evaluation of the marconi personal role radio

Transcription

DRDC-Toronto CR-2005-031
EVALUATION OF THE MARCONI PERSONAL ROLE RADIO
by:
David W. Tack and Edward T. Nakaza
Humansystems® Incorporated
111 Farquhar St., 2nd floor
Guelph, ON N1H 3N4
Project Director:
David W. Tack
(519) 836 5911
PWGSC Contract No. W7711-017747/001/TOR
Call-Up 7747-16
HSI SIREQ Item #88
On behalf of
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
as represented by
Defence Research and Development Canada - Toronto
1133 Sheppard Avenue West
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
M3M 3B9
DRDC Toronto Scientific Authority
LCol Linda Bossi
(416) 635-2197
May 2005
This document contains information that may not be passed or shared, even in confidence, with
foreign military, research and development representatives or civilian contractors of any nationality
without the expressed prior permission of the Exploitation Manager of SIREQ TD.
The scientific or technical validity of this Contract Report is entirely the responsibility of the
contractor and the contents do not necessarily have the approval or endorsement of Defence R&D
Canada
© Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Minister of National Defence, 2005
© Sa Majesté la Reine, représentée par le ministre de la Défense nationale, 2005
Abstract
This experiment investigated the differences between the current in-service Tactical Command
Control and Communications System (TCCCS) radio condition versus the Personal Role Radio
(PRR) in situation awareness, mental workload, teamwork, coordination, communication
effectiveness and mission performance. It also assessed the tactical feasibility and usability issues
specific to the PRR product and whether the PRR should be acquisitioned for the Canadian
Armed Forces.
The findings from our SIREQ1 experiments have concluded that a small unit radio enhanced
successful information transfer in a timely manner, better coordinated attacks within Section and
within Platoon, increased flow of communication, increased mission tempo, improved
ammunition consumption as a result of more effective fire control, improved cueing of indirect
fire support resulting from the faster dissemination of information, and increased individual and
collective situational awareness.
In conclusion, lessons learned (LL) and tactics, techniques and procedures (TTP’s) based on
findings from past and present Fort Benning Experimentation Series (FBES), and drawn
extensively from the United States Marine Corps, Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory
(MCWL), UK Government, and non-military publications are discussed.
1
SIREQ TD stands for Soldier Information REQuirements Technology Demonstration project. This is a 4year research effort, led by DRDC Toronto, to scientifically validate the information and display capabilities
that will dramatically improve the situation awareness, target acquisition and command execution
performance of the Canadian dismounted soldier of the future (Tack and Nakaza, 2002).
Humansystems Incorporated®
PRR Evaluation
Page i
Résumé
Dans le cadre de cette expérience, on a étudié les différences entre le poste radio Système
tactique de commandement, de contrôle et de communication (STCCC) utilisé actuellement en
service et le poste radio personnel (PRP) dans les cas suivants : connaissance de la situation,
charge de travail mental, travail d’équipe, coordination, efficacité de la communication et le
rendement pendant la mission. On a également évalué les questions de faisabilité tactique et
d’utilisation propres au produit PRP et on a déterminé s’il faut faire l’acquisition du PRP pour les
Forces canadiennes.
Les résultats des expériences SIREQ2 ont révélé qu’un petit poste radio permettait d’accélérer le
transfert de l’information, de mieux coordonner les attaques au sein de la Section et du peloton,
d’accroître la transmission des messages et la cadence opérationnelle, d’améliorer la
consommation de munitions par suite d’une conduite de tir plus efficace ainsi que la signalisation
de l’appui-feu indirect grâce à la diffusion plus rapide de l’information et d’accroître la
connaissance individuelle et collective de la situation.
En somme, on a analysé les leçons retenues (LR) ainsi que les tactiques, techniques et procédures
(TTP) basées sur les résultats de la série d’expérimentations antérieures et actuelles menées à
Fort Benning et tirées de documents non militaires et de documents publiés par le United States
Marine Corps, le Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory (MCWL) et le gouvernement du R.-U.
2
Dirigé par RDDC Toronto, SIREQ TD, ou Projet de démonstration de technologie des besoins des soldats
en matière d’information, est un projet d’une durée de quatre ans. Il vise à valider scientifiquement les
capacités en matière d’informations et de présentations qui permettront d’améliorer considérablement la
connaissance de la situation, l’acquisition de cibles et le rendement du futur soldat débarqué canadien en ce
qui concerne l’exécution des commandes. (Tack et Nakaza, 2002).
PRR Evaluation
Page ii
Executive Summary
The SIREQ3 cognitive task analyses identified the abilities to transfer information and to
communicate between members in dismounted infantry Sections as critical requirements for
mission success. In the case of a typical execution phase of any mission, soldiers currently
whisper or use hand signals, passed from person to person, during stealthy actions or use yelled
voices during engagement actions. Both methods have their shortcomings. To overcome these
current deficiencies in intra and inter-section communications, most soldier modernization
programmes have adopted an intra and inter-section radio as part of their hardware ensemble
(Tack and Adams, 2002).
Therefore this current experiment investigated the differences between the current in-service
Tactical Command Control and Communications System (TCCCS) radio condition versus the
Personal Role Radio (PRR) in situation awareness, mental workload, teamwork, coordination,
communication effectiveness and mission performance. It also assessed the tactical feasibility
and usability issues specific to the PRR product and whether the PRR should be acquisitioned for
the Canadian Armed Forces.
A troop trial and a series of two PRR experiments were completed over the course of 2002 and
2003 at Fort Benning, Georgia, U.S.A. with eighty-nine Canadian Forces (CF) infantry soldiers.
The most recent experiment built upon previous findings and required three Sections and a
Weapons Detachment (Det.) to maneuver independently through wooded terrain to an objective
rendezvous. The Platoon then advanced to engage a Section of enemy force soldiers occupying a
defensive position in the MOUT village. Forty-seven regular force infantry soldiers undertook
force-on-force tactical assault missions through wooded terrain to the urban environment.
Subjective evaluations from questionnaire data included information transfer, within section
abilities, within platoon abilities, overall acceptance, acceptance of radio statements, importance
of radios, important radio features, and the acceptability of PRR equipment features: radio,
headset, remote PTT. Participants ranked all radio conditions upon completion of the
experiment. A focus group discussion with all participants following the testing allowed key
issues to be reviewed.
The findings from our SIREQ experiments have concluded that a small unit radio enhanced
successful information transfer in a timely manner, better coordinated attacks within Section and
within Platoon, increased flow of communication, increased mission tempo, improved
collective situational awareness. When compared to the current in-service TCCCS only
condition, a highly statistically significant effect was observed where soldiers were unanimously
in favour of the PRR. While the overall acceptance of the PRR condition was significantly
3
SIREQ TD stands for Soldier Information REQuirements Technology Demonstration project. This is a 4year research effort, led by DRDC Toronto, to scientifically validate the information and display capabilities
that will dramatically improve the situation awareness, target acquisition and command execution
performance of the Canadian dismounted soldier of the future (Tack and Nakaza, 2002).
PRR Evaluation
Page iii
higher than for the current in-service TCCCS only condition, a number of specific design
shortcomings have been identified with the PRR. Chief among these concerns were the
transmission cut-outs with the PTT, headset cord length, and the need for a right ear headset for
left eye shooters. Soldiers also felt the need for a PRR standard operating procedure (SOP) in
order to ensure effective communications can be maintained.
In conclusion, lessons learned (LL) and tactics, techniques and procedures (TTP’s) based on
findings from past and present Fort Benning Experimentation Series (FBES), and drawn
extensively from the United States Marine Corps, Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory
(MCWL), UK Government, and non-military publications are discussed. The listed LL and
TTP’s are particulars, which have been discovered during laboratory testing and field
experiments and may be combined with the current CF doctrine, which will provide best
practices for this new item of soldier equipment.
PRR Evaluation
Page iv
Sommaire
Les analyses cognitives des tâches associées au SIREQ4 ont révélé que la capacité de transférer
des informations et de communiquer avec d’autres militaires dans des sections d’infanterie
débarquées était essentielle au succès d’une mission. Lors d’une phase d’exécution traditionnelle
d’une mission donnée, les soldats communiquent actuellement à voix basse ou par des signes de
la main, durant les missions discrètes, ou en criant, durant les engagements. Les deux méthodes
comportent des lacunes. Afin de corriger les lacunes actuelles liées à la communication
intrasection ou intersection, les responsables de la plupart des programmes de modernisation du
soldat ont adopté un poste radio intrasection et intersection et l’ont ajouté à leur ensemble de
matériel (Tack et Adams, 2002).
Par conséquent, on a étudié dans le cadre de cette expérience les différences entre le poste radio
Système tactique de commandement, de contrôle et de communication (STCCC) utilisé
actuellement en service et le poste radio personnel (PRP) dans les cas suivants : connaissance de
la situation, charge de travail mental, travail d’équipe, coordination, efficacité de la
communication et le rendement pendant la mission. On a également évalué les questions de
faisabilité tactique et d’utilisation propres au produit PRP et on a déterminé s’il faut faire
l’acquisition du PRP pour les Forces canadiennes.
Un essai en unité et une série de deux expériences mettant en jeu le PRP ont été effectués en
2002 et 2003, à Fort Benning, en Géorgie, aux É.-U. Quatre-vingt-neuf soldats d’infanterie des
Forces canadiennes (FC) y ont participé. Dans le cadre de la plus récente expérience qui s’est
fondée sur des résultats obtenus antérieurement, trois sections et un détachement d’armes
devaient traverser indépendamment un terrain forestier pour se rendre à un point de rendez-vous
à l’objectif. Le peloton s’est avancé par la suite pour engager le combat contre une section de
forces ennemies en position de défense dans le village où se déroule l’Op ZB. Quarante-sept
soldats d’infanterie de la Force régulière ont mené des missions tactiques d’assaut de force contre
force avançant à travers un terrain pour atteindre le milieu urbain.
Des évaluations subjectives réalisées à partir de données de questionnaire portaient sur le
transfert d’informations, que la section et le peloton ont eu la capacité d’effectuer, l’acceptation
générale, l’acceptation des énoncés communiqués par radio, l’importance des radios, les éléments
importants du poste radio et l’acceptabilité des composantes du PRP : radio, casque d’écoute,
PTT à distance. Les participants ont évalué tous les éléments du poste radio à la fin de
l’expérience. Après l’essai, un groupe de discussion a rencontré tous les participants pour
analyser des points clés.
Les résultats des expériences SIREQ ont révélé qu’un petit poste radio permettait d’accélérer le
transfert de l’information, de mieux coordonner les attaques au sein de la Section et du peloton,
4
Dirigé par RDDC Toronto, SIREQ TD, ou Projet de démonstration de technologie des besoins des soldats
en matière d’information, est un projet d’une durée de quatre ans. Il vise à valider scientifiquement les
capacités en matière d’informations et de présentations qui permettront d’améliorer considérablement la
connaissance de la situation, l’acquisition de cibles et le rendement du futur soldat débarqué canadien en ce
qui concerne l’exécution des commandes. (Tack et Nakaza, 2002).
PRR Evaluation
Page v
d’accroître la transmission des messages et la cadence opérationnelle, d’améliorer la
consommation de munitions par suite d’une conduite de tir plus efficace ainsi que la signalisation
de l’appui-feu indirect grâce à la diffusion plus rapide de l’information et d’accroître la
connaissance individuelle et collective de la situation. Lorsqu’on a comparé ce poste radio au
STCCC en usage actuellement en service, on a remarqué que tous les soldats s’étaient
unanimement prononcés en faveur du PRP, ce qui est très significatif. Certes le STCCC, qui est
en service actuellement, est beaucoup moins populaire que le PRP, si l’on juge par l’acceptation
générale de celui-ci, mais certains défauts de conception ont été décelés chez le PRP, dont les
plus importants étaient les coupures de la transmission, la longueur du cordon du casque d’écoute
et le manque d’un casque d’écoute qui se porte dans l’oreille droite pour les tireurs qui visent
avec l’œil gauche. Les soldats ont également noté qu’il était nécessaire d’élaborer des instructions
permanentes d’opération (IPO) pour le PRP afin de maintenir l’efficacité des communications.
En somme, on a analysé les leçons retenues (LR) ainsi que les tactiques, techniques et procédures
(TTP) basées sur les résultats de la série d’expérimentations antérieures et actuelles menées à
Fort Benning et tirées de documents non militaires et de documents publiés par le United States
Marine Corps, le Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory (MCWL) et le gouvernement du R.-U.
Les LR et les TTP énumérées sont précises puisqu’elles sont le fruit d’essais en laboratoire et
d’expériences sur le terrain. Elles peuvent être intégrées à la doctrine actuelle des FC, ce qui
fournira des pratiques exemplaires pour ce nouvel article de l’équipement du soldat.
PRR Evaluation
Page vi
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................................................I
RÉSUMÉ ......................................................................................................................................................... II
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................................III
SOMMAIRE ................................................................................................................................................... V
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................ VII
LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................................................VIII
LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................................................IX
1
BACKGROUND....................................................................................................................................... 1
2
AIMS ......................................................................................................................................................... 3
3
METHOD.................................................................................................................................................. 4
3.1
OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................................ 4
3.2
PARTICIPANTS ................................................................................................................................... 5
3.3
QUESTIONNAIRE RATING SCALE ....................................................................................................... 5
3.4
MATERIALS ....................................................................................................................................... 6
3.4.1 Marconi Radio ............................................................................................................................. 6
3.5
PROCEDURE ...................................................................................................................................... 8
3.5.1 Approach ..................................................................................................................................... 8
3.6
LIMITATIONS..................................................................................................................................... 9
4
RESULTS................................................................................................................................................ 10
4.1
SUBJECTIVE PERFORMANCE MEASURES ......................................................................................... 10
4.1.1 Exit Questionnaire for Information Transfer............................................................................. 10
4.1.2 Exit Questionnaire for Within Section Use of Information ........................................................ 16
4.1.3 Exit Questionnaire for Within Platoon Use of Information ....................................................... 21
4.1.4 Overall Acceptance.................................................................................................................... 26
4.1.5 Statements of Importance........................................................................................................... 29
4.1.6 Importance of a Radio for Mission Phase ................................................................................. 30
4.1.7 Importance of a Radio for Mission Features ............................................................................. 31
4.1.8 Acceptability of PRR Equipment Features................................................................................. 33
4.2
LESSONS LEARNED ......................................................................................................................... 39
4.2.1 Setup .......................................................................................................................................... 39
4.2.2 Operation................................................................................................................................... 41
4.2.3 Security ...................................................................................................................................... 47
4.2.4 Additional Constraints and Recommendations.......................................................................... 48
4.2.5 Method of Destruction ............................................................................................................... 51
4.2.6 Warnings!!!: .............................................................................................................................. 51
5
DISCUSSION.......................................................................................................................................... 52
6
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................... 53
APPENDIX A: EXIT QUESTIONNAIRE................................................................................................ A-1
PRR Evaluation
Page vii
List of Tables
TABLE 1: STATEMENTS OF IMPORTANCE .......................................................................................................... 29
TABLE 2: MISSION PHASES .............................................................................................................................. 30
TABLE 3: MISSION FEATURES .......................................................................................................................... 32
TABLE 4: PRR RADIO FEATURES ..................................................................................................................... 34
TABLE 5: PRR HEADSET FEATURES ................................................................................................................. 36
TABLE 6: PRR REMOTE PUSH-TO-TALK FEATURES ......................................................................................... 37
PRR Evaluation
Page viii
List of Figures
FIGURE 1: CF SOLDIER USING MARCONI PRR ................................................................................................... 2
FIGURE 2: MCKENNA MOUT SITE ..................................................................................................................... 4
FIGURE 3: STANDARD RATING SCALE ................................................................................................................ 5
FIGURE 4: MARCONI PRR RADIO AND ANCILLARIES ......................................................................................... 7
FIGURE 5: OVERALL INFORMATION TRANSFER (LEADERS) .............................................................................. 11
FIGURE 6: OVERALL INFORMATION TRANSFER (NON LEADERS)...................................................................... 14
FIGURE 7: OVERALL WITHIN SECTION (LEADERS) ........................................................................................... 17
FIGURE 8: OVERALL WITHIN SECTION (NON LEADERS)................................................................................... 19
FIGURE 9: OVERALL WITHIN PLATOON (LEADERS).......................................................................................... 22
FIGURE 10: OVERALL WITHIN PLATOON (NON LEADERS) ............................................................................... 24
FIGURE 11: OVERALL ACCEPTANCE (LEADERS)............................................................................................... 27
FIGURE 12: OVERALL ACCEPTANCE (NON LEADERS) ...................................................................................... 28
FIGURE 13: OVERALL ACCEPTANCE (LEADERS VS. NON LEADERS) ................................................................. 29
FIGURE 14: STATEMENT OF IMPORTANCE......................................................................................................... 30
FIGURE 15: IMPORTANCE OF A RADIO FOR MISSION PHASE .............................................................................. 31
FIGURE 16: IMPORTANCE OF A RADIO FOR MISSION FEATURES ........................................................................ 33
FIGURE 17: PRR RADIO FEATURE ACCEPTABILITY........................................................................................... 35
FIGURE 18: PRR HEADSET FEATURE ACCEPTABILITY ...................................................................................... 37
FIGURE 19: PRR REMOTE PTT FEATURE ACCEPTABILITY ................................................................................ 38
PRR Evaluation
Page ix
1
Background
Dominance in effective communications has been a fundamental factor in warfare success but the
prolific advances in information and computing dissemination technology in the past century, will
provide the infantry soldier with resources “that were beyond everyone’s imagination only a
decade ago.” (global-defence.com, 2003)
The SIREQ cognitive task analyses identified the abilities to transfer information and to
communicate between members in dismounted infantry Sections as critical requirements for
mission success. In the case of a typical execution phase of any mission, soldiers currently
whisper or use hand signals, passed from person to person, during stealthy actions or use yelled
voices during engagement actions. Both methods have their shortcomings: hand signals require
a line of sight between the sender and receiver and good visibility, and raised voices indicate the
speaker’s location to the enemy, reveal your intent to the English speaking enemy, and risk
intelligibility problems or the message being unheard in noisy battle conditions. To overcome
these current deficiencies in intra and inter-section communications, most soldier modernization
programmes have adopted an intra and inter-section radio as part of their hardware ensemble
(Tack and Adams, 2002).
Accepting the deficiencies in our current methods of intra and inter-section communication, the
choice of a radio still raises a number of issues and opportunities for investigation. While the
provision of a radio would seem intuitively attractive for addressing the transfer of information
within and between the Section, SIREQ needs to determine which performance parameters are
enhanced by the use of a radio and how these enhancements affect measures of mission outcome.
For example, does the provision of a radio enhance individual and/or collective situation
awareness, reduce individual mental workload, and/or improve team coordination and execution?
If some or all of these enhancements are realized by the addition of a radio, are these
enhancements sufficiently large enough to increase the likelihood and degree of mission success
(e.g. fewer errors in execution, faster mission execution, fewer friendly casualties, more enemy
casualties, fewer resources expended)? It is likely that providing a radio will enhance some
elements of individual and/or collective performance and that some of these enhancements will
improve some aspects of mission outcome (Tack and Adams, 2002).
To overcome these current deficiencies, this experiment investigated the above limitations and
factors using the Personal Role Radio (PRR) during close-in warfare, by empirically comparing
the subjective performance of soldiers at the Fort Benning McKenna MOUT5 site over the course
of Fort Benning Experimentation Series #5 (FBES#5).
The H4855 PRR, developed by Marconi Kominikasyon A.Ş, provides short-range
communication for the dismounted infantry soldier. The PRR includes a ruggedized, wireless
LAN radio (2.4 GHz), wireless push-to-talk (PTT), integrated headset with boom microphone,
ensures that the system has a low probability of interception (LPI) and low probability of
5
MOUT stands for Military Operations in Urban Terrain. The current Canadian Forces (CFs) equivalent
terminology is FIBUA (Fighting in Built-Up Areas) although there is a move to rename to Urban Operations.
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 1
detection (LPD), and gives the soldier a dedicated system to meet the full range of front line
communication requirements. Reference Figure 1.
PRR Headset
PRR Radio
Figure 1: CF Soldier Using Marconi PRR
Both the Director Land Requirements 5 (DLR 5) and SIREQ were interested in investigating the
issues and opportunities afforded by such a product at both the Section and Platoon levels.
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 2
2
Aims
This experiment evaluated the suitability of the PRR for small unit missions according to the
following aims:
Investigate the differences in situation awareness, mental workload, and mission
performance between radio conditions.
Compare teamwork, coordination, and communication effectiveness between radio
conditions.
Assess the tactical feasibility and usability issues specific to the PRR product.
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 3
3
Method
3.1
Overview
The following description provides a general overview of the trial method. Further details are
provided in subsequent sections.
This most recent experiment built upon previous findings and investigated the suitability of the
PRR for small unit missions by empirically comparing the subjective performance of soldiers
during the course of platoon missions. An eight-day field trial over the period of 7-17 March
2003, was undertaken at Ft. Benning, Georgia. Forty-seven regular force infantry soldiers were
required to undertake force-on-force tactical assault missions through wooded terrain to assault
and secure a small village. The assaulting force comprised a Company HQ, two Platoon HQs,
three dismounted infantry Sections, and a Weapons Detachment (Det.) to assault one defending
Section in the McKenna MOUT. Reference Figure 2.
Figure 2: McKenna MOUT Site
The analyses reported in this report are based on the results from this most recent trial, however,
the accompanying lessons learned (LL) and the tactics techniques and procedures (TTPs)
documented in this report were based on findings from this trial as well as the following previous
trials.
Troop Trial: A six-day field troop trial was undertaken at Fort Benning, Georgia over the period
3-15 November, 2002. Twenty-six regular force infantry soldiers were required to participate in
simulated field missions, during daytime section and platoon attacks.
Field Trial: A four-day field trial was also undertaken at Fort Benning, Georgia over the period
of 4-8 November 2002. Two groups of eight regular force infantry soldiers were required to
participate in MOUT clearing tactics as members of an assault group during day and nighttime
operations.
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 4
Soldiers were required to complete missions in each of the following radio assignment
conditions.
1. TCCCS (Tactical Command, Control and Communications Systems) Only: This
condition comprised the current in-service assignment of TCCCS radios to the Section
Comd, Pl Comd, and Coy Comd. No other soldiers were equipped with radios.
2. PRR All: All members of the assaulting force were provided with PRR’s.
During the PRR All radio condition, each Section and Weapons Det. Commander was able to
speak to his Section on an all informed net. Each Section and Weapons Det. Commander also
had the ability to switch to any other Section net and had the ability to contact the Platoon
Leader. Commanders at all levels had the two-pressel combat net radio (CNR) switch allowing
them to operate the TCCCS (521 and 522) on the PRR handset.
During each experimentation session, the presentation of PRR conditions was balanced to
minimize order effects amongst participants. Questionnaires, focus group comments, and Human
Factor (HF) observer assessment data was collected and analyzed.
Statistical differences were determined using a balanced, repeated-measures analysis of variance
for the exit questionnaire results. Differences were identified at p ≤ 0.05 and n=13 for all the
Leader conditions (n=8 for the Within Section data), and n=17 for all the non Leader conditions
and n=30 for the combined data. Duncan’s post-hoc analyses were conducted on significant exit
questionnaire results.
3.2
Participants
Forty-seven regular force infantry soldiers were recruited from the Princess Patricia Canadian
Light Infantry (3PPCLI), to participate in this study. The mean age of the participants was 25.8
years (SD=5.5, max=38, min=18). The mean service in the regular forces was 5.1 years
(SD=0.7, max=17, min=1).
The group consisted of one Major (2.1%), two Lieutenants (4.3%), one Warrant Officer (2.1%),
four Sergeants (8.5%), five Master Corporals (10.6%), nine Corporals (19.1%), and twenty-five
Privates (53.2%).
3.3
Questionnaire Rating Scale
Participants rated Information Transfer, Within Section and Within Platoon acceptability using
the seven-point scale shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Standard Rating Scale
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 5
3.4
Materials
3.4.1
Marconi Radio
Main Features
The PRR uses advanced wireless LAN technology incorporating spread spectrum techniques at
2.4 GHz, to ensure that the system has a low probability of interception and detection, and
minimizes interference between co-located PRR’s.
Two variants of the Push-to-Talk (PTT) switch assembly are provided for single or dual radio
operation. The headset is developed from in-service designs and is both rugged and flexible
being compatible with all standard military headgear.
A wireless hands-free PTT is also incorporated into the system. Operating at 435 MHz, the
uniquely encoded PTT can operate the PRR PTT from a few meters, giving users the freedom to
concentrate on primary tasks. Reference Figure 4.
Other Features:
•
Up to 500 m Range
•
Compatibility with all military clothing and protective head gear
•
Simple user interface
•
256 Channel capability (16 directly available to the user)
•
Easily mounted on the user – small and unobtrusive
•
Operates in a wide range of military scenarios
•
Operates independently of any infrastructures
•
Operates from 2 standard AA size batteries
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 6
Figure 4: Marconi PRR Radio and Ancillaries
The Radio
The radio is simple to operate, small and lightweight (0.5 kg or 1.1 lbs with batteries and
ancillaries) and does not require any other communications infrastructure. It uses two standard
AA size battery cells and can operate with most primary and secondary battery technologies
including alkaline and lithium. The radio requires no support in the field beyond the replacement
or recharging of battery cells and can be rapidly deployed to become part of the soldier’s
personal equipment.
The radio transmissions utilize a proprietary form of Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum, which,
to an eavesdropper, will appear like noise. The radio thus has good resistance against interfering
signals and provides a LPI and LPD.
The Ancillaries
The earpiece and microphone are mounted on common webbing which has a headband plus an
“over the head” strap to ensure that the microphone and headset remain in position after
adjustment by the wearer. In particular, it will not slip during exertion or body movement.
The microphone has been shaped in order to ensure that it does not impede the peripheral vision
of the wearer, especially when using a standard Army infantry weapon. In addition, the
microphone will be worn outside an NBC mask, in conjunction with an extension tube, to
provide clear and intelligible voice. This offers significant improvements over standard fitted
equipment.
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 7
Technical Characteristics
Operating Frequency
2,400 - 2483 MHz
256 Channels available
Transmit Power
50 Mw
Modulation
Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum
Voice Coding CVSD
Data Protocol
Modified IEEE 802.11
Battery
2 AA primary cells provide typically 24 hour use
(1:7:16 Tx/Rx/S’BY Ratio)
Range
500 meters (Rural Terrain) transmission through up to
three floors (Urban Terrain)
Microphone
Electret Noise Canceling
Respirator
NBC Compatible
Ear Piece
Custom Molded design
Compatibility
VHF Combat Radio
UHF Combat Radio
HF Combat Radio
Hands Free Operation
435 MHz wireless operation
128 Bit Unique Coding
Simple Code Learn Mode
(Marconi.com, 2001)
3.5
Procedure
3.5.1
Approach
Participants were given an orientation briefing verbally, and in writing, on the overall study, its
objectives, test activities, mission structure, and the protocol for the experiment. This
experiment offered minimal risk to the participant’s health and wellbeing. There were anticipated
risks with this experiment, which were normally associated with the activities conducted during
field exercises including: trips, falls or sprains, and exertion-related heat illness or injury. All
participants were required to read and sign an ethics approved consent form.
One Platoon assault was performed every afternoon for eight days. For any one mission, the
Platoon assault started with each of the three Sections, the Weapons Det., and the Platoon head
quarter (HQ) being deployed to separate initiation points about 500 m from the objective village.
The initiation point locations were balanced and randomized to minimize order effects amongst
participants. Each Section and Weapons Det. maneuvered independently through wooded terrain
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 8
to an objective rendezvous (ORV). Following a quick reconnaissance of the MOUT, the Platoon
Commander updated his plan of attack and briefed his Section Commanders.
The Platoon then advanced to engage a Section of enemy soldiers occupying a defensive position
in the MOUT village. The enemy force soldiers were not subjects in the PRR experiment.
Radios were used to coordinate movements, actions, and fire at both the Platoon and Section
levels.
HF measures included assessments of mission performance, situation awareness, workload,
communication measures and teamwork factors, as well as the subjective utility and usability
assessments of the PRR’s. Data collection included questionnaires, focus group comments, and
HF observer assessments.
3.6
Limitations
This study had several limitations.
•
Although the experimenters tried to balance and randomize the initiation points and
objective buildings, the soldiers had become very familiar with the wooded terrain and
MOUT village after experience with several attacks. This may have inclined the soldiers
to a better cognitive map of the environment and thereby requiring less PRR use to
acquire sufficient situational awareness.
• Due to the nature of the PRR, the size of the participant sample, and the difficulty in
capturing communication data with this system, the results reported in this experiment
were limited to subjective questionnaire and focus group data collected in a controlled
field environment.
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 9
4
Results
4.1
Subjective Performance Measures
Due to the mixed distribution of the radio conditions between the Leaders and non Leaders
during the course of this experiment, the subjective data was divided into Leader and non Leader
groupings for Information Transfer, Within Section, Within Platoon, and Overall Acceptance,
and analyzed. To determine the interaction effects between the radio conditions, planned
comparisons were performed investigating the conditions on specific Exit Questionnaire
parameters. Statistical analyses consisted of repeated measures ANOVA between conditions for
the Exit Questionnaire data and Duncan’s post-hoc analyses were conducted on significant results
for further interrogation.
In addition, the combined results from both the Leaders’ and non Leaders’ acceptance of radio
statements, importance of radios, important radio features, and acceptability of PRR equipment
features(Radio, Headset, Remote PTT) were examined.
Significant differences were identified at p ≤ 0.05 and n=13 for all the Leader conditions (n=8
for the Within Section data), and n=17 for all the non Leader conditions and n=30 for the
combined data. Unless otherwise noted on the following graphs, a geometric shape denotes the
subjective means, the ‘box’ denotes ± 1 standard error, and the error bars denote ± 1 standard
deviation.
4.1.1
Exit Questionnaire for Information Transfer
Infantry Leaders and non Leaders rated the acceptability of the Information Transfer abilities of
the experimentation conditions with the statements, ‘Amount of Information that can be Passed,’
‘Time Required to Pass Information,’ ‘Timeliness for Initiating Comms,’ ‘Ease of Passing
Information,’ ‘Ease of Requesting Information,’ ‘Ease of Receiving Information,’ ‘Ease of
Getting Acknowledgement of Information Received,’ ‘Ease of Getting Acknowledgement of
Information Understood,’ ‘Accuracy of Information Passed,’ and ‘Message Detail Possible.’ The
scaled ratings of the Leaders and non-Leaders (1 to 7) were tabulated, and means computed for
each condition separately.
4.1.1.1 Overall Information Transfer (Leaders)
When comparing the Leader’s response to all ten information transfer variables between the two
radio conditions (TCCCS only vs. PRR), a highly statistically significant effect was observed,
F(1, 12)=21.0, p<.001. Duncan’s post-hoc analyses showed that the PRR condition was rated
significantly higher in all ten information transfer questions versus the TCCCS only radio
condition. Reference Figure 5. The Leader’s mean acceptability ratings demonstrate that the
PRR’s were better accepted than the current in-service option for the overall transfer of
information.
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 10
Completely Acceptable
Reasonably Acceptable
Acceptability
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
Reasonably Unacceptable
Completely Unacceptable
TCCCS Only
PRR
Amnt Info Pass
Tme Info Pass
Tme Init Comm
Ease Pass Info
Ease Rqst Info
Ease Rcve Info
Ease Ackn Info
Rcve
Ease Ackn
Undstd
Accuracy Info
Mssge Detail
Radio Condition
Figure 5: Overall Information Transfer (Leaders)
4.1.1.1.1 Amount of Information that can be Passed (Leaders)
A highly significant difference was observed between the TCCCS and PRR radio conditions in
terms of the amount of information that can be passed, F(1, 12)=39.41, p<.001, with the PRR
being more acceptable in the amount of information passed than with the TCCCS. The mean
acceptability rating for the TCCCS radio was between “Borderline” and “Barely Acceptable,”
while the PRR was rated between “Barely Acceptable” and “Reasonably Acceptable.”
4.1.1.1.2 Time Required to Pass Information (Leaders)
A significant difference was observed between the TCCCS and PRR radio conditions in terms of
the time required to pass information, F(1, 12)=11.64, p=.005, with the acceptability of the
PRR higher than compared to the TCCCS. The mean acceptability rating for the TCCCS radio
was between “Borderline” and “Barely Acceptable,” while the PRR was rated between “Barely
Acceptable” and “Reasonably Acceptable.”
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 11
4.1.1.1.3 Timeliness for Initiating Comms (Leaders)
the timeliness for initiating comms, F(1, 12)=14.34, p=.003, with the PRR being more
acceptable in the timeliness than with the TCCCS. The mean acceptability rating for the TCCCS
radio was between “Borderline” and “Barely Acceptable,” while the PRR was rated between
“Barely Acceptable” and “Reasonably Acceptable.”
4.1.1.1.4 Ease of Passing Information (Leaders)
the ease of passing information, F(1, 12)=9.72, p=.01, with the PRR being more acceptable in
the passing of information than with the TCCCS. The mean acceptability rating for the TCCCS
4.1.1.1.5 Ease of Requesting Information (Leaders)
the ease of requesting information, F(1, 12)=9.04, p=.01, with the PRR being more acceptable
in the requesting of information than with the TCCCS. The mean acceptability rating for the
TCCCS radio was between “Borderline” and “Barely Acceptable,” while the PRR was rated
between “Barely Acceptable” and “Reasonably Acceptable.”
4.1.1.1.6 Ease of Receiving Information (Leaders)
the ease of receiving information, F(1, 12)=15.70, p=.002, with the PRR being more
acceptable in the receiving of information than with the TCCCS. The mean acceptability rating
for the TCCCS radio was between “Borderline” and “Barely Acceptable,” while the PRR was
rated between “Barely Acceptable” and “Reasonably Acceptable.”
4.1.1.1.7 Ease of Getting Acknowledgement of Information Received (Leaders)
the ease of getting acknowledgement of information received, F(1, 12)=14.63, p=.002, with the
PRR being more acceptable in getting acknowledgement of information received than with the
TCCCS. The mean acceptability rating for the TCCCS radio was between “Borderline” and
“Barely Acceptable,” while the PRR was rated between “Barely Acceptable” and “Reasonably
Acceptable.”
4.1.1.1.8 Ease of Getting Acknowledgement of Information Understood (Leaders)
the ease of getting acknowledgement of information understood, F(1, 12)=7.80, p<.02, with
the PRR being more acceptable in getting acknowledgement of information understood than with
the TCCCS. The mean acceptability rating for the TCCCS radio was between “Borderline” and
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 12
“Barely Acceptable,” while the PRR was rated between “Barely Acceptable” and “Reasonably
Acceptable.”
4.1.1.1.9 Accuracy of Information Passed (Leaders)
the accuracy of information passed, F(1, 12)=8.35, p<.02, with the PRR being more acceptable
in passing accurate information than with the TCCCS. The mean acceptability rating for the
4.1.1.1.10 Message Detail Possible (Leaders)
the message detail possible, F(1, 12)=11.93, p<.005, with the PRR being more acceptable in
terms of possible detail than with the TCCCS. The mean acceptability rating for the TCCCS
4.1.1.2 Overall Information Transfer (Non Leaders)
When comparing the non Leader’s response to all ten information transfer variables between the
two radio conditions (TCCCS only vs. PRR), a highly statistically significant effect was
observed, F(1, 16)=39.12, p<.001. Duncan’s post-hoc analyses showed that the PRR condition
was rated significantly higher in all ten information transfer questions versus the TCCCS only
radio condition. Reference Figure 6. Similar to the Leader’s mean acceptability ratings, the non
Leader’s mean acceptability ratings demonstrate that the PRR’s were better accepted than the
current in-service option for the overall transfer of information.
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 13
Acceptability
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
TCCCS Only
PRR
Amnt Info Pass
Tme Info Pass
Tme Init Comm
Ease Pass Info
Ease Rqst Info
Ease Rcve Info
Ease Ackn Info
Rcve
Ease Ackn
Undstd
Accuracy Info
Mssge Detail
Radio Condition
Figure 6: Overall Information Transfer (Non Leaders)
4.1.1.2.1 Amount of Information that can be Passed (Non Leaders)
terms of the amount of information that can be passed, F(1, 16)=34.00, p<.001, with the PRR
being more acceptable in the amount of information passed than with the TCCCS. The mean
acceptability rating for the TCCCS radio was between “Borderline” and “Barely Acceptable,”
while the PRR was rated between “Reasonably Acceptable” and “Completely Acceptable.”
4.1.1.2.2 Time Required to Pass Information (Non Leaders)
terms of the time required to pass information, F(1, 16)=30.16, p<.001, with the acceptability
of the PRR higher than compared to the TCCCS. The mean acceptability rating for the TCCCS
radio was less than “Borderline,” while the PRR was rated between “Reasonably Acceptable”
and “Completely Acceptable.”
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 14
4.1.1.2.3 Timeliness for Initiating Comms (Non Leaders)
the timeliness for initiating comms, F(1, 16)=12.36, p<.002, with the PRR being more
acceptable in the timeliness than with the TCCCS. The mean acceptability rating for the TCCCS
4.1.1.2.4 Ease of Passing Information (Non Leaders)
terms of the ease of passing information, F(1, 16)=26.24, p<.001, with the PRR being more
acceptable in the passing of information than with the TCCCS. The mean acceptability rating for
the TCCCS radio was between “Borderline” and “Barely Acceptable,” while the PRR was rated
between “Reasonably Acceptable” and “Completely Acceptable.”
4.1.1.2.5 Ease of Requesting Information (Non Leaders)
terms of the ease of requesting information, F(1, 16)=29.33, p<.001, with the PRR being more
acceptable in the requesting of information than with the TCCCS. The mean acceptability rating
rated between “Reasonably Acceptable” and “Completely Acceptable.”
4.1.1.2.6 Ease of Receiving Information (Non Leaders)
terms of the ease of receiving information, F(1, 16)=29.33, p<.001, with the PRR being more
acceptable in the receiving of information than with the TCCCS. The mean acceptability rating
4.1.1.2.7 Ease of Getting Acknowledgement of Information Received (Non Leaders)
terms of the ease of getting acknowledgement of information received, F(1, 16)=21.84,
p<.001, with the PRR being more acceptable in getting acknowledgement of information
received than with the TCCCS. The mean acceptability rating for the TCCCS radio was between
“Borderline” and “Barely Acceptable,” while the PRR was rated between “Reasonably
Acceptable” and “Completely Acceptable.”
4.1.1.2.8 Ease of Getting Acknowledgement of Information Understood (Non Leaders)
terms of the ease of getting acknowledgement of information understood, F(1, 16)=25.91,
p<.001, with the PRR being more acceptable in getting acknowledgement of information
understood than with the TCCCS. The mean acceptability rating for the TCCCS radio was
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 15
between “Borderline” and “Barely Acceptable,” while the PRR was rated between “Reasonably
4.1.1.2.9 Accuracy of Information Passed (Non Leaders)
terms of the accuracy of information passed, F(1, 16)=50.26, p<.001, with the PRR being
more acceptable in passing accurate information than with the TCCCS. The mean acceptability
rating for the TCCCS radio was between “Borderline” and “Barely Acceptable,” while the PRR
was rated between “Reasonably Acceptable” and “Completely Acceptable.”
4.1.1.2.10 Message Detail Possible (Non Leaders)
terms of the message detail possible, F(1, 16)=25.52, p<.001, with the PRR being more
acceptable compared to the TCCCS. The mean acceptability rating for the TCCCS radio was
between “Borderline” and “Barely Acceptable,” while the PRR was rated greater than
“Reasonably Acceptable.”
4.1.2
Exit Questionnaire for Within Section Use of Information
Infantry Leaders and non Leaders rated the acceptability of the Within Section use of information
with the statements, ‘Coordination of Movement,’ ‘Coordination of Fire,’ ‘Coordination of
Action,’ ‘Issuing/Receiving Orders,’ ‘Designating Targets,’ ‘Ease of Distributing Message
Within Section,’ ‘Awareness of Location of Your Section Members,’ ‘Awareness of Casualties
Among Your Section Members,’ and ‘Awareness of Ammunition Usage of Your Section.’ The
scaled ratings of the Leaders and non-Leaders (1 to 7) were tabulated, and means computed for
each condition separately.
4.1.2.1 Overall Within Section Use of Information (Leaders)
When comparing the Leader’s response to all nine Within Section variables between the two
significantly higher in all Within Section questions versus the TCCCS only radio condition.
Reference Figure 7. The Leader’s mean acceptability ratings demonstrate that overall the PRR’s
were better accepted than the current in-service option for the communication of information
within Sections.
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 16
Acceptability
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
TCCCS Only
PRR
Coord mvt
Coord fire
Coord action
Issue/rcve order
Design trgts
Ease distr mssg
Aware loctn Sectn
Aware casualties
Aware ammo use
Radio Condition
Figure 7: Overall Within Section (Leaders)
4.1.2.1.1 Coordination of Movement (Leaders)
the coordination of movement, F(1, 7)=11.67, p=.01, with the PRR being more acceptable in
coordinating than with the TCCCS. The mean acceptability rating for the TCCCS radio was
between “Borderline” and “Barely Acceptable,” while the PRR was rated “Reasonably
Acceptable.”
4.1.2.1.2 Coordination of Fire (Leaders)
the coordination of fire, F(1, 7)=8.79, p=.02, with the acceptability of the PRR higher than the
TCCCS. The mean acceptability rating for the TCCCS radio was “Barely Acceptable,” while
the PRR was rated between “Barely Acceptable” and “Reasonably Acceptable.”
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 17
4.1.2.1.3 Coordination of Action (Leaders)
There was no significant difference found between the two radio conditions in terms of the
coordination of action within the section, F(1, 7)=3.32, p=.11. The participants’ mean
acceptability rating for both the TCCCS radio and the PRR was between “Barely Acceptable”
and “Reasonably Acceptable.”
4.1.2.1.4 Issuing/Receiving Orders (Leaders)
issuing/receiving orders, F(1, 7)=15.91, p=.005, with the PRR being more acceptable in the
issuing/receiving orders than with the TCCCS. The mean acceptability rating for the TCCCS
radio was less than “Barely Acceptable,” while the PRR was rated greater than “Reasonably
Acceptable.”
4.1.2.1.5 Designating Targets (Leaders)
designating targets, F(1, 7)=14.00, p=.007, with the PRR being more acceptable than the
TCCCS. The mean acceptability rating for the TCCCS radio was less than “Barely Acceptable,”
while the PRR was rated between “Barely Acceptable” and “Reasonably Acceptable.”
4.1.2.1.6 Ease of Distributing Message Within Section (Leaders)
terms of the ease of distributing messages, F(1, 7)=58.33, p<.001, with the PRR being more
acceptable in the distribution of messages than with the TCCCS. The mean acceptability rating
for the TCCCS radio was “Barely Acceptable,” while the PRR was rated between “Reasonably
4.1.2.1.7 Awareness of Location of Your Section Members (Leaders)
the awareness of location of Section members, F(1, 7)=24.65, p<.002, with the PRR being
more acceptable in location awareness of Section members than with the TCCCS. The mean
acceptability rating for the TCCCS radio was “Barely Acceptable,” while the PRR was rated
greater than “Reasonably Acceptable.”
4.1.2.1.8 Awareness of Casualties Among Your Section Members (Leaders)
terms of the awareness of casualties among Section members, F(1, 7)=31.50, p<.001, with the
PRR being more acceptable in casualty awareness than with the TCCCS. The mean acceptability
was rated between “Barely Acceptable” and “Reasonably Acceptable.”
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 18
4.1.2.1.9 Awareness of Ammunition Usage of Your Section (Leaders)
the awareness of Section ammunition usage, F(1, 7)=15.91, p=.005, with the PRR being more
acceptable than the TCCCS. The mean acceptability rating for the TCCCS radio was between
“Borderline” and “Barely Acceptable,” while the PRR was rated between “Barely Acceptable”
and “Reasonably Acceptable.”
4.1.2.2 Overall Within Section Use of Information (Non Leaders)
When comparing the non Leader’s response to all nine Within Section variables between the two
significantly higher in all Within Section questions versus the TCCCS only radio condition.
Reference Figure 8. Similar to the Leader’s mean acceptability ratings, the non Leader’s mean
acceptability ratings demonstrate that the PRR’s were better accepted than the current in-service
option for the communication of information within Sections.
Acceptability
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
TCCCS Only
PRR
Coord mvt
Coord fire
Coord action
Issue/rcve order
Design trgts
Ease distr mssg
Aware loctn Sectn
Aware casualties
Aware ammo use
Radio Condition
Figure 8: Overall Within Section (Non Leaders)
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 19
4.1.2.2.1 Coordination of Movement (Non Leaders)
terms of the coordination of movement, F(1, 16)=29.07, p<.001, with the PRR being more
acceptable in coordinating than with the TCCCS. The mean acceptability rating for the TCCCS
radio was between “Borderline” and “Barely Acceptable,” while the PRR was greater than
4.1.2.2.2 Coordination of Fire (Non Leaders)
terms of the coordination of fire, F(1, 16)=22.75, p<.001, with the acceptability of the PRR
higher than the TCCCS. The mean acceptability rating for the TCCCS radio was less than
“Barely Acceptable,” while the PRR was rated greater than “Reasonably Acceptable.”
4.1.2.2.3 Coordination of Action (Non Leaders)
terms of the coordination of action within the section, F(1, 16)=20.47, p<.001, with the
acceptability of the PRR higher than the TCCCS. The mean acceptability rating for the TCCCS
radio was between “Borderline” and “Barely Acceptable,” while the PRR was rated greater than
4.1.2.2.4 Issuing/Receiving Orders (Non Leaders)
terms of issuing/receiving orders, F(1, 16)=22.28, p<.001, with the PRR being more
acceptable in the issuing/receiving orders than with the TCCCS. The mean acceptability rating
rated greater than “Reasonably Acceptable.”
4.1.2.2.5 Designating Targets (Non Leaders)
terms of designating targets, F(1, 16)=16.66, p<.001, with the PRR being more acceptable than
the TCCCS. The mean acceptability rating for the TCCCS radio was between “Borderline” and
“Barely Acceptable,” while the PRR was rated greater than “Reasonably Acceptable.”
4.1.2.2.6 Ease of Distributing Message Within Section (Non Leaders)
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 20
4.1.2.2.7 Awareness of Location of Your Section Members (Non Leaders)
terms of the awareness of location of Section members, F(1, 16)=16.82, p<.001, with the PRR
being more acceptable in location awareness of Section members than with the TCCCS. The
mean acceptability rating for the TCCCS radio was between “Borderline” and “Barely
Acceptable,” while the PRR was rated greater than “Reasonably Acceptable.”
4.1.2.2.8 Awareness of Casualties Among Your Section Members (Non Leaders)
terms of the awareness of casualties among Section members, F(1, 16)=18.00, p<.001, with the
4.1.2.2.9 Awareness of Ammunition Usage of Your Section (Non Leaders)
the awareness of Section ammunition usage, F(1, 16)=15.62, p=.001, with the PRR being more
“Borderline” and “Barely Acceptable,” while the PRR was rated greater than “Reasonably
Acceptable.”
4.1.3
Exit Questionnaire for Within Platoon Use of Information
Infantry Leaders and non Leaders rated the acceptability of the Within Platoon use of information
with the statements, ‘Coordination of Platoon Movement,’ ‘Coordination of Platoon Fire,’
‘Coordination of Platoon Action,’ ‘Issuing/Receiving Orders,’ ‘Designating Targets,’ ‘Ease of
Distributing Message Within Platoon,’ ‘Awareness of Location of the Other Sections,’
‘Awareness of Casualties of the Other Sections,’ and ‘Awareness of Ammunition Usage of the
Other Sections.’ The scaled ratings of the Leaders and non-Leaders (1 to 7) were tabulated, and
means computed for each condition separately.
4.1.3.1 Overall Within Platoon Use of Information (Leaders)
When comparing the Leader’s response to all nine Within Platoon variables between the two
significantly higher in all Within Platoon questions versus the TCCCS only radio condition.
Reference Figure 9. Overall, the Leader’s mean acceptability ratings demonstrate that the PRR’s
were better accepted than the current in-service option for the communication of information
within the Platoon.
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 21
Acceptability
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
TCCCS Only
PRR
Coord Plt mvt
Coord Plt fire
Coord Plt action
Issue/rcve order
Design trgts
Ease distr mssg
Aware loctn Sectn
Aware casualties
Aware ammo use
Radio Condition
Figure 9: Overall Within Platoon (Leaders)
4.1.3.1.1 Coordination of Platoon Movement (Leaders)
terms of the coordination of Platoon movement, F(1, 12)=29.67, p<.001, with the PRR being
more acceptable in coordinating than with the TCCCS. The mean acceptability rating for the
4.1.3.1.2 Coordination of Platoon Fire (Leaders)
higher than the TCCCS. The mean acceptability rating for the TCCCS radio was between
“Borderline” and “Barely Acceptable,” while the PRR was rated “Reasonably Acceptable.”
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 22
4.1.3.1.3 Coordination of Platoon Action (Leaders)
the coordination of action within the Platoon, F(1, 12)=16.56, p<.002, with the acceptability of
the PRR higher than the TCCCS. The mean acceptability rating for the TCCCS radio was
between “Borderline” and “Barely Acceptable,” while the PRR was rated between “Barely
Acceptable” and “Reasonably Acceptable.”
4.1.3.1.4 Issuing/Receiving Orders (Leaders)
issuing/receiving orders, F(1, 12)=10.29, p<.008, with the PRR being more acceptable in the
issuing/receiving orders than with the TCCCS. The mean acceptability rating for the TCCCS
4.1.3.1.5 Designating Targets (Leaders)
There was no significant difference found between the two radio conditions in terms of the
designating of targets, F(1, 12)=2.86, p=.12. The participants’ mean acceptability rating for
both the TCCCS radio and the PRR was between “Borderline” and “Reasonably Acceptable.”
4.1.3.1.6 Ease of Distributing Message Within Platoon (Leaders)
the ease of distributing messages, F(1, 12)=7.50, p<.02, with the PRR being more acceptable
in the distribution of messages than with the TCCCS. The mean acceptability rating for the
4.1.3.1.7 Awareness of Location of the Other Sections (Leaders)
the awareness of location of other Sections, F(1, 12)=15.70, p<.002, with the PRR being more
acceptable in location awareness of other Sections than with the TCCCS. The mean acceptability
4.1.3.1.8 Awareness of Casualties of the Other Sections (Leaders)
terms of the awareness of casualties among other Sections, F(1, 12)=36.75, p<.001, with the
rating for the TCCCS radio was between “Barely Unacceptable” and “Borderline,” while the
PRR was rated “Barely Acceptable.”
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 23
4.1.3.1.9 Awareness of Ammunition Usage of the Other Sections (Leaders)
terms of the awareness of ammunition usage of other Sections, F(1, 12)=24.24, p<.001, with
the PRR being more acceptable than the TCCCS. The mean acceptability rating for the TCCCS
radio was between “Barely Unacceptable” and “Borderline,” while the PRR was rated between
“Borderline” and “Barely Acceptable.”
4.1.3.2 Overall Within Platoon Use of Information (Non Leaders)
When comparing the non Leader’s response to all nine Within Platoon variables between the two
significantly higher in all Within Platoon questions versus the TCCCS only radio condition.
Reference Figure 10. Similar to the Leader’s mean acceptability ratings, the non Leader’s mean
acceptability ratings demonstrate that the PRR’s were better accepted than the current in-service
option for the communication of information within the Platoon.
Acceptability
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
TCCCS Only
PRR
Coord Plt mvt
Coord Plt fire
Coord Plt action
Issue/rcve order
Design trgts
Ease distr mssg
Aware loctn Sectn
Aware casualties
Aware ammo use
Radio Condition
Figure 10: Overall Within Platoon (Non Leaders)
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 24
4.1.3.2.1 Coordination of Platoon Movement (Non Leaders)
terms of the coordination of Platoon movement, F(1, 16)=48.67, p<.001, with the PRR being
more acceptable in coordinating than with the TCCCS. The mean acceptability rating for the
greater than “Reasonably Acceptable.”
4.1.3.2.2 Coordination of Platoon Fire (Non Leaders)
higher than the TCCCS. The mean acceptability rating for the TCCCS radio was between
Acceptable.”
4.1.3.2.3 Coordination of Platoon Action (Non Leaders)
terms of the coordination of action within the Platoon, F(1, 16)=33.80, p<.001, with the
acceptability of the PRR higher than the TCCCS. The mean acceptability rating for the TCCCS
radio was between “Borderline” and “Barely Acceptable,” while the PRR was rated greater than
4.1.3.2.4 Issuing/Receiving Orders (Non Leaders)
terms of issuing/receiving orders, F(1, 16)=27.74, p<.001, with the PRR being more
acceptable in the issuing/receiving orders than with the TCCCS. The mean acceptability rating
rated “Reasonably Acceptable.”
4.1.3.2.5 Designating Targets (Non Leaders)
terms of the designating of targets, F(1, 16)=23.87, p<.001, with the PRR being more
Acceptable.”
4.1.3.2.6 Ease of Distributing Message Within Platoon (Non Leaders)
rated greater than “Reasonably Acceptable.”
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 25
4.1.3.2.7 Awareness of Location of the Other Sections (Non Leaders)
terms of the awareness of location of other Sections, F(1, 16)=30.19, p<.001, with the PRR
being more acceptable in location awareness of other Sections than with the TCCCS. The mean
acceptability rating for the TCCCS radio was between “Barely Unacceptable” and “Borderline,”
while the PRR was rated greater than “Reasonably Acceptable.”
4.1.3.2.8 Awareness of Casualties of the Other Sections (Non Leaders)
terms of the awareness of casualties among other Sections, F(1, 16)=35.96, p<.001, with the
rating for the TCCCS radio was between “Barely Unacceptable” and “Borderline,” while the
PRR was rated between “Barely Acceptable” and “Reasonably Acceptable.”
4.1.3.2.9 Awareness of Ammunition Usage of the Other Sections (Non Leaders)
terms of the awareness of ammunition usage of other Sections, F(1, 16)=28.51, p<.001, with
the PRR being more acceptable than the TCCCS. The mean acceptability rating for the TCCCS
radio was between “Barely Unacceptable” and “Borderline,” while the PRR was rated between
4.1.4
Overall Acceptance
Infantry Leaders and non Leaders rated the overall suitability of the PRR and TCCCS only radio
conditions with the statement, ‘Overall Acceptance.’ The scaled ratings of the Leaders and non
Leaders (1 to 7) were tabulated, and means computed for each condition separately. A factoral
ANOVA was also conducted on the combined overall acceptability for the Leaders and non
Leaders.
4.1.4.1 Overall Acceptance Between Radio Conditions (Leaders)
When comparing the Leader’s response to the ‘Overall Acceptance’ between the two radio
conditions (TCCCS only vs. PRR), a highly statistically significant effect was observed, F(1,
12)=29.67, p<.001. Overall, the Leader’s mean acceptability rating of the PRR’s (between
“Barely Acceptable” and “Reasonably Acceptable”) demonstrate that the PRR’s were better
accepted than the current in-service option which was rated between “Borderline” and “Barely
Acceptable.” Reference Figure 11.
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 26
Acceptability
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
TCCCS Only PRR
Mean
±SE
±SD
Radio Condition
Figure 11: Overall Acceptance (Leaders)
4.1.4.2 Overall Acceptance Between Radio Conditions (Non Leaders)
When comparing the non Leader’s response to the ‘Overall Acceptance’ between the two radio
conditions (TCCCS only vs. PRR), a highly statistically significant effect was observed, F(1,
16)=46.23, p<.001. Overall, the non Leader’s mean acceptability rating of the PRR’s (between
“Reasonably Acceptable” and “Completely Acceptable”) demonstrate that the PRR’s were better
accepted than the current in-service option which was rated between “Borderline” and “Barely
Acceptable.” Reference Figure 12.
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 27
Acceptability
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
TCCCS Only PRR
Mean
±SE
±SD
Radio Condition
Figure 12: Overall Acceptance (Non Leaders)
4.1.4.3 Overall Acceptance (Leaders vs. Non Leaders)
When comparing the ‘Overall Acceptance’ ratings between the Leaders and non Leaders, no
significant result was observed, F(1, 56)=.02, p=.89. When combining the results for the
Leader’s and non Leader’s ‘Overall Acceptance’ for the two radio conditions, a highly
statistically significant effect was observed, F(1, 56)=59.44, p<.001. Where the no radio
condition was rated between “Borderline” and “Barely Acceptable,” and the PRR condition was
rated greater than “Reasonably Acceptable.” Therefore both groups of participants (Leaders and
non Leaders) rated the ‘Overall Acceptance’ similarly. Reference Figure 13.
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 28
Acceptability
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
TCCCS Only
PRR
Mean
Mean±SE
Mean±SD
Radio Condition
Figure 13: Overall Acceptance (Leaders vs. Non Leaders)
4.1.5
Statements of Importance
Participants (Leaders and non Leaders) rated their agreement of importance on the following five
statements on a progressive scale of 1 to 7 (Strongly Disagree=1, Reasonably Disagree=2,
Barely Disagree=3, Neutral=4, Barely Agree=5, Reasonably Agree=6, and Strongly
Agree=7). See Table 1.
Table 1: Statements of Importance
‘We were more effective as a team with the radio communication system than with the no-radio
system.’
‘We were more aware of our situation with the no-radio system than with the radio comms
system.’
‘Command and control were improved with the radio comms system, over the no-radio system.’
‘Command and control were improved with the no-radio system, over the radio comms system.’
‘All members of a dismounted infantry section should be provided with radio comms during a
mission.’
Overall, participants were in reasonable agreement (greater than “Barely Agree” but less than
“Strongly Agree”) to the radio condition in terms of team effectiveness, and command and
control tactics versus the no radio condition (less than “Barely Disagree”). As well, participants
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 29
were in reasonable agreement that all members of a dismounted infantry section should be
provided with a radio during a mission. Reference Figure 14.
Strongly Agree
Reasonably Agree
Acceptability
Barely Agree
Neutral
Barely Disagree
All Sldr Shld Hve Radio
Cmnd/Cntrl w/ No Radio
Cmnd/Cntrl w/ Radio
Effective Tm w/ No Radio
Strongly Disagree
Effective Tm w/ Radio
Reasonably Disagree
Mean
±SE
±SD
Statements
Figure 14: Statement of Importance
4.1.6
Importance of a Radio for Mission Phase
Participants (Leaders and non Leaders) recorded their judgment of importance on the following
five mission phases on a progressive scale of 1 to 7 (No Importance=1, Slight Importance=2,
Little Importance=3, Some Importance=4, Moderately Important=5, Very Important=6, and
Extremely Important=7). See Table 2.
Table 2: Mission Phases
Pre-Mission Briefing
Advance to RV
Approach Objective
Assault Objective
Consolidation
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 30
Overall, the importance of a radio in the pre-mission briefing phase was judged less than the
other four mission phases. Reference Figure 15. Participants felt that the radio was less than of
“Little Importance” during the pre-mission briefing phase, but during the ‘Advance to RV,’
‘Approach Objective,’ ‘Assault Objective,’ and the ‘Consolidation’ phases radios were judged to
be greater than “Moderately Important.” Similar findings were observed in past PRR trials.
Extremely Important
Judgment of Importance
Very Important
Moderately Important
Some Importance
Little Importance
Slight Importance
No Importance
Pre-Mission
Apprch Obj
Consolidatn
Advnce RV
Asslt Obj
Mean
±SE
±SD
Mission Phase
Figure 15: Importance of a Radio for Mission Phase
4.1.7
Importance of a Radio for Mission Features
Participants (Leaders and non Leaders) recorded their judgment of importance on the following
thirteen mission features on a progressive scale of 1 to 7 (No Importance=1, Slight
Importance=2, Little Importance=3, Some Importance=4, Moderately Important=5, Very
Important=6, and Extremely Important=7). See Table 3.
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 31
Table 3: Mission Features
‘Awareness of Friendly Forces’
‘Awareness of the Battle Situation’
‘Coordination within the Section’
‘Teamwork’
‘Issuing/Receiving Orders’
‘Passing Information’
‘Requesting Information’
‘Tempo of Mission’
‘Achieving Mission Timings’
‘Ability to Maintain Stealth’
‘Ability to Adapt to Unexpected Changes in Mission’
‘Minimizing Casualties’
‘Overall Mission Success’
Overall, participants rated the 'Awareness of Friendly Forces,’ ‘Awareness of the Battle
Situation,’ ‘Passing Information,’ ‘Requesting Information,’ ‘Ability to Adapt to Unexpected
Changes in Mission,’ and ‘Overall Mission Success’ as the features most benefiting from the use
of an intra-section radio. Reference Figure 16. Participants felt that the importance of a radio
for these mission features was quite high: greater than or equal to “Very Important.”
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 32
Extremely Important
Judgment of Importance
Very Important
Moderately Important
Some Importance
Little Importance
Slight Importance
Ovrall Succss
Adpt to Chnge
Min Casualties
Maintn Stlth
Tmpo Missn
Achve Missn Tme
Rq st Info
Passng Info
Tmwork
Issue/Rcve Ordr
Awre Bttle S it
Coord w Sectn
Awre Friend F
No Importance
Mean
Mean±SE
Mean±SD
Mission Feature
Figure 16: Importance of a Radio for Mission Features
4.1.8
Acceptability of PRR Equipment Features
Infantry Leaders and non-Leaders rated the acceptability of PRR equipment features used in this
experiment: the Radio, Headset and Remote Push-to-Talk (PTT).
4.1.8.1 Acceptability of the PRR Radio
With respect to the PRR Radio, participants rated on the following eighteen features listed in
Table 4. All of the participant’s scaled ratings (1 to 7) were tabulated, and means computed and
analyzed.
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 33
Table 4: PRR Radio Features
PRR Radio Features
Mean ± SD
Acceptability
Network Control Knob
5.9 ± 0.9
> Barely Acceptable
Volume Control Knob
6.0 ± 0.8
Size
6.3 ± 0.7
> Reasonably Acceptable
Weight
6.4 ± 0.7
Carry Pouch
6.2 ± 0.6
Antenna
6.1 ± 0.9
Ability to Attach to Webbing
6.0 ± 1.1
Ability to Mount in Preferred Location
6.0 ± 1.2
Connection to Headset
6.0 ± 0.9
Connection to Commander Radio (if
applicable)
5.8 ± 0.9
> Barely Acceptable
Ease of Changing Network Configuration (if
applicable)
5.6 ± 1.4
> Barely Acceptable
Ease of Changing User Switches (Single or
Dual) (if applicable)
6.0 ± 0.6
Ease of Operation of Radio PTT (if applicable)
5.9 ± 1.0
> Barely Acceptable
Reliability of Radio System
5.2 ± 1.3
> Barely Acceptable
Integration with Existing Kit
5.7 ± 0.9
> Barely Acceptable
Range of Radio in Open Ground
5.3 ± 1.4
> Barely Acceptable
Range of Radio in Wooded Areas
4.6 ± 1.7
> Borderline
Range of Radio in Urban Areas
4.8 ± 1.8
> Borderline
Overall, participants rated the acceptability of the PRR radio features greater than “Borderline”
but less than “Completely Acceptable.” See Table 4 for a summary of the results. The PRR
radio Network Control Knob, Volume Control Knob, Size, Weight, Carry Pouch, Antenna,
Ability to Attach to Webbing, Ability to Mount in Preferred Location, Connection to Headset,
Connection to Commander Radio, Ease of Changing Network Configuration, Ease of Changing
User Switches (Single or Dual), Ease of Operation of Radio PTT, and Integration with Existing
Kit were rated high in acceptability. Conversely the Reliability of the Radio System, Range of
Radio in Open Ground, and Range of Radio in Urban Areas tended to be rated lower in
acceptability. Reference Figure 17. This finding was reinforced by soldier comments where
they found the PRR to be ineffective over undulating topography and in areas where clear line of
sight could not be achieved (i.e. wooded terrain less than 50 m separation). Several soldiers also
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 34
commented that radio communication within the urban village was intermittent. This may have
been due to the concrete and metal building structures which impeded radio signal.
Acceptability
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
Ntwrk Cntrl Knob
Vol Cntrl Knob
Size
Wt
Carry Pch
Ant
Attch Web
Mnt Pref Locatn
Cnnct Hdset
Cnnct Cmmd Radio
Ease Chnge Ntwrk
Ease Chnge Swtch
Ease Op PTT
Reliability PRR
Integrate w Kit
Rnge Open Grnd
Rnge Wooded
Rnge Urban
Mean
±SE
±SD
PRR Radio Feature
Figure 17: PRR Radio Feature Acceptability
4.1.8.2 Acceptability of the PRR Headset
With respect to the PRR headset, participants rated acceptability on the following seventeen
features listed in Table 5. All of the participant’s scaled ratings (1 to 7) were tabulated, and
means computed and analyzed.
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 35
Table 5: PRR Headset Features
PRR Radio Features
Mean ± SD
Acceptability
Fit of Earpiece
5.8 ± 0.9
> Barely Acceptable
Comfort of Earpiece
5.7 ± 1.1
> Barely Acceptable
Clarity of Earpiece Sound
6.0 ± 0.8
Ability to Adjust Headband
5.9 ± 0.9
> Barely Acceptable
Comfort of Headband
5.8 ± 1.2
> Barely Acceptable
Ability to Adjust Microphone
6.2 ± 0.7
Ease of Microphone Use
6.2 ± 0.7
Quality of Microphone Sound (calm)
6.1 ± 0.8
Quality of Microphone Sound (wind)
5.9 ± 0.8
> Barely Acceptable
Sensitivity of Microphone
5.9 ± 0.8
> Barely Acceptable
Weight
6.4 ± 0.6
Cabling
5.3 ± 1.5
> Barely Acceptable
Size
6.1 ± 0.9
Sound Quality
6.1 ± 0.8
Ability to Maintain Local Situation Awareness
6.0 ± 0.7
Reliability of Headset System
6.0 ± 1.0
Compatibility with Helmet
5.6 ± 1.3
> Barely Acceptable
Overall, participants rated their acceptability of the PRR headset features greater than “Barely
Acceptable” but less than “Completely Acceptable”. The PRR headset cabling was rated lower
in acceptability than all of the other PRR headset features. During focus group discussions,
soldiers voiced concern over the short length of the PRR headset cable, as some soldiers
preferred to place the PRR in other locations on the body rather than on the chest. As well,
another concern was raised from some participants with respect to the fit of the earpiece and
difficulties in achieving a comfortable fit under the CF helmet. Acceptability ratings from the
Exit Questionnaire also reflected this trend, with the Fit of Earpiece, Comfort of Earpiece,
Comfort of Headband, and Compatibility with Helmet features being rated slightly lower in
acceptability than the other features. Reference Figure 18.
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 36
Acceptability
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
Fit Earpiece
Cmfrt Earpiece
Clarity Sound
Adjst Hdbnd
Cmfrt Hdbnd
Adjst Mic
Ease Mic Use
Qlty Mic Snd_calm
Qlty Mic Snd_wind
Sensitiv Mic
Wt
Cabling
Size
Snd Qlty
Maintain Sit Aware
Reliability
Compat w Helmt
Mean
±SE
±SD
PRR Headset Feature
Figure 18: PRR Headset Feature Acceptability
4.1.8.3 Acceptability of the PRR Remote Push-to-Talk (PTT)
With respect to the PRR remote PTT, participants rated their acceptability on the following four
features listed in Table 6.
Table 6: PRR Remote Push-to-Talk Features
PRR Remote Push-to-Talk Features
Mean ± SD
Acceptability
Ease of Operation
6.0 ± 1.1
Functionality of Attachment Strap
5.5 ± 1.6
> Barely Acceptable
Reliability of PTT
4.8 ± 1.7
> Borderline
Compatibility with Existing Kit
5.7 ± 1.3
> Barely Acceptable
Overall, participants rated their acceptability of the PRR remote PTT features greater than
“Borderline” but equal to or less than “Reasonably Acceptable.” Ease of Operation,
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 37
Functionality of Attachment Strap, and Compatibility with Existing Kit tended to be rated higher
in acceptability than the Reliability of PTT, which was rated less than “Barely Acceptable.”
Reference Figure 19. The low reliability of the remote PTT was further reinforced by soldier
comments during focus group discussions. Soldiers frequently reported that the PRR would
intermittently cut-out transmission during the delivery of a message (every 2-3 s), and then the
transmission would return to normal and then cut-out again in a predictable cycle. As well, the
C9 gunners found the attachment strap of the remote PTT to be too short in length.
Acceptability
Barely Acceptable
Borderline
Barely Unacceptable
Ease Op
Reliable PTT
Attchmnt Strap Compat w Kit
Mean
±SE
±SD
PRR Remote PTT Features
Figure 19: PRR Remote PTT Feature Acceptability
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 38
4.2
Lessons Learned
The following lessons learned (LL), tactics, techniques and procedures (TTP’s), and Soldier
recommendations in this summary are based on findings from past and present SIREQ TD
experiments, and also draw extensively on the United States Marine Corps, Marine Corps
Warfighting Laboratory (MCWL), UK Government, and non-military publications. These
findings may be combined with the current CF doctrine to provide best practices for this new
item of Soldier equipment. The LL, TTP’s, and recommendations are just that, experimentation
findings and Soldier suggestions that will provide guidance in the operational employment of the
PRR. Many more LL, TTP’s, and recommendations will arise in the near future as Soldiers are
deployed with the PRR.
4.2.1
Setup
The following setup procedures are recommended to maintain effective communication with the
PRR.
4.2.1.1 Radio:
Mounting the PRR:
It is recommended that the PRR be worn on the
frontal torso on the left shoulder – affixed to your inservice tactical vest. The radio should be placed
vertically on the shoulder to allow for the maximum
antenna transmittance and clearance (FBES 2002,
2003).
The higher an unobstructed antenna, the better the
signal transmission.
Headset cord length:
Several Soldiers suggested that the length of the
headset cord should be increased to prevent it from
snagging on equipment or to enable the PRR to be
located elsewhere on the Soldier. However, the
short cord length maintains good antenna
transmittance and reduces the occurrence of signal
shielding by the wearers own body (FBES, 2003).
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 39
Channel Display Visibility:
Initially the radio should be mounted in a manner
where the channel dial will be visible to the Soldier.
However, individuals should familiarize changing
channels without visual feedback especially during
night operations (FBES 2002, 2003).
Microphone positioning:
The Electret noise-canceling microphone should be
positioned 1” (max 2”) away from the mouth in order
to provide clear and intelligible communication.
Stealth through whispered speech is best achieved
with the microphone close to the mouth (FBES
2002).
Position the microphone boom close to your cheek
and mouth to minimize snagging and being seen in
your peripheral vision (FBES 2002, 2003).
PRR waterproof specifications:
The molded case provides protection against
environmental hazards such as impact and
immersion. Excluding the headset, the radio is fully
functional after immersion in water for duration of 20
minutes (UK MoD, 2001).
4.2.1.2 Remote PTT:
Affixing the Remote PTT:
The remote PTT switch should be positioned on the
weapon so that Soldiers can transmit while keeping
their hands on the weapon. Mounting to the
forestock of the C7 rifle has proven to be the most
effective position (see the figure to the left) (FBES
2002, 2003).
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 40
Remote PTT Affiliation:
To ensure successful affiliation adhere to the
following steps:

Only program/associate one PRR at a
time when within a close vicinity to
another user.
Do not attempt to affiliate several radios within close
proximity to one another at the same time. Ensure
that a minimum 5 m separation is maintained so that
the signal transmitted during affiliation will not be
received by any other PRR.
Affiliating more than one radio at a time or having
more than one radio turned on during the affiliation
process will:

Create cross-affiliations because several radios
may become affiliated with one wireless PTT; or

Radios will be affiliated with the wrong PTT.
Make sure all other nearby PRR’s are
turned off when a user is performing an
affiliation (FBES, 2002, 2003, UK MoD,
2001, and MCWL, 2003).
4.2.2
Operation
As previously stated the explicit intent of the PRR is as an intra-Section radio. When
establishing comms between Section Commanders and the Platoon Commander the TCCCS radio
should still be used. The PRR is not appropriate for use above the Platoon level.
4.2.2.1 Channel Assignment:
Net assignment:
Net assignment is adjusted through the selector
located behind the PTT switch assembly unit and is
typically pre-set by communications personnel in
accordance with the Commander’s plan for PRR
usage. Prior to mating the PRR PTT switch housing
to the radio body and initial deployment, the group
selection has to be readied.
There are 256 possible channels (16 Groups while
there are 16 channels in each Group).
Normally individual Soldiers will not need to change
the net selector setting but will rely on the range of
16 channels within the channel selection dial (FBES
2002, 2003, MCWL, 2003)
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 41
PRR Channel Assignment:
Depending on the mission, channel assignments
could vary. For example, each Section could be
assigned only one channel on the PRR for intraSection communication between all Section
members. One channel per Section works well for
maneuvering in non-complex terrain and low tempo
operations.
In complex terrain and high tempo (e.g. urban CQB),
one channel could be assigned to each assault
group in order to support closer fire team
coordination. The Section would then have two
channels.
The Section Commander should use the TCCCS
radio system to coordinate actions between
Sections and the Platoon Comd. The PRR should
be used only as a backup for communicating outside
of the Section (FBES 2002, 2003).
Low visibility operation:
Soldiers should become familiar with changing the
channels without visual feedback. This will be an
important skill especially during night operations
(FBES 2002, 2003).
4.2.2.2 Voice protocol:
Voice procedure:
The PRR procedures should follow the conventions
of voice procedure on an insecure net. As well the
noise-canceling microphone does not require any
special instruction. As with any radio, do not shout
into the microphone. Remember, an intra-Section
radio offers the Section the new advantage of verbal
stealth, even in situations where there is no line-ofsight between sender and receiver. Yelling gives
away your position and often your intentions (FBES
2002, 2003).
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 42
Soldiers need to be encouraged to use the PRR,
become familiar with sound quality, and self voice
transmission, especially in the initial practice stage.
Inevitably, soldiers want to chatter on the new
radios, so let them.
Voice transmission:
With practice and experience, the soldiers quickly
get familiar with the device, net traffic diminishes,
and transmissions improve in both clarity and
conciseness (FBES 2002, 2003). This practice is
critical.
Where possible Section practice should include two
channels – one channel for each assault group. The
Section Comd and 2IC should be encouraged to
become familiar with switching between the two
Section channels. As well, the Section should
practice protocols for signaling all section members
to switch to one channel and then back to the
assault group channels, as dictated by the tactical
situation.
4.2.2.3 Range:
PRR Communication Range:
Urban Operations
The following figure outlines communication range when 7-8 PRR’s
are deployed in and around a FIBUA building. Numbers indicated in
the photos below correspond to spots where Soldiers can be located
within a building while still maintaining communications to other
Section members.

Humansystems ®
Transmission can be made/received up to 150 m verified
through 5 dwellings.
Transmission can be made/received up through 3 floors in
building.
PRR Evaluation
Page 43
Using a Radio Relay:
On many occasions intra-Section communications were not effective
due to range, terrain, physical obstacles and the PRR antenna being
too close to the ground. When this occurs, try shifting from the prone
position to kneeling, move away from obstacles if the situation
permits, or turn to the direction of the person/unit with whom you are
trying to communicate to establish maximal signal strength.
If this approach still fails, use another fire team or Section member
as a relay, and keep the message short and clear.
If communications over out-of-range distances becomes mission
essential, you can use the TCCCS radio to re-establish comms
(FBES, 2002, 2003, and MCWL, 2003).
LL #1 Range
(Defensive position)
Soldiers reported that a major tactical benefit of the PRR was the
improvement in the capability of the Section and Platoon to remain
concealed during information exchanges, thereby being less
detectible to the enemy.
For example, during the all-around defensive at an ORV, the PRR
enabled Soldiers to clearly, and consistently, hear their commander’s
orders while being more widely dispersed and better concealed,
while still retaining their battlefield situational awareness and
continuing to observe their arcs. Section commanders did not need
to walk from Soldier to Soldier passing information, resulting in faster
passage of information, better comprehension by all soldiers, and a
faster overall mission tempo (FBES 2002, 2003).
Commanders need to practice using the PRR’s for routine passage
of information and reserve face-to-face interactions for essential
situations only.
LL #2 Range
(Range: <500 m)
Humansystems ®
In deadfall there was no problem with the radio signal reaching fire
teams, but when there was no line of sight/bad terrain, PRR range
was more constrained (sometimes the range was less than 50 m
especially in wooded undulating terrain). In a dense wood line, even
if you did have ‘eyes on’, Soldiers were occasionally able to see who
they were trying to contact before they could transmit a message
(FBES 2002, 2003).
PRR Evaluation
Page 44
4.2.2.4 Improving transmission:
TCCCS compatibility:
Soldiers had difficulty plugging the PRR into the 521
and 522 however, some leaders found that they had
to fiddle with the radios and it finally became
functional when the 521 and 522 was switched onto
high power (i.e. whisper mode) (FBES 2002, 2003).
Call Waiting Feature with Dual Interface PRR’s:
On dual switch PRR’s operating with a Combat Net
Radio (CNR):
Tips to Optimize Dual Interface PRR
Communication:

if a signal is received via the CNR while
transmitting via the PRR, a call waiting signal
comprising three medium length tones (- - -)
repeated every 5 seconds will alert the operator
until the PRR PTT is released. Only when the
PRR PTT is released is the attached radio
signal heard. To talk on the CNR, press the
CNR PTT (UK MoD, 2001).

if a signal is received from the CNR and the
PRR is not transmitting, then the CNR signal
will override the PRR signal even if there is
communication traffic on the PRR. (This is
based on the assumption that the attached
radio has communication traffic from higher and
is therefore more important. This may not be
the case in some situations (MCWL, 2003).
Establish SOPs to best use the dual interface PRR
capability.
One way of handling this situation is to have a
vacant channel next to the operating channel on the
attached radio so the user can switch to that
channel if the communication on the PRR channel is
more urgent than the attached radio channel (FBES,
2003, MCWL, 2003).
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 45
4.2.2.5 Batteries:
Batteries:
Power consumption ratio
Radio: 24 hours of operation at 1:7:16 (Tx/Rx/S’BY)
Remote PTT: Li-ion battery providing not less than
3000 hours use (UK MoD, 2001)
LL #1 Batteries
PRR batteries under ideal conditions are rated for
24 hours of use. However, Soldiers should switch
out the batteries before you think you need to
(FBES, 2003). In cold weather, the duration of
battery use will diminish further.
LL #2 Batteries
Soldiers should always carry a spare set of AA
batteries on their person (FBES 2002, 2003).
Low Batt. Indicator:
When the PRR tone indicator was disabled, there
was no method in verifying the battery consumption
level.
_–_–
Low visibility operation:
User trials conducted by the UK MoD (2003) also
reported problems with the low battery indicator.
The time between battery low warning and battery
failure was inadequately short (FBES 2002, 2003).
Soldiers should become familiar with changing the
batteries without looking at the radio. This will be an
important skill especially during night operations
(FBES 2002, 2003).
4.2.2.6 PTT Issues:
Remote PTT concern: Cutouts
Soldiers observed that the remote PTT would
transmit for approximately 3 seconds, cut out for a
few seconds, and then transmit again for another 3
seconds.
Similar to the findings by the UK PRR user trials
(2003), the PTT is ideal and the preferred method as
it eliminates problems relating to wire entanglement.
However, in this particular case, the PTT does pose
problems during continuous and prolonged
transmissions (FBES 2002, 2003).
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 46
Adjustability for C9 gunners:
4.2.3
PTT band may require a supplementary strap
(longer) in order to affix to the C9. The PTT band
also needs to be more durable (FBES 2002, 2003).
Security
As with any piece of equipment, especially those employing voice/data transfer, proper SOP’s
should be strictly adhered to. The following is not a comprehensive list of security issues, but
were items that were gathered from past and present trials, user recommendations, and various
government and non-military publications.
Security related to content of transmission:
As with any radio, you should restrict the nature of
traffic over the PRR to guard against the following
threats:

Information collected from a number of
channels used in the same unit may be
combined to produce useful information.

Recorded transmissions could be used as part
of a deception plan.

If many channels are used in a particular area,
operational security may be compromised,
particularly if radio silence has been imposed.

Operational security may be compromised if
information passed over a secure net is
repeated over a PRR channel (MCWL, 2003 &
UK MoD, 2001).
Encryption:
The PRR does not have encryption but it uses Direct
Sequence Spread Spectrum (IEEE 802.11 at 2.4
GHz) technology, which sounds like garbled noise to
an eavesdropper. The radio has good resistance
against interfering signals and provides a Low
Probability of Intercept (LPI) and Low Probability of
Detection (LPD) (Flagship Training Limited, 1999).
Short range:
The limited range of the PRR (500 m rural terrain)
provides security to some extent, although detection
and interception may still be possible.
(UK MoD, 2001)
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 47
Information transfer:
NOTE: To maintain transmission security,
information of a sensitive nature should not be sent
using the PRR:

Orders of Battle

HQ/unit locations (grids/location
names)

Areas of operation, boundaries, or
demarcation lines

Future intentions and plans

Organizational names
(UK MoD, 2001, and MCWL, 2003)
Enemy capture:
!!
4.2.4
PRR communications are highly vulnerable if the
enemy captures one of them. As with any radio,
assume that any lost PRR is being used for passive
interception and exploitation (MCWL, 2003).
Additional Constraints and Recommendations
The following list of additional PRR performance constraints and soldier recommendations is
divided into several categories: Transmission, Remote PTT, Headset and Body.
4.2.4.1 PRR Transmission
Priority cut off switch:
With the TCCCS radio the Soldier in command always has priority and will cut into any
transmission (ICS or intercom system). The PRR was not fitted with this capability so the
transmitting of information was sometimes not effective. The PRR should have a capability
where the Commanding Soldier always has transmission priority.
Increase Range: >500 m
As previously discussed, when there was no line of sight/bad terrain, PRR range was more
constrained. The solution may be to allow the soldier to alter the signal strength by increasing
the output in non-ideal terrain to improve signals (similar to TCCCS).
Compatibility with CF radio:
As previously mentioned, Soldiers had difficulty plugging the PRR into the 521 and 522.
The UK MoD PRR trials (2003), also reported dual role problems, however, did not further
elaborate. This may be a function of compatibility and should be further addressed.
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 48
4.2.4.2 PRR Remote Push-to-Talk
Remote PTT:
As previously mentioned, Soldiers observed that the remote PTT would transmit for
approximately 3 s, cut out for a few seconds, and then transmit again for another 3 s.
This technology has been utilized in the car industry for use in key fobs for many years. For
this reason it is assumed by many that it should carry over into use with PRR’s at little, if any
risk. The trial indicated that such confidence might be misplaced…(another manufacturer) was
asked why it had not incorporated this technology into (their radios)…and the reply was that the
company had considered it but did not believe the technology to be mature enough to carry over
into this environment (excerpt from UK MoD PRR user trial, 2003)
4.2.4.3 PRR Headset
Cord Length:
A reoccurring suggestion was with respect to the length of the cord. As previously mentioned,
several Soldiers suggested that the length of the headset be increased to approximately 30.5 cm
(12”) to prevent it from snagging on equipment or to enable the PRR to be located elsewhere
on the Soldier.
The PRR user trials conducted by the UK MoD also identified similar issues. Soldiers need to
have the option of attaching the PRR to various locations depending on the marching, fighting
and assault orders. Rucksacks and daypacks often need to be donned and doffed in haste. For
this reason the soldier is likely to choose to leave his PRR attached to the webbing strap while
in fighting or marching order rather than move it from his rucksack or daypack shoulder strap
to his webbing strap. As such the radios will be subject to considerable force caused by
overlapping straps passing over the PRR (a loaded rucksack can weigh in excess of 50kg). Any
item of equipment that is carried using a shoulder sling will also impinge on the radio. Some of
this equipment is very heavy (e.g.: 501). The PRR, its dials and antenna will be vulnerable to
damage. During the trial when carrying rucksacks soldiers slid the radio further down the
webbing shoulder strap seating the pouch above the ammunition pouch. This will result in a
loss of range, which will be at its greatest when prone. However this is done out of necessity in
order to improve comfort. It should also reduce the chance of damage to the PRR. This must
be recognised as a secondary position and the design of the pouch and headset cord length must
reflect this. (excerpt from UK MoD PRR user trial, 2003)
Thinner headsets:
The current model headset is fully compatible with standard ear defenders and GS helmet (UK
MoD, 2001). Some soldiers found that the CF helmet caused undue pressure on the headset.
Switchable Headsets:
Depending on which side shooter you are (i.e. left or right), the earpiece should correspond.
With the current orientation of the tested PRR’s, left hand shooters found the left sided earpiece
to be obstructing.
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 49
More adjustment points needed in the headband:
Individuals with smaller craniums had a difficult time with a comfortable fit. However, the
majority of soldiers found the current headband to be very comfortable.
The current headset was acceptable due to an increase in situational awareness. The nonoccluded earpiece allowed soldiers the ability to hear normally but also enabled them to receive
information via the radio.
More breathable headset:
Some soldiers noted that sweat tended to build up in the earpiece, which led to discomfort.
Bone conduction:
An alternate system, which has been tested in previous non-related communication
experimentations, was the bone conduction system. Soldiers who have used this system prefer
it to the PRR headset.
4.2.4.4 PRR Body
Make numbers more visible:
Channel numbers should be made more visible (e.g. located on top of the dial). Soldiers had
difficulty switching nets. This concern would be confounded in low light conditions.
Change PTT from the current orientation to a toggle switch:
Similar to the ICS (i.e. toggle in the fwd position is used to talk to the Pl./HQ but upon release
returns you to the section net)
Pouch:
The pouch should be altered to be manufactured from webbing and assume the CAD PAT
camouflage.
Compatibility with Tactical Assault Vests (TAVs):
PRR pouch should be made compatible with Canadian issue TAVs.
Furthermore, Soldiers requested the need for SOPs for the PRR in order to ensure that the net is
free when vital information needs to be transmitted, the length of transmissions are terse yet
clear, and to restrict the nature of transmission over the PRR (i.e. never pass critical information
as previously discussed: organizational names, HQ or unit locations, billet titles, areas of
operation, boundaries, or demarcation lines, future intentions or plans, grid references or
recognized names of locations, passwords) (FBES 2002, 2003, MCWL, 2003). As well, there
should be a hierarchical communications scheme to deal with the high volume of information
transmitted and received on the PRR (FBES 2002, 2003). However, it is recommended that
changes expressed in this report be further addressed and explored in order to alleviate future
concerns.
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 50
4.2.5
Method of Destruction
If destruction is ordered, the equipment should be destroyed by mechanical means using a
sledgehammer, rifle butt or other available implements.
Priorities
When lack of time and/or means prevents complete destruction of equipment, priority is
to be given to the destruction of essential parts and the same parts are to be destroyed on
all like equipment.
As a guide to priorities, the equipment should be destroyed in the following order (UK
MoD, 2001):
1. Antenna
2. Receiver-Transmitter, Radio and Switch (Single or Dual)
3. Remote PTT
4. Headset connector
5. CNR connector (Switch, dual)
4.2.6
Warnings!!!:
•
The PRR two-way radio generates and radiates radio frequencies (RF). It is designed to
comply with national and international guidelines regarding exposure of personnel to
electromagnetic energy.
•
To ensure optimum and safest performance keep the antenna at least 2.5 cm from head or
body when transmitting.
•
Switch off radio and remove batteries when in aircraft.
•
Switch off radio in hospitals, at refueling points, chemical plants or where blasting
operations are in progress.
(Marconi Mobile Limited, H4855 Training Guide Issue 1, 2000)
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 51
5
Discussion
Effective communication on the battlefield among all members of small infantry units allows for
the rapid and accurate dissemination of key information down to the level of the infantry
rifleman. In this experiment, the utility and usability of the PRR in both intra and inter-section
communication were investigated to evaluate the efficacy of providing all soldiers with intrasection radios and to specifically evaluate the suitability of the PRR product for the dismounted
infantry.
The Personal Role Radio (PRR) is intended to enhance small unit communications, information
flow, situational awareness, and mission tempo, especially when traditional voice and hand signal
communication is impossible or impractical. These advantages are very apparent at night and in
restrictive visibility environments such as urban operations. Over the course of this experiment
and others, the PRR provided these means, through a lightweight, ruggedized, short-range radio,
with a low probability of intercept and detection.
The findings from our SIREQ experiments have concluded that a small unit radio enhanced the
successful transfer of information in a timely manner, better coordinated attacks within Section
and within Platoon, increased flow of communication, increased mission tempo, improved
collective situational awareness. The UK MoD (2001) also considers the PRR to reduce the risk
of fratricide through improved situational awareness and because of a reduced reliance on
physical friendly or enemy detection. Soldiers also reasonably agreed that command and control
and team effectiveness with a radio were invaluable and the PRR allowed for a wider dispersed
frontage in both Section and Platoon actions, during both day and night operations. As well,
findings from the SIREQ TD, Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory (MCWL, 2003), and the
United Kingdom Ministry of Defence (2001, 2003), confirm that the PRR was most
advantageous when deployed as an intra-Section radio (i.e. a means of communications within
the Section). The PRR provided an alternate means of communication with the Platoon
Commander; however, the explicit intent of the PRR was as an intra-Section radio. Therefore,
the current in-service radio (TCCCS) should still be the central link between Section
Commanders and the Platoon Commander (FBES 2002, 2003) (MCWL, 2003). Given our
operating range findings, the PRR could be unreliable at the operational separation distances that
are likely to occur between Section and Platoon Commanders, especially in complex terrain.
With respect to this most recent experiment, the subjective results support the use of a PRR by
all soldiers during infantry Section level attacks. While the overall acceptance of the PRR
condition was significantly higher than for the current in-service TCCCS only condition, a
number of specific design shortcomings have been identified with the PRR. Chief among these
concerns were the transmission cut-outs with the PTT, the headset cord length, and the need for a
right ear headset for left eye shooters.
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 52
6
References
A.
FBES (2002). PRR use at the Section level in urban terrain.
B.
FBES (2002). PRR Platoon level attack in wooded night operations.
C.
FBES (2003). PRR usage in Platoon wooded and urban assaults.
D.
Flagship Training Limited (1999). Introduction to spread spectrum. Flagship Training
Limited, UK.
E.
Global Defence.com (2001). In touch with tomorrow. Retrieved May 8, 2003, from
http://www.global-defence.com/2002/comms-o.view.html
F.
Marconi Kominikasyon A. Ş (2000). Marconi Mobile training power point presentation.
G.
Marconi Kominikasyon A. Ş (2003). Retrieved April 24, 2003 from
http://www.marconi.com.tr/en/product/prr.htm
H.
Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory (MCWL) X-File 3-35.35.1 (2003). Personal role
radio: military operations on urbanized terrain (MOUT). Retrieved May 15, 2003 from
http://www.mcwl.quantico.usmc.mil/x_files.asp.
I.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2003). Retrieved April 10, 2003 from http://www.mw.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
J.
Tack, D. W., Adams, B. D. (2002). SIREQ human factors trial plan: use of radio
communications and digital map displays in urban tactical engagements. DRDCToronto.
K.
Tack, D. W., Nakaza, E. T. (2002). SIREQ TD Investigation of weapon-mounted offbore systems using monocular and biocular head mounted displays. In Progress for the
Department of National Defence.
L.
United Kingdom Government Ministry of Defence (2001). Personal role radio (PRR)
UK PRC 343. TD Draft report.
M.
United Kingdom Government Ministry of Defence (2003). Infantry trials and
development unit: personal role radio user trial. Warminster Training Centre, Wiltshire,
UK.
Humansystems ®
PRR Evaluation
Page 53
Appendix A:
Exit Questionnaire
PRR Evaluation
Page A-1
[*EXIT*
PRR EXIT QUESTIONNAIRE
PARTICIPANT NUMBER : ____________
Date:
]
____________
SECTION : _______
1. Using the scale provided, indicate the
acceptability of the following features for
the No Radio and Radio communication
methods.
☺
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Radio
Communications
☺
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
☺
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
☺
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
No Radio
INFORMATION TRANSFER
Amount of information that can be passed
Time required to pass information
Timeliness for initiating comms
Ease of passing information
Ease of requesting information
Ease of receiving information
Ease of getting acknowledgement of information received
Ease of getting acknowledgement of information understood
Accuracy of information passed
Message detail possible
WITHIN SECTION
Coordination of movement
Coordination of fire
Coordination of action
Issuing / receiving orders
Designating targets
Ease of distributing message within Section
1
[*EXIT*
No Radio
☺
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
WITHIN SECTION (con’t)
Awareness of location of your Section members
Awareness of casualties among your Section members
Awareness of ammunition usage of your Section
WITHIN PLATOON
Coordination of Platoon movement
Coordination of Platoon fire
Coordination of Platoon action
Issuing / receiving orders
Designating targets
Ease of distributing message within Platoon
Awareness of location of the other Sections
Awareness of casualties of the other Sections
Awareness of ammunition usage of the other Sections
OVERALL ACCEPTANCE
]
Radio
Communications
☺
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$
$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$
$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$
☺
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
☺
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
2. Read the following statements & indicate whether you agree or disagree using the scale below.
Strongly
Disagree
1
Strongly
Agree
Neutral
2
3
4
5
6
7
We were more effective as a team with the radio
communication system than with the no-radio system.
$ $
$
$
$
$
$
We were more aware of our situation with the no-radio
system than with the radio comms system.
$ $
$
$
$
$
$
Command and control were improved with the radio comms
system, over the no-radio system.
$ $
$
$
$
$
$
Command and control were improved with the no-radio
system, over the radio comms system.
$ $
$
$
$
$
$
All members of a dismounted infantry section should be
provided with radio comms during a mission.
$ $
$
$
$
$
$
2
[*EXIT*
]
3. Rate the importance of a RADIO for each phase of the mission.
Importance Rating Scale
Mission Phases
No
Importance
Little
Importance
Slight
Importance
Pre-Mission Briefing
Advance to RV
Approach Objective
Assault Objective
Consolidation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Moderately
Important
Some
Importance
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Extremely
Important
Very
Important
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
4. Rate the importance of a RADIO for these features.
Importance Rating Scale
Mission Phases
No
Importance
Little
Importance
Slight
Importance
Awareness of Friendly Forces
Awareness of the Battle
Situation
Coordination within the Section
Teamwork
Issuing / Receiving Orders
Passing Information
Requesting Information
Tempo of mission
Achieving mission timings
Ability to maintain stealth
Ability to adapt to unexpected
changes in mission
Minimizing casualties
Overall Mission Success
Moderately
Important
Some
Importance
Extremely
Important
Very
Important
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
3
[*EXIT*
]
5A. Using the scale provided, indicate the
the radio equipment used in this trial.
Acceptability
☺
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
RADIO
Network Control Knob
Volume Control Knob
Size
Weight
Carry Pouch
Antenna
Ability to Attach to Webbing
Ability to Mount in Preferred Location
Connection to Headset
Connection to Commander Radio (if applicable)
Ease of Changing Network Configuration (if applicable)
Ease of Changing User Switches (Single or Dual) (if applicable)
Ease of Operation of Radio PTT (if applicable)
Reliability of Radio System
Integration with Existing Kit
Range of Radio in Open Ground
Range of Radio in Wooded Areas
Range of Radio in Urban Areas
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
4
[*EXIT*
]
5B. Using the scale provided, indicate the
the radio equipment used in this trial.
☺
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
HEADSET
Fit of Earpiece
Comfort of Earpiece
Clarity of Earpiece Sound
Ability to Adjust Headband
Comfort of Headband
Ability to Adjust Microphone
Ease of Microphone Use
Quality of Microphone Sound (calm)
Quality of Microphone Sound (wind)
Sensitivity of Microphone
Weight
Cabling
Size
Sound Quality
Ability to Maintain Local Situation Awareness
Reliability of Headset System
Compatibility with Helmet
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
☺
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
CORDLESS PUSH-TO-TALK
Ease of Operation
Functionality of Attachment Strap
Reliability of PTT
Compatibility with Existing Kit
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
5
[*EXIT*
Likes
Indicate the features you liked the most about the Radio.
]
Dislikes
Indicate the features you liked the least about the Radio.
Improvements
How would you improve the radio equipment?
6
[*EXIT*
]
Comments
7
UNCLASSIFIED
DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA
(Security classification of the title, body of abstract and indexing annotation must be entered when the overall document is classified)
1. ORIGINATOR (The name and address of the organization preparing the document, Organizations
for whom the document was prepared, e.g. Centre sponsoring a contractor's report, or tasking agency,
are entered in section 8.)
Publishing: DRDC
Toronto
2. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
(Overall security classification of the document
including special warning terms if applicable.)
UNCLASSIFIED
Performing: Humansystems® Incorporated, 111 Farquhar St., 2nd
floor, Guelph, ON N1H 3N4
Monitoring:
Contracting: DRDC
Toronto
3. TITLE (The complete document title as indicated on the title page. Its classification is indicated by the appropriate abbreviation (S, C, R, or U) in parenthesis at
the end of the title)
Evaluation of the Marconi Personal Role Radio (U)
Évaluation du Poste Radio Personnel Marconi
4. AUTHORS (First name, middle initial and last name. If military, show rank, e.g. Maj. John E. Doe.)
David W. Tack; Edward T. Nakaza
5. DATE OF PUBLICATION
(Month and year of publication of document.)
May 2005
6a NO. OF PAGES
6b. NO. OF REFS
(Total containing information, including
Annexes, Appendices, etc.)
72
(Total cited in document.)
13
7. DESCRIPTIVE NOTES (The category of the document, e.g. technical report, technical note or memorandum. If appropriate, enter the type of report, e.g.
interim, progress, summary, annual or final. Give the inclusive dates when a specific reporting period is covered.)
Contract Report
8. SPONSORING ACTIVITY (The names of the department project office or laboratory sponsoring the research and development − include address.)
Sponsoring: DLR 5, NDHQ OTTAWA,ON K1A 0K2
Tasking:
9a. PROJECT OR GRANT NO. (If appropriate, the applicable
research and development project or grant under which the document was
written. Please specify whether project or grant.)
12QG01
10a. ORIGINATOR'S DOCUMENT NUMBER (The official
9b. CONTRACT NO. (If appropriate, the applicable number under which
the document was written.)
W7711−017747/001/TOR
10b. OTHER DOCUMENT NO(s). (Any other numbers under which
document number by which the document is identified by the originating
activity. This number must be unique to this document)
may be assigned this document either by the originator or by the
sponsor.)
DRDC Toronto CR 2005−031
SIREQ #88
11. DOCUMENT AVAILABILIY (Any limitations on the dissemination of the document, other than those imposed by security classification.)
Defence departments in approved countries − Document has initial limited distribution
through Exploitation Manager − TTCP and NATO countries and agencies − Unlimited
after initial limited distribution
12. DOCUMENT ANNOUNCEMENT (Any limitation to the bibliographic announcement of this document. This will normally correspond to the Document
Availability (11), However, when further distribution (beyond the audience specified in (11) is possible, a wider announcement audience may be selected.))
Other − Document to have initial Limited announcement
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA
(Security classification of the title, body of abstract and indexing annotation must be entered when the overall document is classified)
13. ABSTRACT (A brief and factual summary of the document. It may also appear elsewhere in the body of the document itself. It is highly desirable that the abstract
of classified documents be unclassified. Each paragraph of the abstract shall begin with an indication of the security classification of the information in the paragraph
(unless the document itself is unclassified) represented as (S), (C), (R), or (U). It is not necessary to include here abstracts in both official languages unless the text is
bilingual.)
(U) This experiment investigated the differences between the current in−service Tactical
Command Control and Communications System (TCCCS) radio condition versus the
Personal Role Radio (PRR) in situation awareness, mental workload, teamwork,
coordination, communication effectiveness and mission performance. It also assessed the
tactical feasibility and usability issues specific to the PRR product and whether the PRR
should be acquisitioned for the Canadian Armed Forces.
The findings from our SIREQ experiments have concluded that a small unit radio
enhanced successful information transfer in a timely manner, better coordinated attacks
within Section and within Platoon, increased flow of communication, increased mission
tempo, improved ammunition consumption as a result of more effective fire control,
improved cueing of indirect fire support resulting from the faster dissemination of
information, and increased individual and collective situational awareness.
In conclusion, lessons learned (LL) and tactics, techniques and procedures (TTP’s) based
on findings from past and present Fort Benning Experimentation Series (FBES), and
drawn extensively from the United States Marine Corps, Marine Corps Warfighting
Laboratory (MCWL), UK Government, and non−military publications are discussed.
14. KEYWORDS, DESCRIPTORS or IDENTIFIERS (Technically meaningful terms or short phrases that characterize a document and could be helpful in
cataloguing the document. They should be selected so that no security classification is required. Identifiers, such as equipment model designation, trade name,
military project code name, geographic location may also be included. If possible keywords should be selected from a published thesaurus, e.g. Thesaurus of
Engineering and Scientific Terms (TEST) and that thesaurus identified. If it is not possible to select indexing terms which are Unclassified, the classification of each
should be indicated as with the title.)
(U) Soldier Information Requirements Technology Demonstration Project; SIREQ TD;
Marconi; PRR; Personal Role Radio; TCCCS; Tactical Command Control and
Communications System; radio
UNCLASSIFIED