/DCC
O-Scope / Listen to Audio Signal
ULQ-16
Publications
20
6
11
63
74
2.4
display
have
where
Section
the
most
attention
in
AN/SLQ-32(V)
fatigue
provide
of
emitters from the CRT
allows
operator's
from
Allocation
of the
to process
IT
should
IT
This
breakdown
operator
spends
number
of emitters
32(V)
this
to
main
of
emitter
to
since the
operator
often
critical
periods
of the
usage
may
to
the
lead
storage
the
need
published
emitter
Future
The
a small
operator
must
maintain
access
contain
databases
of
the
publications
where
the
Figure
scanning
are
8 for
portion
along
scan
of
side
their
holder).
publications
for
emitter
and
time
consuming.
Moreover,
publications
during
these
watch,
the
current
method
hazardous
AN/SLQ-32(V)
manual
can
pubs
review
and
AN/SLQ-
stored
operator
to
of the
for
that
needs
of publication
consequences.
must
be
Clearly,
increased
to
scanning
and
memorization
of
documentation
of
a problem
an
databases.
Directions
recognition
and
essential
first
system
diagram
for
how
only
tedious
undesirable
capacity
eliminate
4.2
hold
(See
is
large
facilities
workstation
information
a
the
the
These
manually
Although
that
world-wide,
parameters.
of
of time
to exist
publications
process
identification
library
emitters
percentage
publications.
hard-copy
identify
The
the
large
Consequently,
AN/SLQ-32(V)
contents
the
are known
on-line
information.
known
the
reviewing
and
a series
shows
step
the
in
AN/SLQ-32(V)
improvements
in
current
development.
and
system
implemented.
75
related
The
is
operational
trade-off
performance
studies
could
be
sequence
showed
There
are
advanced
concepts
performance
and
deserve
future
publications
in
impact
operator
on
The
to
emitter
limited
spend
that
impact
on
system
attention.
The
use
of
the
identification
is
a problem
area
which
has
library
facilities
force
the
operator
performance.
AN/SLQ-32(V)
considerable
memorizing
emitter
A
complete,
on-line
alleviate
this
problem.
Note,
it is important
to consider
how
the
implemented.
In
simply
disk
emitter
parameters
from
emitter
database
however,
that
to
store
completely.
query
hard
is
language
time
scanning
copy
publications.
to
required
other
Rather,
words,
to
likely
fashion,
a
interface
capacity
The
library
placed
should
that
be
solve
designed
capacity
as
in
database.
accompany
the
a
to
provided
hard
problem
access
the
is
structured
enormous
In related
for
the
installation
of
automatic
large
disks.
addition
would
the
facilitate
to be
opportunities
hard
not
interface
of emitters
logging
a large
software
is needed
database
adding
will
number
data
and
parameters
a
software
of a large
solve
1) Updates
satellite
2) There
capacity
hard-disk
a few
important
problems.
can
distributed
via floppy
be
to store
all of the
disks
or by
a
to clutter
the
work
uplink.
will
not
be
any
publications
area.
3)
Search
an
times
for emitter
76
types
would
be
improved.
4)
The
need
for
information
5)
an
additional
would
The
majority
with
less
not
be
of library
likelihood
workstation
to
enter
library
be
done
off-ship,
necessary.
updating
of errors
would
in
entering
the
emitter
information.
the
The
allocation
of more
atrophy
or loss
of critical EW
satisfaction,
additional
the
his
and
in
cruises
with
area
of future
concern
is the
use
This
embedded
be
a integral
training
sustainment
program.
should
be
designed
to
on
his
performance.
in
the
AN/SLQ-32(V)
of the
EW
work
CIC.
The
requirement
in the
CIC
is essential.
may
information
that
the
noise
level
The
play
an
For
give
his
he
clear
example,
AN/SLQ-32(V)
inside
and
the
ask
the
U.S.
use
EW
with
operator
the
concise
operator
part
of
consider
and
the
impact
other
systems
communications
incorporation
This
operator
of range
into
more
would
give
the
operator
and
would
cut
down
on
continue
to
for
CIC.
Electronic
in the
the
should
AN/SLQ-32(V)
must
The
give
environment
for
the
currently
role
watch
environment.
generated
important
in
also
changes
about
training
of embedded
it could
Any
information
An
watch,
on
feedback
system
activity.
the
supervisor
EW
little EW
of job
by
training
integration
the loss
cause
used
while
could
may
be
vigilance
training
machine
skills,
long
the
the
operator
on
operator's
embedded
the
boredom
system.
the
to
and
to maintain
of
functions
Warfare
Navy
77
well
system
into
will
the
twenty-first
century.
of
Documentation
objective
data
of
is essential
current
to
problems
system
78
and
redesign
the
efforts.
accumulation
REFERENCES
AN/SLQ-32(V)
October
Surface
System
Operator's
Manual
(UNCLASSIFIED).
1983). DI-M-2148A Data Item
Warfare Center, Dalghren, Va.
Baranauskas,
T.
(Mar
Development",
1988).
Defense
“Anti-Ship
Electronics,
Description
Missile
Vol.
20,
(DID)
Threat
No.
(22
- Naval
Drives
Decoy
3.
Beaton, R. J. (1991). Human Engineering Evaluation of AN/SLQ32(V) Display Device Console: Critique of Existing System, Navy
Contract number 230-11-110F-106-352485-1, Virginia
Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.
Blanchard, B. S. and Fabrycky, W. J. (1990). Systems
Analysis, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Polytechnic
Engineering
and
Blanchard, B. S. (1992). Logistics Engineering and Management,
Fourth Edition, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Committee on Armed Services (1983). US Senate, Sea Power and
Force Projection, Part 6, US Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC, Lessons of the Falklands, Summary Report.
Committee
on
Armed
Representatives,
Report on the
Stark, No 8.
US
Services
(June
Government
Staff Investigation
Subcommittee on Seapower
(March 1988). US House
1987).
Printing
into
US
House
Office,
of
Washington,
the Iraqi Attack
on
the
and Strategic and Critical Materials
of Representatives, US Government
79
DC,
USS
Printing Office,
Assessment.
Committee
on
Washington,
Armed
DC,
Services
Navy
(1988).
Ships
US
Survivability
Senate,
Printing Office, Washington, DC, Investigation
an Iranian Airliner by the USS Vincennes.
US
into
Government
the
Downing
of
Epps, B. W. (1986). A comparison of cursor control devices on
target acquisition, text editing, and graphics tasks. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg, VA.
Focus.
(March
Development,
1988).
U.S. Missing
The Boat
Indicates.
Defense
Report
in Anti-ship Missile
Electronics,
Vol.
20,
No.
3.
Godshall R. N. (1990). The Application of Level of Repair Analysis To
Military Electronics Programs, Masters Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.
Greenhouse,
S.W.,
analysis
of profile
Gumble,
B.
and
(October
Computers?",
Geisser,
data.
1988).
Defense
Jane's Weapon Systems
Bernard Blake, Jane's
York,
S.
(1959).
On
Psychometrica,
83.
"How
Tough
Electronics,
Vol.
are
methods
in
Ruggedized
20, No.
11.
(1987). Eighteenth Edition, Edited
Publishing Company Limited, New
1987.
80
the
by
York,
New
JANE's
Radar
and
Electronic
Edited by Bernard
York, New York.
Blake,
Warfare
Jane's
Systems
Publishing
(1991).
Third
Company
Limited,
JANE's Fighting Ships (1991). Edited by Richard Sharpe,
Publishing Company Limited, New York, New York.
Jaszka, P. R. (Oct 1988).
Defense
Electronics,
Edition,
New
Jane's
"AEGIS System Still Gets High Marks",
Vol
20,
No.
Meister, D. (1985) Behavioral
New York: Wiley.
11.
analysis
and
measurement
methods,
Morrocco, J.D. (25 May 1987). "Missile Attack, Kuwaiti Pact Could
Draw U.S. into Gulf War", Aviation Week & Space Technology, Vol
126.
Naval
Ocean
Systems
Center
(1
Apr
1991).
Critical
item
development specification for display and control console
AN/SLQ-32(V) Electronic Warfare System. San Diego, CA.
upgrade
Rawles, J. W. (Nov 1987). "Electronic Warfare
Defense Electronics, Vol. 20, No. 12.
Five",
Sanders,
M.
and
Engineering
McCormick,
and Design,
E.
New
J.
(1987).
York:
Twelfth
P. R.
(1990).
Printing,
The
Madison,
Team
Human
Resource
Handbook,
Wisconsin.
81
Factors
in
Manual,
Dynamics
McGraw-Hill.
Shinnick, M. D. (1987). MODAPTS PLUS
Research Group, Blacksburg, Va.
Scholtes,
: The Mighty
Joiner
Associates
Inc.,
Stroud,
J. M.
Combat
(1991).
System
Report, Virginia
Blacksburg, VA.
Test
Plan for
and
Improving
Integration
Polytechnic
Institute
82
the
Quality
Process,
and
State
of a Naval
Master's
Project
University,
and
VITA
Robert
Monroe
Lynchburg,
Dyess,
Jr.
was
Va.
He
graduated
from
in Appomattox,
Va.
in 1978.
He
Degree
from
1982
and,
officer
in
In
the United
States
subsequently,
was
the
branch.
the
infantry
military
he
Fury
in
Grenada
commander
in
Germany
in
1989,
under
a military
program
and
Institute
completion,
General
he
1990,
he began
and
State
funded
the
Staff College
1983.
As
the
an
graduate
studies
of study.
will
attend
fall
of the
at Virginia
Following
graduate
the U.S.
Army
Command
Kansas.
M.
in
Iron
Engineering
Robert
and
company
Systems
at Fort Leavenworth,
83
States
infantry
the
in
United
in
he participated
watched
University
program
author
in
of Science
Army
Division,
in
School
a Regular
Airborne
Urgent
High
Point
in both
Operation
1959
at West
served
in the 82nd
Polytechnic
Academy
as
22,
County
a Bachelor
commissioned
service,
December
Appomattox
Military
While
In August
on
received
in Europe.
Curtain.
born
Dyess,
Jr.