EXAMINATION OF THE EFFECT OF NIGHT VISION …cradpdf.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/PDFS/unc48/p525018.pdf ·...

DRDC Toronto CR-2005-018

EXAMINATION OF THE EFFECT OF

NIGHT VISION DEVICES ON URBAN OFF-BORE TARGET DETECTION AND ENGAGEMENT

by:

Harry A. Angel, Lisa J. Massel, Philip M. Gaughan, and Vanessa L. Hawes

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 No. 7747-01

HSI SIREQ Item #41

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 Maj Linda Bossi (416) 635-2197

July 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

Humansystems® NVD Urban Off-Bore Target Detection & Engagement Page i

Abstract

A five-day field trial was undertaken at Fort Benning, Georgia in December of 2001. Sixteen volunteer regular force infantry soldiers completed a standardized target detection test while using different on-bore and off-bore vision enhancement, aiming, and illumination devices, during the day and at night, in a repeated measures design. Detection performance was tested on at the McKenna MOUT site in Fort Benning, Georgia with fully exposed, partially exposed targets at near distances (<40m) and farther distances (>40m). Human Factors (HF) tests included assessments of detection performance, compatibility, user acceptance and criteria of importance. Data collection included questionnaires, focus groups, performance measures and HF observer assessments

This field trial assessed the capabilities of conventional on-bore and off-bore systems for static target engagements using blank ammunition. The target detection capabilities for eight day sights and five night sights were evaluated. The sighting systems included conventional on-bore sights (iron, C79, red-dot, and holographic), two off-bore video sights of different magnification (Land Warrior 1x Digital Video Sight (DVS), Defence and Civil Institute of Environmental Medicine (DCIEM) 3.4x sight, a thermal on-bore sight (TW 1000), and a thermal off-bore sight (Land Warrior Nytech system). The capabilities two image intensification (II) night vision goggles (NVGs): monocular AN/PVS-14 and the binocular ANVIS-9 were also recorded. Additionally, the effect of auxiliary infrared illumination (IR) was quantified using the AN/PEQ-2A IR laser with the monocular AN/PVS-14.

Differences between individual sight performances in the day were successfully recorded. Overall, no significant differences were found between the four conventional on-bore sights for target detection performance. Participants using the four on-bore sights (iron, C79, red-dot, and holographic) detected targets significantly faster than when they were using the off-bore sights. While the use of thermal sights did not improve the speed of target detection in the day, targets were detected fastest with a Thermal weapon sight at night. Differences in performance between individual sights in the night were successfully recorded.

At night no significant difference was found between the binocular (ANVIS-9)and the monocular (AN/PVS-14) NVGs for detection/engagement time. Participants using the monocular NVG with an IR illuminator (AN/PEQ-2A) had significantly shorter target detection/engagement times than when not using the auxiliary illumination. Differences in sight acceptability ratings were observed.

Humansystems® NVD Urban Off-Bore Target Detection & Engagement Page ii

Résumé

Un essai sur le terrain de cinq jours a été mené à Fort Benning (Géorgie) en décembre 2001. Seize soldats d’infanterie volontaires de la Force régulière ont effectué un essai normalisé de détection d’objectifs en utilisant différents dispositifs d’amélioration de la vision, de visée et d’illumination dans l’axe et hors axe, le jour et la nuit, selon un protocole de mesures répétées. Des essais visant à évaluer les performances de détection ont été effectués au site McKenna MOUT à Fort Benning (Géorgie), avec des objectifs entièrement exposés et partiellement exposés à faible distance (< 40 m) et à grande distance (> 40 m). Les essais ergonomiques comprenaient l’évaluation des performances de détection, de la compatibilité, de l’acceptation par les utilisateurs et des critères d’importance. La collecte des données s’est effectuée au moyen de questionnaires, de groupes de consultation, de mesures des performances et d’évaluations ergonomiques par des observateurs.

Cet essai sur le terrain visait à évaluer les capacités d’engagement d’objectifs fixes de systèmes classiques dans l’axe et hors axe en utilisant des munitions à blanc. On a évalué les capacités de détection d’objectifs de huit viseurs diurnes et de cinq viseurs nocturnes. Les systèmes de visée consistaient en des viseurs classiques dans l’axe (métallique, C79, à marqueur à tache rouge et holographique), deux viseurs vidéo hors axe de grossissements différents (DVS [viseur vidéo numérique] Land Warrior 1x, viseur 3.4x de l’IMED [Institut de médecine environnementale pour la défense]), un viseur thermique dans l’axe (TW 1000) et un viseur thermique hors axe (système Land Warrior Nytech). On a aussi enregistré les capacités de deux lunettes de vision nocturne (NVG) à intensification d’image (II) : AN/PVS-14 monoculaire et ANVIS-9 binoculaire. De plus, on a quantifié l’effet de l’illumination infrarouge (IR) auxiliaire en utilisant le laser IR AN/PEQ-2A avec la lunette monoculaire AN/PVS-14.

Les différences entre les performances des viseurs individuels le jour ont été enregistrées avec succès. Dans l’ensemble, aucune différence appréciable des performances de détection d’objectifs n’a été observée entre les quatre viseurs classiques dans l’axe. Les participants qui utilisaient les quatre viseurs dans l’axe (métallique, C79, à marqueur à tache rouge et holographique) ont détecté les objectifs beaucoup plus rapidement qu’avec les viseurs hors axe. L’utilisation de viseurs thermiques n’a pas permis d’accroître la vitesse de détection des objectifs le jour, mais elle a permis de détecter les objectifs plus rapidement la nuit. Les différences entre les performances des viseurs individuels la nuit ont été enregistrées avec succès.

La nuit, on n’a observé aucune différence appréciable de temps de détection/engagement entre la NVG binoculaire (ANVIS-9) et la NVG monoculaire (AN/PVS-14). Les participants qui utilisaient la NVG monoculaire avec un illuminateur IR (AN/PEQ-2A) ont obtenu des temps de détection/engagement d’objectifs beaucoup plus courts que sans illumination auxiliaire. On a observé des différences dans les évaluations d’acceptabilité des viseurs.

Humansystems® NVD Urban Off-Bore Target Detection & Engagement Page iii

Executive Summary

A five-day field trial was undertaken at Fort Benning, Georgia in December of 2001. Sixteen volunteer regular force infantry soldiers completed a simulated target detection and engagement task in an urban setting while using different on-bore and off-bore vision enhancement, aiming and illumination devices in the day and at night in a repeated measures design. This trial was one of two sighting and system studies conducted for the SIREQ-TD Programme in FBES II. The first study, reported elsewhere, examined the effects of sighting system on engagement accuracy in a combat range while this study examined system effects on speed of detection in an urban setting. Detection performance was tested on at the McKenna MOUT site in Fort Benning, Georgia with fully exposed, partially exposed (50% occluded) targets at near distances (10 to 40m) and farther distances (41 to75m). Human Factors (HF) tests included assessments of detection and engagement performance, illumination, visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, compatibility, user acceptance and criteria of importance. Data collection included questionnaires, focus groups, performance measures and HF observer assessments.

The aims of this trial were to quantify the detection/engagement capabilities of four conventional on-bore video sights (iron, C79, red-dot and holographic), two off-bore video sights (LWS DVS 1x and DCIEM 3.4x), and on-bore and off-bore thermal sights during an urban target engagement task in daylight. During night testing, the aim of the trial was to quantify the detection/ engagement capabilities of on-bore and off-bore thermal sights, a binocular NVG with a visible laser, a monocular NVG with a visible laser, and a monocular NVG with an IR illuminator during an urban target engagement task. The detection performance and user acceptance of day and night on-bore and off-bore systems were captured in this trial.

The mean time to detect targets in the day against near and far, occluded and non-occluded targets varied from a low of less than 5 seconds to a high of 36.8 seconds for the eight day sights. Overall, no significant differences were found between the four conventional on-bore video sights. The four conventional on-bore sights (iron, C79, red-dot and holographic) and the on-bore thermal weapon sight had significantly shorter target detection/engagement times than the off-bore thermal and off-bore video sights during the day. The four conventional on-bore sights were considered significantly more acceptable than both thermal devices and the off-bore video sights. No significant difference in target detection/engagement time was found between the LW DVS (1x) and the DCIEM (3.4x) off-bore video sights. The advantage of reflex sights and iron sights over optical sights for urban target detection tasks were not demonstrated in this experiment. The majority of participants indicated that the holographic sight was the most preferred day sight.

The detection performance of two off-bore video daytime sighting systems (Land warrior DVS 1x and the DCIEM 3.4x Gunsight) and one thermal off-bore sight (Nytech Land warrior system) during simulated urban engagement scenarios were quantified in this experiment. Across all the targets, the target detection/engagement times of the video off-bore sights did not vary significantly (mean time of 21.2 to 24.4 seconds). The thermal off-bore system performed better than the video off-bore system (mean 16.0 seconds). On average participants using the off-bore systems took 1.8 times as long to detect targets in the day as compared to the conventional sights. The participants in this study could visualize the utility of an off-bore sight in the defence but

Humansystems® NVD Urban Off-Bore Target Detection & Engagement Page iv

believed further testing and improvements to the current systems were required before off-bore systems would be operationally acceptable. The effects of magnification on off-bore detection performance were observed but caution is required in interpreting these results due to differences in camera and HMD resolutions. Magnified systems out-performed unmagnified systems.

During both day and night, the on-bore thermal sight had significantly shorter target detection/engagement times than the off-bore thermal sight. The mean time to detect targets for the participants with the two thermal sights in the day and night against near and far, occluded and non-occluded targets varied from a low of 7.2 seconds for the Thermal Weapon sight for near open targets in the day to a high of 46.4 seconds for Thermal Off-bore sight against far occluded targets at night. These results suggest that the participants were also using their non-sighting eye or both eyes to detect targets in the day. The monocular off-bore system utilized in this experiment allowed participants to use their un-occluded to eye to help detect targets, when occluded as at night detection time increased significantly. These results suggest some caution should be utilized in the use of opaque binocular displays in the day for HMDs vice a monocular display. Caution is required in interpreting the results of the comparison of on-bore and off-bore thermal systems due to minor differences in system resolution, field of view, and magnification.

The mean time to detect targets at night against near and far, occluded and non-occluded targets varied from a low of 7 seconds to a high of 48.5 seconds for the five night sights. Overall at night, no significant difference was found between the binocular and the monocular NVGs for detection/engagement time, but the binocular NVG was considered significantly more acceptable. The monocular NVG with an IR illuminator had significantly shorter target detection/engagement times than the monocular NVG with a visible laser, yet there were no significant differences in acceptability ratings. Operationally, the significant advantage of equipping every soldier with a binocular system in urban operations was not demonstrated, conversely the results do identify the need to field IR illuminators along with LADs for urban operations.

While the thermal off-bore sight was considered the least acceptable sight at night it had the fastest detection times. Concerns with the thermal weapon sights weight, bulk, maintenance of zero, reticle design, etc. were raised by the participants. The benefits of a dedicated thermal weapon sight were demonstrated in this trial and these benefits may be more noticeable with the use of more demanding and hidden targets (i.e. 75-90% occluded).

Feedback on vision/optics design, reticle design, system functionality, compatibility with task demands, compatibility with other equipment and overall acceptance were captured for the day and night sights. Design criteria that the participants deemed important were captured for both sights and NVGs. Recommendations for future research are also discussed.

Humansystems® NVD Urban Off-Bore Target Detection & Engagement Page v

Sommaire

Un essai sur le terrain de cinq jours a été mené à Fort Benning (Géorgie) en décembre 2001. Seize soldats d’infanterie volontaires de la Force régulière ont effectué une opération simulée de détection et d’engagement d’objectifs en milieu urbain en utilisant différents dispositifs d’amélioration de la vision, de visée et d’illumination dans l’axe et hors axe, le jour et la nuit, selon un protocole de mesures répétées. Cet essai constituait une de deux études portant sur des systèmes de visée effectuées pour le programme SIREQ-TD dans la série d’expériences FBES II. La première étude, dont on traite dans un autre document, concernait les effets du système de visée sur la précision de l’engagement dans un champ de tir, alors que la présente étude concerne les effets du système sur la vitesse de détection en milieu urbain. Des essais visant à évaluer les performances de détection ont été effectués au site McKenna MOUT à Fort Benning (Géorgie), avec des objectifs entièrement exposés et partiellement exposés (masqués à 50 %) à faible distance (10 à 40 m) et à grande distance (41 à 75 m). Les essais ergonomiques comprenaient l’évaluation des performances de détection et d’engagement, de l’illumination, de l’acuité visuelle, de la sensibilité au contraste, de la compatibilité, de l’acceptation par les utilisateurs et des critères d’importance. La collecte des données s’est effectuée au moyen de questionnaires, de groupes de consultation, de mesures des performances et d’évaluations ergonomiques par des observateurs.

L’essai visait à quantifier les capacités de détection/engagement de quatre viseurs vidéo classiques dans l’axe (métallique, C79, à marqueur à tache rouge et holographique), de deux viseurs vidéo hors axe (DVS [viseur vidéo numérique] Land Warrior 1x, viseur 3.4x de l’IMED [Institut de médecine environnementale pour la défense]) et de viseurs thermiques dans l’axe et hors axe au cours d’une opération d’engagement d’objectifs en milieu urbain le jour. Les essais effectués la nuit visaient à quantifier les capacités de détection/engagement de viseurs thermiques dans l’axe et hors axe, d’une NVG binoculaire avec un laser visible, d’une NVG monoculaire avec un laser visible et d’une NVG monoculaire avec un illuminateur IR au cours d’une opération d’engagement d’objectifs en milieu urbain. Les performances de détection et l’acceptation par les utilisateurs des systèmes diurnes et nocturnes dans l’axe et hors axe ont été mesurées dans cet essai.

Le temps moyen de détection des objectifs masqués et non masqués, à faible distance et à grande distance, le jour, allait de moins de 5 secondes à 36,8 secondes pour les huit viseurs diurnes. Dans l’ensemble, aucune différence appréciable n’a été observée entre les quatre viseurs vidéo classiques dans l’axe. Les quatre viseurs classiques dans l’axe (métallique, C79, à marqueur à tache rouge et holographique) et le viseur thermique dans l’axe ont permis d’obtenir, le jour, des temps de détection/engagement d’objectifs beaucoup plus courts que le viseur thermique hors axe et les viseurs vidéo hors axe. Les quatre viseurs classiques dans l’axe ont été considérés comme beaucoup plus acceptables que les deux dispositifs thermiques et que les viseurs vidéo hors axe. Aucune différence appréciable de temps de détection/engagement n’a été observée entre le viseur vidéo numérique Land Warrior (1x) et le viseur vidéo IMED (3.4x). La supériorité des viseurs reflex et des viseurs métalliques par rapport aux viseurs optiques pour les opérations de détection d’objectifs en milieu urbain n’a pas été démontrée dans cette expérience. La majorité des participants ont indiqué que le viseur holographique était celui qu’ils préféraient le plus le jour.

Les performances de détection de deux systèmes de visée vidéo diurnes hors axe (système vidéo numérique Land Warrior 1x et viseur IMED 3.4x) et d’un viseur thermique hors axe (système Nytech Land Warrior) dans des scénarios d’engagement simulé en milieu urbain ont été quantifiées dans cette expérience. Pour tous les objectifs, les temps de détection/engagement obtenus avec les

Humansystems® NVD Urban Off-Bore Target Detection & Engagement Page vi

viseurs vidéo hors axe ne variaient pas de façon appréciable (temps moyen de 21,2 à 24,4 secondes). Les performances du système thermique hors axe étaient supérieures à celles du système vidéo hors axe (temps moyen de 16,0 secondes). En moyenne, les participants qui utilisaient les systèmes hors axe ont pris 1,8 fois le temps qu’ils prenaient avec les viseurs classiques pour détecter les objectifs le jour. Les participants à cette étude pouvaient se rendre compte de l’utilité d’un viseur hors axe aux fins de la défense, mais ils estimaient que les systèmes actuels requièrent d’autres essais et améliorations avant que les systèmes hors axe puissent être considérés comme acceptables du point de vue opérationnel. Les effets du grossissement sur les performances de détection des systèmes hors axe ont été observés, mais il faut faire preuve de prudence dans l’interprétation de ces résultats en raison des différences entre la résolution des caméras et celle des HMD. Les systèmes à grossissement ont surclassé les systèmes sans grossissement.

Le jour et la nuit, les temps de détection/engagement d’objectifs obtenus avec le viseur thermique dans l’axe étaient beaucoup plus courts que les temps obtenus avec le viseur thermique hors axe. Le temps moyen de détection des objectifs masqués et non masqués, à faible distance et à grande distance, le jour et la nuit, avec les deux viseurs thermiques, allait de 7,2 secondes, dans le cas du viseur thermique pour les objectifs exposés à courte distance le jour, à 46,4 secondes, dans le cas du viseur thermique hors axe pour les objectifs masqués à grande distance la nuit. Ces résultats portent à croire que les participants utilisaient aussi leur œil non placé sur le viseur ou leurs deux yeux pour détecter les objectifs le jour. Le système monoculaire hors axe utilisé dans cette expérience permettait aux participants de se servir de leur œil non obstrué pour détecter plus facilement les objectifs, lorsqu’ils sont masqués, car le temps de détection la nuit augmentait de façon appréciable. Ces résultats indiquent qu’il faut exercer une certaine prudence dans l’utilisation, le jour, des afficheurs binoculaires opaques à la place des afficheurs monoculaires pour les HMD. Il faut faire preuve de prudence dans l’interprétation des résultats de la comparaison des systèmes thermiques dans l’axe et hors axe en raison des légères différences de résolution, de champ de vision et de grossissement de ces systèmes.

Le temps moyen de détection des objectifs masqués et non masqués, à faible distance et à grande distance, la nuit, allait de 7 secondes à 48,5 secondes pour les cinq viseurs nocturnes. Dans l’ensemble, la nuit, on n’a observé aucune différence importante de temps de détection/engagement entre la NVG binoculaire et la NVG monoculaire, mais la NVG binoculaire a été considérée comme beaucoup plus acceptable. Les temps de détection/engagement d’objectifs obtenus avec la NVG monoculaire avec un illuminateur IR étaient beaucoup plus courts que les temps obtenus avec la NVG monoculaire avec un laser visible, mais on n’a pas observé de différence appréciable dans les évaluations d’acceptabilité. Sur le plan opérationnel, on n’a pas démontré que l’ajout d’un système binoculaire à l’équipement de chaque soldat pour les opérations en milieu urbain présentait un avantage important. Par contre, les résultats indiquent réellement la nécessité de mettre en service les illuminateurs IR avec les LAD pour les opérations en milieu urbain.

Bien qu’il ait été considéré comme le viseur le moins acceptable la nuit, le viseur thermique hors axe donnait les temps de détection les plus courts. Les participants ont soulevé certaines préoccupations au sujet, notamment, du poids, du volume, du maintien du zéro et de la conception du réticule des viseurs thermiques. Les avantages d’un viseur thermique spécialisé ont été démontrés dans cet essai et ils peuvent être plus évidents avec l’utilisation d’objectifs plus difficiles à détecter et cachés (masqués à 75-90 %).

Des commentaires sur la conception des éléments de vision/d’optique, la conception des réticules, la fonctionnalité des systèmes, la compatibilité avec les exigences de la tâche, la compatibilité avec

Humansystems® NVD Urban Off-Bore Target Detection & Engagement Page vii

d’autre matériel et l’acceptation globale ont été recueillis pour les viseurs diurnes et nocturnes. Les critères de conception que les participants jugeaient importants ont été notés pour les viseurs et les NVG. Les recommandations concernant les travaux de recherche futurs sont aussi examinées.

Humansystems® NVD Urban Off-Bore Target Detection & Engagement Page viii

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................................................I

RÉSUMÉ......................................................................................................................................................... II

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................................III

SOMMAIRE ................................................................................................................................................... V

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...........................................................................................................................VIII

LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................................................... X

LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................................................XI

1. BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................................... 1

2. AIM .......................................................................................................................................................... 4

3. METHOD ................................................................................................................................................ 5 3.1 TRIAL PARTICIPANTS ........................................................................................................................ 5 3.2 MATERIALS....................................................................................................................................... 5

3.2.1 Monocular AN/PVS –14............................................................................................................... 6 3.2.2 Binocular ANVIS-9 ...................................................................................................................... 6 3.2.3 PEQ-5/CVL Carbine visible laser ............................................................................................... 7 3.2.4 AN/PEQ-2A IR Laser................................................................................................................... 8 3.2.5 Aimpoint CompM2 Red Dot Sight ............................................................................................ 9 3.2.6 EOTech Model 550 Holographic Sight...................................................................................... 10 3.2.7 W1000 Uncooled Thermal Weapon Sight.................................................................................. 10 3.2.8 Nytech Thermal Off-bore Sight.................................................................................................. 11 3.2.9 Land Warrior Kaiser Electronics’ Daylight Video Sight (DVS) and Helmet Mounted Display (HMD) 12 3.2.10 DCIEM Off-bore Sight .......................................................................................................... 14 3.2.11 DCIEM Video Sight............................................................................................................... 15 3.2.12 Virtual Vision Sport HMD..................................................................................................... 16

3.3 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN.................................................................................................................. 17 3.3.1 Independent Variables ............................................................................................................... 18 3.3.2 Dependent Variables ................................................................................................................. 18

3.4 STATISTICAL PLAN ......................................................................................................................... 22 3.5 PROCEDURE .................................................................................................................................... 23

3.5.1 Set-up ......................................................................................................................................... 23 3.5.2 Testing Procedures .................................................................................................................... 26

3.6 LIMITATIONS................................................................................................................................... 27 4. RESULTS .............................................................................................................................................. 28

4.1 SIGHT DETECTION PERFORMANCE.................................................................................................. 28 4.1.1 Target Detection/Engagement Times – Day Conditions............................................................ 29 4.1.2 Target Detection/Engagement Times - Night Conditions .......................................................... 32

Humansystems® NVD Urban Off-Bore Target Detection & Engagement Page ix

4.1.3 Target Detection/Engagement Times - Thermal Devices – Day versus Night Comparison ...... 34 4.2 TASK ACCEPTANCE RESULTS ......................................................................................................... 36

4.2.1 Task Acceptance Day Conditions .............................................................................................. 36 4.2.2 Task Acceptance Night Conditions ............................................................................................ 38

4.3 EXIT QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS...................................................................................................... 40 4.3.1 Vision/Optics Results ................................................................................................................. 40 4.3.2 Reticle Design Results ............................................................................................................... 43 4.3.3 Sight Functionality Results ........................................................................................................ 45 4.3.4 HMD Functionality Results ....................................................................................................... 47 4.3.5 Task Demands Results ............................................................................................................... 47 4.3.6 Compatibility Results................................................................................................................. 49 4.3.7 Overall Acceptance Results ....................................................................................................... 49

4.4 FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION............................................................................................................. 52 4.5 CRITERIA OF IMPORTANCE RESULTS............................................................................................... 53

4.5.1 Weapon Sight Results................................................................................................................. 53 4.5.2 Night Vision Goggle Results ...................................................................................................... 55

5. DISCUSSION........................................................................................................................................ 57

6. RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................................................... 60

7. REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................... 62

ANNEX A: TASK ACCEPTANCE QUESTIONNAIRE.........................................................................A-1

ANNEX B: CRITERIA OF IMPORTANCE QUESTIONNAIRE–WEAPONS SIGHTS ................... B-1

ANNEX C: CRITERIA OF IMPORTANCE QUESTIONNAIRE– NVGS ...... C-ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

Humansystems® NVD Urban Off-Bore Target Detection & Engagement Page x

List of Tables

TABLE 1: DATA COLLECTION BLOCKS .............................................................................................................. 17 TABLE 2: WEATHER CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................................... 20 TABLE 3: ILLUMINATION ASSESSMENTS ........................................................................................................... 20 TABLE 4: TASK ACCEPTANCE ........................................................................................................................... 21 TABLE 5: WEAPON SIGHTS: CRITERIA OF IMPORTANCE .................................................................................... 22 TABLE 6: NVG’S: CRITERIA OF IMPORTANCE................................................................................................... 22 TABLE 7: STATISTICAL PLAN............................................................................................................................ 23 TABLE 8: TARGET LOCATIONS.......................................................................................................................... 25 TABLE 9: CONDITION ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................. 28 TABLE 10: MEAN TARGET DETECTION/ENGAGEMENT TIMES IN DAY CONDITION.............................................. 30 TABLE 11: SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN TARGET DETECTION/ENGAGEMENT TIMES IN DAY CONDITION......... 31 TABLE 12: MEAN TARGET DETECTION TIME FOR NIGHT CONDITIONS ............................................................... 33 TABLE 13: SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN TARGET DETECTION/ENGAGEMENT TIMES IN NIGHT CONDITION...... 34 TABLE 14: ACCEPTABILITY RATINGS OF DAY CONDITIONS ............................................................................ 38 TABLE 15: TASK QUESTIONNAIRE MEAN ACCEPTABILITY RATINGS OF NIGHT CONDITIONS........................... 40 TABLE 16: MEAN ACCEPTANCE OF VISION / OPTICS CRITERIA ........................................................................ 42 TABLE 17: MEAN ACCEPTABLE RATINGS OF RETICLE CRITERIA ..................................................................... 44 TABLE 18: MEAN ACCEPTABILITY RATINGS OF THE SIGHTS FUNCTIONALITY ................................................. 46 TABLE 19: MEAN ACCEPTABILITY RATINGS FOR HMD FUNCTIONALITY ........................................................ 47 TABLE 20: MEAN ACCEPTABILITY RATINGS OF TASK DEMANDS..................................................................... 48 TABLE 21: MEAN ACCEPTABILITY RATINGS FOR COMPATIBILITY ................................................................... 51 TABLE 22: MEAN OVERALL TASK ACCEPTANCE OF SIGHTS ............................................................................ 51

Humansystems® NVD Urban Off-Bore Target Detection & Engagement Page xi

List of Figures

FIGURE 1: OFF-BORE SHOOTING USING THE US LAND WARRIOR SYSTEM ......................................................... 2 FIGURE 2: MONOCULAR AN/PVS-14 ................................................................................................................. 6 FIGURE 3: BINOCULAR ANVIS-9 ....................................................................................................................... 7 FIGURE 4: CARBINE VISIBLE LASER .................................................................................................................... 8 FIGURE 5: AN/PEQ-2A...................................................................................................................................... 8 FIGURE 6: AIMPOINT COMP M2 RED DOT SIGHT ............................................................................................ 9 FIGURE 7: EOTECH MODEL 550 HOLOGRAPHIC SIGHT .................................................................................... 10 FIGURE 8: W1000 UNCOOLED THERMAL WEAPON SIGHT................................................................................ 11 FIGURE 9: NYTECH THERMAL OFF-BORE SIGHT (HMD VERSION) ................................................................... 12 FIGURE 10: KAISER ELECTRONICS’ WEAPON MOUNTED DAYLIGHT VIDEO SIGHT (FRONT)............................ 13 FIGURE 11: KAISER ELECTRONICS’ WEAPON MOUNTED DAYLIGHT VIDEO SIGHT (SIDE) ............................... 13 FIGURE 12: US LAND WARRIOR HELMET MOUNTED DISPLAY (HMD)............................................................ 14 FIGURE 13: THE DCIEM HELMET MOUNTED GUNSIGHT ................................................................................. 15 FIGURE 14: DCIEM VIDEO SIGHT (FRONT) ...................................................................................................... 15 FIGURE 15: DCIEM VIDEO SIGHT CONTROLS .................................................................................................. 16 FIGURE 16: VIRTUAL VISION SPORT HMD (LEFT-EYE VERSION) ..................................................................... 16 FIGURE 17: ANV-20/20 NVD INFINITY FOCUS SYSTEM .................................................................................. 19 FIGURE 18: ANV-20/20 ACUITY RESOLUTION PATTERN ................................................................................. 19 FIGURE 19: STANDARD RATING SCALE ............................................................................................................. 21 FIGURE 20: MCKENNA MOUT SITE LAYOUT. ................................................................................................. 24 FIGURE 21: OPEN TARGET ................................................................................................................................ 25 FIGURE 22: SEMI-OCCLUDED TARGET .............................................................................................................. 25 FIGURE 23: TARGET DETECTION TIMES FOR THE DAY CONDITION .................................................................... 29 FIGURE 24: TARGET DETECTION TIMES IN NIGHT CONDITION ........................................................................... 32 FIGURE 25: TARGET DETECTION TIMES FOR THERMAL DEVICES - DAY VERSUS NIGHT COMPARISON ................ 35 FIGURE 26: ACCEPTABILITY RATINGS OF DAY CONDITIONS ........................................................................... 37 FIGURE 27: ACCEPTABILITY RATINGS OF NIGHT CONDITIONS ......................................................................... 39 FIGURE 28: CRITERIA OF IMPORTANCE SUMMARY – WEAPON SIGHTS ............................................................. 54 FIGURE 29: CRITERIA OF IMPORTANCE SUMMARY – NVGS.............................................................................. 55

Humansystems® NVD Urban Off-Bore Target Detection & Engagement Page 1

1. Background

As part of Soldier Information Requirement – Technical Demonstrator (SIREQ – TD) Defence Research and Development Canada (Toronto) has been examining the benefits and operational impact of various Night Vision Devices (NVDs), image intensified weapon sights and thermal weapon sights during dismounted traverse and target engagement experiments (Angel (2004), Angel & Woods (2004), Angel & Nunes, 2004; Angel & Woods (2004), Angel, Massel, Christian and Hawes, 2005). While these trials have shown the operational benefit of NVGs and Laser Aiming Devices (LADs) they have not demonstrated that binocular NVGs are substantially more effective than monocular NVGs. Additionally the impact of auxiliary illumination on target detection performance in bush conditions was shown to be mixed. In parallel with the investigations into NVGs, LADs and thermal sights SIREQ has also examined the benefits of novel day sights (Angel & Gaughan, 2005). The current Land Force rifle sight is a 3.4x optical sight (C79) and while the sight enhances soldier performance at against distant targets and targets in poor light situations, it may be deficient in close combat operations. A number of novel off-bore sighting systems are also now available which will allow the operator to search for and engage targets while under cover (Feltham, 1997). The off-bore camera system (Digital Video Sight or DRS) is a prominent feature of the US Land Warrior Programme.

There are a number of new sighting systems, which do support close combat rifle engagements; these include reflex sights and laser sights. These devices are said to significantly improve day and night shooting performance. Anecdotal reports and field research have identified a number of advantages and disadvantages with these rifle sighting systems. Whilst not exhaustive, the effectiveness of rifle sighting systems can be examined in terms of precision accuracy, speed of target acquisition and engagement, attention narrowing, ease of adjustment, and durability. While open or iron sights are very durable and hold their aim, they are hard to aim quickly and cannot deliver precision accuracy. Conversely, optical sights are more fragile, harder to use quickly, and cause attention narrowing. However, optical sights do offer precision accuracy. Laser sights are affected by environmental factors and are limited by eye-safe laser safety considerations. The latest optical technology in rifle aiming systems is the reflex sight or red dot aiming sights. These sights are said to improve day and night rapid target engagement performance. A number of military forces and police forces are also now equipped with light un-cooled thermal weapon sights. Though the benefits of these systems are well known to police emergency response teams and military special forces teams, controlled field trial evidence is unavailable. The question for SIREQ is do these thermal weapon sights simply improve target detection capabilities or can they also be used for accurate target engagements?

In addition to close combat sights and thermal sights a number of off-bore systems are now available. The combination of a weapon mounted sensor and Helmet Mounted Display (HMD) allow soldiers to shoot at targets around corners and from behind cover, without exposing their head or upper body - see Figure 1. With only the arms exposed to enemy fire, such “off-bore” shooting offers significant improvements to survivability and lethality for the soldier. However, the accuracy of off-bore HMD systems in relation to conventional on-bore sights remains unclear because of the limited amount of comparative studies. HMDs are known to aid in relieving the high workload of a pilot of aircraft (Caldwell, Cornum, Stephens, & Rash (1990); Leger, Roumes, Gadelles, Cursolle & Kraus (1998); Saliba & Meehan (1996) and Velger,1998) but how


well they affect the shooting performance of dismounted infantry is less known. Reported studies on target engagement performance with the current version of the United States Army’s Land Warrior system are not available but limited studies using commercial video cameras and HMDs are available (Kooi, 1996). In order to address this limitation, the SIREQ-TD Project has sponsored a series of scientific investigations to characterize soldier performance with off-bore systems compared to on-bore sights. In a recent lab experiment, the Land Warrior System was studied using the Small-Arms-Trainer (SAT) shooting simulator with randomized gallery range scenarios and different moving target serials (Angel, Christian & Massel, 2005).

Figure 1: Off-bore shooting using the US Land Warrior System

The preliminary results of the small arms simulator trial suggested that conventional sights may out perform off-bore sights for engagement accuracy and speed of engagement. Given the ecological validity of a simulator assessment and the differences between urban operations from traditional operations, the SIREQ-TD has sponsored two further studies. The first study compared the performance of novel off-bore sights, thermal weapon sights and infrared aiming lasers with illuminators on a combat range (Angel & Hawes, 2005).

Unlike a conventional gallery range or known distance range a combat range includes static and moving targets at distances from 25 to 300m. Based on extensive analysis of target exposures in combat, realistic exposure times and targets speeds have been identified. As expected close-in targets move faster – i.e. dash-like speeds while targets further away move slower. The time of exposure is also dependent on range. Far targets are exposed longer than close-in targets. The Malone 18 combat range at Fort Benning is the culminating range practice for training US Army soldiers and, based on anecdotal evidence, the normal range practice for the US Ranger Training Brigade. The US Army has developed a number of combat range test scenarios involving a mix of static and moving targets. While the scenarios can be used to test individual marksmanship abilities, they can also be used to assess the impact of weapon sight on individual performance. In addition to combat ranges and known distance ranges, new urban engagement ranges are being developed. These facilities villages provide soldiers with an opportunity to train in typical urban streets and in room clearance activities. Target engagement distances, target exposure durations


and the location and size of presented targets are different than other ranges. While distance may be less in an urban range, soldiers are required to scan horizontally and vertically for a randomly appearing target. Thus the task demands in an urban range are different than those in a combat range with relatively narrow engagement lanes.

As stated earlier, during the Fort Benning Experimental Series #2 conventional on-bore and novel off-bore weapons sight and night vision devices were evaluated during a live fire trial (Angel & Hawes, 2005). These systems were assessed at an instrumented combat range employ both static and dynamic targets. Even though this experiment generated data on on-bore and off-bore system accuracy, the use of live ammunition limited the testing of these systems to narrow arcs of fire, and thus it is not indicative of true target detection capabilities. In order to examine the effects of the limited fields of view associated with off-bore systems, these devices were assessed in this separate urban experiment. While a number of on-bore sights were assessed in an earlier urban engagement experiment (Angel & Gaughan, 2005), the target detection and engagement distances were very short (the trial examined room clearance performance) and the performance of off-bore and thermal sights was not assessed. Therefore, the impact of novel off-bore and conventional on-bore systems on target detection and engagement were assessed in this revised urban detection experiment. Additionally, the impact of auxiliary IR illumination with NVGs was also assessed on this unique urban course.


2. Aim

The aim of this field trial was to compare the capabilities of off-bore systems to other on-bore systems during simulated static urban target detection and engagement.

This experiment was part of the SIREQ-TD Program’s investigation efforts in the areas of weapon sensor characterization and target engagement system characterization.

Goals of this trial included:

• Quantifying the detection and engagement performance of on-bore daytime sighting systems (iron, C79 optic, reflex red dot and holographic) during simulated urban engagement scenarios.

• Comparing the detection and engagement performance of on-bore daytime sights (iron, C79 optic, reflex red dot and holographic) versus off-bore daylight video sights (Land Warrior off-bore Daylight Video Sight (DVS) and DCIEM) during simulated urban engagement scenarios.

• Comparing the magnification effect on detection and engagement performance of off-bore daylight video sights (Land Warrior DVS (1x) and DCIEM (3.4x)) during simulated urban engagement scenarios.

• Quantifying the detection and engagement performance of using laser sighting systems with different types of image intensification (II) NVGs: monocular AN/PVS-14 and binocular ANVIS-9 NVGs during simulated urban engagement scenarios at night.

• Quantifying the detection and engagement performance of using a laser sighting system: the AN/PEQ-2 IR laser with the monocular AN/PVS-14 NVG during simulated urban engagement scenarios at night.

• Quantifying the detection and engagement performance of a thermal weapon-mounted sight and the Land Warrior thermal off-bore sight during day and night simulated urban engagement scenarios.


3. Method

A five-day field trial was undertaken at Fort Benning, Georgia. Sixteen volunteer regular force infantry soldiers completed a simulated target detection and engagement task in an urban setting while using different on-bore and off-bore vision enhancement, aiming and illumination devices in the day and at night in a repeated measures design. Section 3.2 describes each of the systems under investigation. Day testing occurred on December 12, 13, 15 and 16, 2001 and night testing occurred on December 15 – 17, 2001. The presentation of conditions was controlled to minimize order effects among participants. Human factors (HF) tests included assessments of detection and engagement performance, illumination, visual acuity and contrast sensitivity, compatibility, user acceptance and criteria of importance. Data collection included questionnaires, focus groups, performance measures and HF observer assessments.

3.1 Trial Participants Sixteen regular force infantrymen were recruited for this experiment from the 1st Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment (1RCR) in Petawawa. One participant out of the sixteen participants had not participated in the previous live fire Malone Range 18 experiment1 but he had practice firing with the different weapon sights and night vision devices on the Malone Range 18. The mean age of the participants was 28.6 years (SD=5.8, max=39, min=19) and mean length of service in the reserves and regular force was 5.8 years (SD=5.2, max=18.0, min=1.0). Fourteen of the sixteen participants had their last Personal Weapons Test (PWT) one-month ago, one participant only 2 months ago, and one participant 3 months ago. Six participants wore glasses and three participants were colour blind. Ten participants had some operational experience with night vision devices and the other six participants had moderate experience. Six participants had no operational experience with thermal devices, eight had some experience and two had moderate experience. None of the participants had operational experience with HMDs for off-bore shooting.

3.2 Materials The materials utilized in this study included day and night sighting systems, vision systems and an auxiliary illumination system. The systems are described in greater detail below.

1 The Malone Range 18 experiment included the eight day and five night conditions for each vision and sighting system used in this experiment. Experimenters were primarily interested in target engagement accuracy (see SIREQ-TD Human Factors Report: Examination of the Effect of Night Vision Devices on Off-Bore Target Engagement Accuracy). Participants were given the opportunity to learn how to attach and focus the NVGs and weapon sights. As well, engaging static and pop-up Carswell targets, participants had an opportunity to use the various vision and sighting systems, becoming familiar with them. As a result, learning effects for this experiment were minimized. We would also expect to see knowledge transfer from the Malone Range 18 experiment to this experiment in areas of familiarity and target engagement accuracy.


3.2.1 Monocular AN/PVS –14 The AN/PVS-14 is a lightweight, high performance passive third generation monocular image intensifier system (see Figure 2). The monocular AN/PVS-14 is either worn on the head as a goggle system or attached to the soldier’s helmet. The goggle assembly is a head-mounted self-contained night vision system containing one monocular unit consisting of an objective lens assembly, an image intensifier tube, a housing assembly, and a monocular eyepiece assembly. The housing is mounted to a face mask assembly which is held by head straps to the user's head. The assembly incorporates an infrared (IR) light source, which provides illumination, to permit close-in-viewing. Other features include automatic brightness control, bright source protection, low battery indicator and high-resolution unity F1.2 lens.

Figure 2: Monocular AN/PVS-14

The monocular AN/PVS-14 has the following specifications:

Magnification Power 1 X

Intensifier Tube Gen. III

System Gain 3000 fL/fL

Field of View 40 degrees

Depth of field 25 cm to infinity

Interocular Adjustment -6D to +2D

Power Source 2 AA

Weight 392 grams

3.2.2 Binocular ANVIS-9 The binocular ANVIS-9 is a lightweight, non-see through high performance binocular NVG system (see Figure 3). The binocular ANVIS-9 is an aviation system worn on aircrew helmets. The goggle assembly is a head-mounted self-contained night vision system containing two separate and independent imaging systems. The independent systems include an objective lens


assembly, an image intensifier tube, a housing assembly, and an eyepiece assembly. The housing is mounted to a helmet attachment assembly, which in turn is attached to a helmet mount.

Figure 3: Binocular ANVIS-9

The binocular ANVIS-9 has the following specifications:

Magnification Power 1 X

Intensifier Tube Gen III

Field of View 40 degrees

Depth of field 25 cm to infinity

Interocular Adjustment -6D to +2D

Power Source 4 AA

Weight 550 grams

3.2.3 PEQ-5/CVL Carbine visible laser The PEQ-5/CVL Carbine visible laser is a visible aiming light that attaches to the C7A1 rifle for night target engagement (see Figure 4). When the system is turned on, it sends a steady visible beam along the C7A1’s line of fire, designating the point of impact on the target. The system utilizes a Class IIIa laser (ANSIZB 136.1) to generate the aiming point. The system marks targets out to approximately 600 meters in low light and night conditions.

The system weighs 137 grams and is powered by one standard AA battery. The Carbine visible laser attaches to the C7 rifle by means of an integral rail-grabber mounting bracket.


Figure 4: Carbine visible laser

The Carbine visible laser has the following specifications:

Wavelength 630± 15 nanometers

Power Output 4.5 Milliwatts (mW) max

Range in Meters >600meters (low light and night conditions)

Beam Divergence ≤ 0.8 milliradian (mil)

Beam Modulation Steady

3.2.4 AN/PEQ-2A IR Laser The AN/PEQ-2A is a dual laser system developed to allow a combination of both pinpoint aiming and broad beam target illumination (see Figure 5). It can be handheld or mounted to a weapon for operation. The AN/PEQ-2A is available in three models, providing a selection between laser, infrared, or infrared/visible light illumination sources. Once mounted on a weapon, the lasers on the AN/PEQ-2 can be easily and individually bore sighted using the independent azimuth and elevation adjustments. The unit is waterproof to 20 meters. Under ideal conditions, the range of the laser pointer exceeds 16 kilometers.

Figure 5: AN/PEQ-2A


The AN/PEQ-2 has the following specifications:

Aiming Light

Wavelength 830 nanometers

Power Output 25 Milliwatts (mW)

Range in Meters >16,000

Beam Width (Divergence) 0.3 milliradian (mR)


Pointer/Illuminator

Wavelength 830 nanometers

Power Output 30 Milliwatts (mW)

Range in Meters >16,000

Spot Beam Width (Divergence) 0.3 milliradian (mR)

Flood Beam Width (Divergence) >10 degrees


Weight 210 grams

3.2.5 Aimpoint CompM2 Red Dot Sight Red dot sights are reported to project an amber aiming dot for clear and precise target acquisition in any light, including total darkness (see Figure 6). The sight is powered by a combination advanced fiber-optic and Tritium lamp power supply that works continuously. The reported tactical advantage of Red Dot aiming sights is two-eye-open target acquisition, critical for focusing and acquiring moving targets. The fluorescent fiber optics system glows bright during the day and varies in brightness automatically according to the ambient light in the target area. At night, tritium provides the energy needed for the aiming dot to work. Excellent target contrast is maintained during the day through twilight and into full night darkness.

Figure 6: Aimpoint Comp M2 Red Dot Sight


3.2.6 EOTech Model 550 Holographic Sight The EOTech Ltd. Model 550 Holographic aiming sight is reported to project a holographic reticle for rapid target acquisition and aiming (see Figure 7). The holographic projection permits the operator to engage targets even with noticeable parallax. Thus, the operator does not have to align his eye, sight and target perfectly to ensure a hit. The sight is powered by a battery system that permits day and night shooting. As well, the sight has infrared (IR) compatible reticle illumination settings. The reported tactical advantage of EOTech holographic sight is two-eye-open target acquisition, critical for focusing and acquiring moving targets. The systems digital electronics design allows the user to adjust the reticle brightness to the ambient light in the target area.

The system weighs 250 grams and is powered by two “N” batteries.

Figure 7: EOTech Model 550 Holographic Sight

3.2.7 W1000 Uncooled Thermal Weapon Sight The Raytheon W1000 Uncooled Thermal Weapon Sight is a lightweight thermal sight designed for hand-held use or as the primary sighting device for individual or squad automatic weapons (see Figure 8). It enhances mission performance by spotting targets at increased ranges over typical image intensifiers and works equally well in daylight or darkness. This sight uses Raytheon’s long-wave uncooled IR technology to spot differences in heat emitted by objects in its field of view. It separates people and other objects from cluttered background foliage, in either full daylight or the darkest night, and can penetrate dust, smoke and other obscurants. Its use cannot be detected because it emits no visible light or RF energy, and operates without the use of illuminators or IR lights.


Figure 8: W1000 Uncooled Thermal Weapon Sight

The thermal weapon sight has the following specifications:

Detector 320 x 240 staring BST FPA (76,800 pixels)

Spectrum: 8 to 12 µm

Cooling Uncooled ferroelectric

Power Requirements BB-2847 military battery, and AA commercial battery, or auxiliary power connector for DC sources

Battery Life 8 hours on BB-2847 lithium ion rechargeable battery, >4 hours on commercial AA lithium, alkaline, or NiMH rechargeable battery

Weight 1.7 kg with battery

Video Output EIA-RS-170, NTSC VCR

Field of View 9 deg az x 6.75 deg el

Magnification 3.1x

Image Polarity White hot / black hot

3.2.8 Nytech Thermal Off-bore Sight The Nytech Head Mounted Display (HMD) version Thermal Weapon Sight offers the ultimate in compact size and performance for its class (see Figure 9). The system is currently being used by the Land Warrior Program as a Light Thermal Weapon Sight demonstrator. It is offered for operations where external power and display are utilized, and when size and weight are major logistical factors. The system is offered with a standard 62mm f/1 lens. However, an f/1.4 is available should smaller size and lower weight be required. Larger aperture lens configurations


can also be accommodated for other performance objectives. The Land Warrior helmet mounted display was used to present the thermal image for this trial. This is described below.

Figure 9: Nytech Thermal Off-bore Sight (HMD Version)

The Nytech thermal weapon sight has the following specifications:

Power 2 Watts

Weight with f/1 Lens 682 grams

Detector Type (Sensitivity) Silicon Bolometer (80mK Typical)

Pixels 320 x 240

Field of view 15 deg az

Magnification 3x

Lens 62mm f/1 Standard (15° HFOV)

Symbology RS-232 Programmable

Controls Menu Based with Auxiliary Power, Polarity and Calibration Buttons

Video Output RS-170

3.2.9 Land Warrior Kaiser Electronics’ Daylight Video Sight (DVS) and Helmet Mounted Display (HMD)

Kaiser Electronics’ Daylight Video Sight (DVS) is a Commercial-Off-The-Shelf Design (COTS), which has been ruggedized to meet the requirements of the US Land Warrior System. The DVS (Figure 10 and Figure 11) is a full colour, Super Video Graphics Array (SVGA, 525 Lines High Resolution TV imagery) equivalent miniaturized video camera that is used in conjunction with a Helmet Mounted Display (HMD) to give the soldier firing power from behind cover without


having to expose their torso and head. The DVS has been demonstrated to perform consistently after the shock of weapon firing.

Figure 10: Kaiser Electronics’ Weapon Mounted Daylight Video Sight (Front)

Figure 11: Kaiser Electronics’ Weapon Mounted Daylight Video Sight (Side)

Kaiser Electronics’ Daylight Video Sight has the following specifications:

Resolution SVGA, 525 Lines Hi-resolution video

Video Output USB

The monocular Helmet Mounted Display (HMD) included in the US Land Warrior system provides both unaided eye access to the environment and unhindered dark adaptation (see Figure 12). It is a slide-up design, compatible with ballistic eyewear and spectacles. It accommodates a large focus range and weighs only 3.5 ounces. It can be attached to the helmet to cover either the right or the left eye, and is connected to the DVS or thermal sight by a ruggedized cable. The HMD is an AMEL (Active Matrix Electro Luminescent) flat panel display providing video graphics display (VGA, 640 x 480 pixel) resolution and has a 40-degree field of view.


Figure 12: US Land Warrior Helmet Mounted Display (HMD)

The US Land Warrior helmet mounted display has the following specifications:

Weight .09 kg (3.5 ounces)

Display Type AMEL (Active Matrix Electro Luminescent)

Resolution VGA, (640 X 480 pixels)

Field of View 40°

Connection VGA, USB

3.2.10 DCIEM Off-bore Sight The DCIEM Helmet-Mounted Gunsight is a prototype off-bore system developed and constructed at the Canadian Defense and Civil Institute of Environmental Medicine (DCIEM). The system is made from Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) components. The Helmet-Mounted Gunsight is comprised of three components: the DCIEM Video Sight, the Virtual Vision Sport HMD, and a power and connection box that is worn strapped to the shoulder (see Figure 13). Field-testing has demonstrated that the Camera and HMD combination used in this system does not flicker or change in brightness during or after live firing while attached to a rifle (Reference L). This system was built for experimental purposes only, and was meant to be a prototype for a weapon system that may eventually be ruggedized and deployed in the field.


Figure 13: The DCIEM Helmet Mounted Gunsight

3.2.11 DCIEM Video Sight The DCIEM Video Sight is made from Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) equipment. A commercial Panasonic Video Camera was mounted to an electrically controlled optical zoom lens (see Figure 14).

Figure 14: DCIEM Video Sight (front)

The video sight is attached to an adjustable optical zoom that can magnify the target up to 3.4 times. The sight is adjustable for depth of magnification (1-3.4X), focus, and white balance (“iris”), all of which can be controlled manually by switches mounted on the sight itself (see Figure 15). All testing for this trial was at full magnification, that is, 3.4x.


Figure 15: DCIEM Video Sight controls

The reticle that overlays the video picture is produced by the text-on-screen feature of the camcorder component. In this case, the reticle was produced by two underscore characters, a space, a period, a space and another two underscores ( “__ . __” ). The period is used as the point of aim.

3.2.12 Virtual Vision Sport HMD The HMD used in the DCIEM system is the commercially available Virtual Vision Sport HMD by Virtual Vision (see Figure 16). The HMD consists of a see-through visor with a reflected LCD screen visible to one eye. Two versions of the Head Mounted Display were available for left-eye and right-eye dominant participants.

Figure 16: Virtual Vision Sport HMD (Left-eye version)

The Virtual Vision Sport HMD has the following specifications:

Weight 150 g (5.3 ounces)

Display Type Colour LCD

Resolution 360 X 260 pixels

Field of View 17.5° X 13.6°


3.3 Experimental Design The field trial included 13 test sights: eight during the day and five at night. A full repeated measures experimental design was completed with 16 participants.

The field trial included seven test variables: two urban lanes, one target presentation order variable, two target distance variables (<40m, >40m), two target visibility variables (semi-occluded and open), one test order variable, eight day shooting conditions and five night shooting conditions. For this reason, the trial was divided into two data collection blocks (see Table 1).

The first data collection block involved developing a daytime baseline. Sixteen participants detected and engaged open and semi-occluded targets that were either near (<40m) or far (>40m) with the eight daytime sighting systems. Each serial consisted of eight targets; two semi-occluded-near, two semi-occluded-far, two open-near and two open-far targets.

The second data collection block involved developing the nighttime baseline performance with the monocular AN/PVS-14 and the binocular ANVIS-9 with laser aiming lights, the monocular AN/PVS-14 with the AN/PEQ-2 IR laser, the thermal weapon sight and the thermal off-bore weapon sight. Sixteen participants detected and engaged open and semi-occluded targets that were either near (<40m) or far (>40m) with the NVG and thermal sighting systems. Each serial consisted of eight targets; two semi-occluded-near, two semi-occluded-far, two open-near and two open-far targets.

Table 1: Data collection blocks

Data

Block

Test Block System Configurations Participants

1 Day Iron sight

C79 Optical Sight

Reflex (Red dot) Sight

Holographic Sight

Thermal Weapon Sight

Thermal Off-bore Sight

Land Warrior DVS Sight

DCIEM Off-bore Sight

n=16

2 Night Thermal Weapon Sight


Monocular AN/PVS-14 w AN/PEQ-5/CVL

Binocular ANVIS-9 w AN/PEQ-5/CVL

Monocular AN/PVS-14 w AN/PEQ-2A IR Illuminator

n=16


3.3.1 Independent Variables The independent variables consisted of the following factors: time of day factor (day vs. night), sight factor (day x 8 sights and night x 5 sights), target distance factor (near vs. far) and target exposure factor (open vs. 50% occluded). The factors are detailed below.

3.3.1.1 Day Sight Conditions There were eight day conditions. These included:

• Day – C79 Optical Sight

• Day – Aimpoint Red Dot Sight

• Day – Open (Iron) Sight

• Day – Holographic Sight

• Day – Thermal Weapon Sight

• Day – Land Warrior DVS Sight

• Day – DCIEM Off-bore Sight

• Day – Thermal Off-bore Sight

3.3.1.2 Night Sight Conditions There were five night conditions. These included:

• Night – Thermal Weapon Sight

• Night – Thermal Off-bore Sight

• Night – Monocular AN/PVS-14 with AN/PEQ-5/CVL

• Night – ANVIS 9 with AN/PEQ-5/CVL

• Night – AN/PVS 14 with AN/PEQ 2A IR illuminator

3.3.1.3 Targets The targets included both near (<40m) and far (>40m targets). Additionally the targets were either fully exposed (open) or partially (50%) hidden- semi-occluded.

3.3.2 Dependent Variables Data collection focused on the following HF criteria. Test content is described in more detail below.

• Visual Acuity and Contrast Sensitivity

• Rifle Firing Performance

• Luminance Assessment

• Weather Conditions

• Task Acceptability

• Criteria of Importance


3.3.2.1 Visual Acuity and Contrast Sensitivity Prior to testing, participants were screened for visual acuity and contrast sensitivity. A Snellen chart mounted on a well-lit office wall was used to test participants for visual acuity. Contrast sensitivity was assessed using the Contrast Sensitivity Test System.

During the night conditions with NVG’s, the participant’s visual acuity (smallest bar pattern) with each NVG system was measured using an ANV-20/20 night vision test device from Hoffman Engineering. Participants were screened to a minimum of 20/40 visual acuity with the NVG devices using a grid test pattern (see Figure 17 and Figure 18).

Figure 17: ANV-20/20 NVD Infinity Focus System

Figure 18: ANV-20/20 Acuity Resolution Pattern


3.3.2.2 Rifle firing performance – Detection/engagement time and accuracy: Rifle firing accuracy was recorded for each target. For this trial, detection/engagement time refers to the time between target presentation and the first round fired. This time was measured manually by an experimenter with a stopwatch. The detection/engagement time was rounded to the nearest second. The maximum time a target was presented was sixty seconds. If targets were undetected, sixty seconds was recorded for the detection/engagement time. To measure accuracy SIMLAS2 sensors were mounted on the targets to record “hits” from the firer’s SIMLAS laser. SIMLAS on the targets were set such that one hit set off the laser receiver.

3.3.2.3 Weather Conditions The weapon sights and NVGs were evaluated during seasonal weather conditions at Fort Benning, Georgia. The weather conditions observed by the experimenters are described in Table 2 below:

Table 2: Weather conditions Date Weather

12 December Partly Cloudy

13 December Cloudy – light rain at the end of the day

15 December Sunny



3.3.2.4 Illuminance/luminance assessment Throughout each night of testing, ambient illuminance was measured with a photometer. All measurements were taken by the streetlight (the streetlight was off) on the northern east-west road of the McKenna MOUT site. The illumination assessments are presented in Table 3.

Table 3: Illumination assessments Date Time Illumination (mLux)

15 December 2001 20:40 1.25

15 December 2001 21:40 1.01

15 December 2001 22:40 0.98

15 December 2001 23:10 1.02

16 December 2001 18:30 4.03 to 4.05

16 December 2001 19:30 2.64

16 December 2001 20:30 2.35

2 SIMLAS is a system equivalent to “laser tag” which uses eye-safe laser and GPS technology to detect and record the firer and target position, firing time and firing accuracy.


16 December 2001 21:20 2.13

17 December 2001 18:30 12.02 to 12.07

17 December 2001 21:20 1.05 to 1.09

17 December 2001 22:00 1.49 to 1.51

3.3.2.5 Questionnaire Rating Scale Participants rated acceptability in all questionnaires using the following seven-point scale (see Figure 19).

Figure 19: Standard rating scale

3.3.2.6 Task Acceptance To assess user task acceptance, participants were required to rate their overall acceptance of each sight and or NVG condition after each serial for target acquisition, close-in target engagement, far target engagement, static target engagement, and overall acceptability of the sighting system for everyday infantry use.

Following the completion of all the target engagement assessment serials for this experiment, the participants completed a more in-depth task acceptance questionnaire (see Annex A).

For each weapon sight the participants assessed the following categories (see Table 4):

Table 4: Task acceptance Category Criteria

Vision/Optics: magnification; field of view; reticle pattern; reticle contrast ratio; reticle contrast adjustability; automatic reticle brightness adjustment; freedom from glare; alignment

demands (bore sighting); freedom from fogging; eye relief

Functionality: ease of mounting; ease of zeroing; estimated maintenance of zero; sight bulk; sight weight; estimated durability

Task Demands: target acquisition; speed of aiming; close-in target engagement (0-100m); far target engagement (>100m); trench firing; standing firing

Compatibility: compatibility with C79; compatibility with helmet; compatibility with equipment

Overall Acceptance: overall acceptability of the sighting system for static target engagement; overall acceptability of the sighting system for moving target engagement; overall acceptability of

the sight system for night time infantry use


3.3.2.7 Criteria of Importance Following the completion of all the target engagement assessment serials for this experiment, users completed two criteria of importance questionnaires; one for weapon sights (see Annex B), the other for NVG’s (see Annex C). The criteria for each is represented in Table 5 and Table 6.

Table 5: Weapon sights: Criteria of importance Category Criteria

Functionality ease of sight installation; ease of sight collimation (bore sighting); ease of eye relief/focus adjustment; bulk, snagging; ruggedness; maintenance of sight zero; ability to remove sight for storage

Physical Demands weight on the head; weight on the weapon; eye fatigue; neck discomfort; balance on the head; stability on the head; balance on the rifle; stability on the rifle

Compatibility rifle compatibility; compatibility with Rx glasses; compatibility with helmet; compatibility with equipment; compatibility with tactical movement – crawling; compatibility with tactical movement – running

Vision visual sharpness – resolution; freedom from visual distortion; wide field of view; freedom from fogging; image stability; depth perception; magnification

Target Engagement Tasks two eye open target detection; one eye open target detection; ease of obtaining the correct sight alignment; ease of obtaining the correct point of aim; ease of maintaining constant eye relief between shots; speed of aiming; steadiness (adopting stable fire positions); steadiness (trigger manipulation); steadiness (effects of breathing); ability to detect fall of shot; ease of adjusting point of aim

Table 6: NVG’s: Criteria of importance Category Criteria

Funtionality ease of NVG installation; ease of NVG positioning adjustment; ease of NVG focus adjustment; bulk, snagging

Physical Demands weight on the head; eye fatigue; neck discomfort; balance on the head; stability on the head

Compatibility

rifle compatibility; compatibility with glasses; compatibility with helmet; compatibility with equipment; compatibility with tactical movement – crawling; compatibility with tactical movement – running

Vision

visual sharpness; freedom from visual distortion; field of view; freedom from fogging; freedom from nausea; depth perception

Tasks

target detection; target engagement; ability to determine the best route; ability to detect obstacles; ease of obstacle traverse; ease of movement over broken ground; speed of movement

3.4 Statistical Plan A repeated measures analysis of variance, for sights/vision system and day effects was undertaken for all acceptability scale and performance results. Differences were identified at p < .050. All missing data points were replaced with the mean to prevent casewise deletion of data. The statistical plan for the target engagement experiment is detailed in Table 7 below.


Table 7: Statistical plan Measure Method Analysis

Day:

Time from Target Available to Target Engagement

Stop watch: Time from tgt pop-up to first round fired.

ANOVA between:

-Sighting conditions (8)

-Tgt position (semi-occluded and open)

-Tgt distance (2)

Night:



ANOVA between:

-Sighting/NVG conditions (5)


-Tgt distance (2)

Day vs Night:



ANOVA between:

-Thermal conditions (2)


-Tgt distance (2)

-Day/night (2)

Task Acceptability Day Subjective assessment by participant

Kruskal-Wallis Non-Parametric ANOVA between:

-Sighting conditions (8)

Task Acceptability Night Subjective assessment by participant



Exit Acceptability Day Subjective assessment by participant



Exit Acceptability Night Subjective assessment by participant



Criteria of Importance Subjective assessment by participant


-Sighting/NVG conditions

3.5 Procedure The following section describes the experimental test procedure related to set-up, testing procedures, and limitations. The general approach follows the procedures piloted by Kooi (1996) with the use of open and occluded targets at close and far ranges.

3.5.1 Set-up The northern east-west road of the McKenna MOUT site was used for this urban lane experiment. Using the SIMLAS system as opposed to live-fire, and pop-up Carswell targets, the SIREQ-TD team set-up lanes and targets where convenient. Carswell targets are one-meter high, 3-dimensional man-shaped plastic silhouettes that were controlled by a range target operator


through a target-controller interface. At the start of data collection each day, the controller device remotely interrogated the programmed targets to ensure operational readiness. The system allowed the operator to raise and lower targets on demand. SIMLAS laser receivers were mounted on the Carswell silhouettes. Each day after data collection, engagement data was downloaded to exercise databases from the SIMLAS. The two urban lanes were established such that each contained 20 targets and five firing points (see Figure 20). For the north urban lane, the participants traversed the north side of the street and engaged targets on the south side of the street. Portable thermal e-type blankets were mounted to the targets on the south side for the north urban lane to create a thermal gradient for the testing of the thermal devices. For the south urban lane, the participants traversed the south side of the street and engaged targets on the north side. The urban lanes were approximately 150 meters long and took approximately 10 to 15 minutes to traverse at night. The lanes were walked during day light hours to ensure clear sight lines to targets.

Figure 18: Target layout

Figure 20: McKenna MOUT site layout.

In order to reduce learning effect, four balanced target scenarios were developed for each lane to ensure that participants did not see the same target scenario every serial. Each scenario included eight static targets. Half of the targets were near (10 to 40m); the other half of the targets were far (41 to 75m). Also, half the targets were plainly visible (see Figure 21) and half the targets

Roof top

2nd floor

1st f1oor/ground

Static firing

3rd


were semi-occluded (see Figure 22). This resulted in four target visibility categories: near-open, near-occluded, far-open and far-occluded. In each scenario, one target was presented at each of the five firing points, and the other three targets were presented as the participant was moving from one firing point to the next.

Figure 21: Open target

Figure 22: Semi-occluded target

Described in Table 8 is a list of the locations of the targets. Note that the targets for each scenario did not contain each of the locations; rather, they are detailed to help describe the open and semi-occluded target locations that were used. Furniture, wooden crates and sandbags were used to raise and occlude targets as required.

Table 8: Target locations Semi-Occluded Targets Open Targets

Inside Doorways Street

Lower level windows Between buildings

Upper level windows Along the side of buildings

Corner of buildings Rooftops


Prior to testing each day, the lanes were prepared. New batteries were placed in the SIMLAS systems. The target silhouettes were attached to the target bases and power was hooked up to the thermal e-type blankets and Carswell targets. Each target’s functionality was tested. If a target was not functioning the target/battery was replaced by a spare and re-tested. If a target was still not functioning, it was dropped from the target list and was replaced by another functioning target with the same distance and occlusion characteristics.

3.5.2 Testing Procedures All of the participants were briefed on the purpose of the experiment and test activities. A range and laser range safety briefing was conducted prior to the start of the experiment. Participants were informed of the order of the test conditions and were briefed on the task acceptability questionnaire that was to be filled out after each serial. The test conditions were not completely counter balanced because of time and equipment constraints. Each participant completed half of their serials on each of the two lanes by alternating between the lanes. Throughout the testing ‘war noise’ was played on loud speakers through out the MOUT site to reduce the possibility of participants hearing where the targets popped-up.

Each participant was assigned the appropriate NVGs and/or sight. The participants were assisted with the procedures for attaching the NVGs to the helmet, adjustment and focusing procedures. Visual acuity with each properly adjusted and focused NVG was taken with a Hoffman AN/AVS-20/20 NVD test system and recorded. Participants achieved a minimum of 20/40 visual acuity. Participants collimated their sight with the SIMLAS rifle laser. Using a target at 10m, participants adjusted the azimuth and elevation correction of the assigned sight as appropriate. Participants dark-adapted for the night conditions outside.

Once prepared, each participant was escorted by an experimenter to the start point of the appropriate urban-lane. The target controller was informed, via radio, which target presentation to use. On command the participant loaded his weapon3 and test fired it against a SIMLAS equipped target to ensure that the SIMLAS system was functioning. Once the operation of the SIMLAS system was confirmed, the participant proceeded down the urban lane. The experimenter would radio the target controller to raise the next target of the presentation. Each target was raised once the participant reached the firing point or at a predetermined location, not known to the participant. The targets were raised as the participant was moving to the next firing point. As the participant detected a target, he aimed either using the sight system (if fitted) or instinctively. Participants then engaged the target using aimed single shots or an aimed double tap. The time from target presentation to first target engagement was recorded manually by the experimenter with a stopwatch.

After finishing the serial, the participant returned to the questionnaire point to complete a simple task acceptability questionnaire. Once the participant completed the task acceptability questionnaire, he prepared for his next serial.

This general test procedure was followed each night for the 16 participants on each of the two urban-lanes. Additionally, this general procedure (less use of NVGs) was utilized during the daytime to develop a day light baseline. Both urban-lanes were used simultaneously. However,

3 Only blank rounds of ammunition were loaded into the weapon.


the starting times where staggered between the lanes so participants were never across the street from each other.

Upon completion of the assigned conditions, the participants completed an Exit Questionnaire, Criteria of Importance Questionnaire, and participated in a focus group discussion.

3.6 Limitations Due to equipment failure and feasibility issues, this trial had the following limitations.

The off-bore LW DVS (1x) system was originally to be compared to the LW DVS (3x) system to investigate the magnification effect for off-bore systems. However, the LW DVS (3x) malfunctioned before testing started and the DCIEM (3.4x) off-bore system was substituted into the protocol for the LW DVS (3x). Therefore, caution should be utilized when a comparing the effects of magnification for off-bore daylight video systems because the LW DVS 1x and the DCIEM 3.4x systems have different head mounted display resolutions (640x480 vs. 360x260).

The off-bore Nytech thermal weapon sight was to be compared to the Nytech lightweight weapon mounted sight (TWS3000) to compare on-bore versus off-bore thermal sights. Do to a failure with the Nytech weapon mounted sight’s battery pack the Raytheon W1000 weight weapon mounted sight was substituted in its place. It should be noted that the thermal systems tested (W1000 and the Nytech Thermal Off-bore sight) have slightly different magnifications (3.1 vs. 3x). While both on-bore and off-bore systems do have the same sensor size (320x240), the detector systems are based on different technologies and thus may impact detection performance. The off-bore system’s HMD overmatched (640x480) the capability of the sensor system. The effects of substituting the W1000 for the TWS 3000 on detection performance should not have been significant for the limited target detection ranges assessed and because of the large thermal difference between the targets and their backgrounds.

The thermal sights were only tested on the north lane where participants engaged targets on the south side of street. Testing of the thermal sights required thermal blankets to be attached to the targets and it was only feasible to supply power to the blankets for the targets on the south side of the street. All other conditions were tested on both lanes.

Finally, the SIMLAS system was unable to provide accurate data in this experiment. Therefore, there is no reported data.


4. Results

Throughout the results section the following abbreviations will be used for the different conditions tested (see Table 9).

Table 9: Condition abbreviations Condition Abbreviation

Iron sight I

C79 sight C

Red-dot sight R

Holographic sight H

LW DVS 1x LW

DCIEM off-bore sight 3.4x D

Thermal Weapon Mounted Sight

Day

Night

TW

DTW

NTW


Day

Night

TB

DTB

NTB

Binocular ANVIS-9 w/ visible laser Bn

Monocular AN/PVS -14 w/ visible laser M

Monocular AN/PVS-14 w/ PEQ-2A IR illuminator

IR

Visible Laser VL

4.1 Sight Detection Performance The performance of the participants with the different day and night weapon sights/ sighting systems is detailed below as follows:

• Day target detection performance:(8)

• Night target detection performance (5)

• Day vs. night thermal sight performance (2)

Please note that only 13 of the 16 participants completed all the day time tests due to technical problems and participant availability. Mauchley Sphericity tests were performed to see if the underlying ANOVA assumptions were violated. Where appropriate, Greenhouse & Geisser corrections were applied to compensate for ANOVA sphericity violations. Post-hoc Duncan’s test were applied to identify differences between sights.


4.1.1 Target Detection/Engagement Times – Day Conditions The mean time to detect targets for the participants with the eight day sights against near and far, occluded and non-occluded targets varied from a low of less than 5 secs for the on-bore iron sight and holographic sight for near open and occluded targets to a high of 36.8 sec for the DCIEM off-bore sight with far open targets. The mean target detection/engagement times for the eight weapon sights tested during the day for near-open, near-occluded, far-open and far-occluded targets are presented in Figure 23. The mean and standard deviations are presented in Table 10.

Detection Time-Day ConditionsSights vs. Range and Target Exposure

Vertical bars denote 0.95 confidence intervals

Iron C79 Red-dot Holographic LW DVS (1x) DCIEM (3.4x) Thermal Wpn Thermal Off-bore

Open Targets

Near Far

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Det

ectio

n tim

e (s

ec)

Occluded Targets

Near Far

Figure 23: Target detection times for the day condition

Sight Effects

A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted for the day conditions (8 sights x 2 target distances x 2 target visibilities). A significant main effect was found between the sights (F(7,84)=8.1751, p=0.00). A post hoc Duncan’s test found the off-bore video sights (LW DVS and DCIEM) had significantly long detection times than the iron, C79, red-dot, holographic, and thermal weapon sights. Also, the DCIEM off-bore sight had significantly longer detection time than the thermal off-bore weapon sight. The thermal off-bore weapon sight had significantly longer detection times than the iron sight. No significant differences were found between the off-bore video sights (LW DVS and DCIEM) or between the four conventional on-bore sights (C79, iron, red-dot and holographic).


Table 10: Mean target detection/engagement times in day condition Open Targets Semi-Occluded Targets All Targets

Sight (n=13) Near

(sec)

Far

(sec)

Near

(sec)

Far

(sec)

(sec)

Iron (I) Mean

SD

4.0

±3.6

8.8

±7.2

4.1

±3.0

21.8

±21.3

9.7

±13.4

C79 (C)

Mean

SD

6.1

±7.4

9.1

±4.7

6.2

±8.0

26.8

±21.4

12.0

±14.7

Red-dot (R) Mean

SD

6.6

±7.9

8.8

±8.4

6.5

±10.4

19.7

±12.9

10.4

±11.3

Holographic (H) Mean

SD

3.6

±2.5

12.3

±15.9

4.0

±2.7

26.4

±20.7

11.6

±15.9

LW DVS 1x (LW ) Mean

SD

9.3

±8.4

27.3

±18.8

12.2

±10.7

36.1

±19.6

21.2

±18.5

DCIEM 3.4x (D) Mean

SD

7.6

±9.8

39.0

±17.6

14.3

±14.4

36.8

±21.0

24.4

±21.0

Thermal Weapon (TW) Mean

SD

7.2

±5.6

7.3

±4.4

8.1

±6.3

14.5

±8.8

9.3

±7.3

Thermal Off-bore (TB) Mean

SD

15.0

±13.3

12.9

±7.1

13.5

±8.9

23.3

±13.4

16.0

±11.9

.

Within the eight day sights, a series of on-bore vs. off-bore comparisons could be made. The comparable (similar magnification or wavelength) systems include included:

• LW DVS 1x (LW) vs. Iron sight (1x)

• DCIEM (3.4x) vs. C79(3.4x)

• Thermal Off-bore (TB) vs. Thermal Weapon (TW)

Across all the targets participants using any of the off-bore systems took significantly longer to detect targets than when using their comparable on-bore systems. Participants using the Thermal Off-bore and the LW DVS systems took 1.8 times as long to detect targets as compared to when they were using the iron sight and Thermal Weapon sight respectively. Participants using the DCIEM video sight took 2.2 times as long to detect targets as compared to when they were using the C79 sight. While an off-bore sight may improve protection to the user, the results indicate a significant penalty in target detection performance.

Four different conventional sights and one conventional thermal weapon sight were evaluated in the day experiment and when examined across all target types and ranges no significant differences were observed. The results are not surprising in that operators also used both eyes to search for targets in the day. The relatively close target distances did not require the participants


to use magnification to detect targets. The visibility of the targets also nullified the utility of using a thermal sight to detect targets. If the targets were well camouflaged, placed deeper in buildings (more shadows), etc. it is believed that the benefits of thermals and magnification would have been more pronounced.

Target Range Effects

A significant main effect between far and close targets was found (F(1,12)=90.985, p=0.00). A post hoc Duncan’s test found that participants took significantly longer to detect the far targets than the closer targets.

Target Occlusion Effects

A significant main effect between occluded and open targets was found (F(1,12)=28.571, p=0.0017). A post hoc Duncan’s test found that participants took significantly longer to detect the partially occluded targets than open targets.

Sights vs. Occlusion Interactions

There was no significant sight vs. target occlusion interaction.

Sight vs. Range Interactions

A significant sight by distance interaction was found (F(7,84)=6.0642, p=0.00). A post hoc Duncan’s test indicated that the participants detected far targets significantly slower than the close targets for the following sights: iron, C79, holographic, Land Warrior DVS, and DCIEM.

Significant differences for the time of target detection for far and close targets: were not observed for the red-dot, thermal weapon, and thermal off-bore sights.

Distance vs. Occlusion Interactions

A significant distance by target interaction was found (F(1,12)=17.293, p=0.00). A post hoc Duncan’s test found close open and occluded targets are detected significantly faster than far open and occluded targets. Also, far open targets were detected significantly faster than far occluded targets.

Sight vs. Distance vs. Occlusion Interactions

A significant sight by distance by target interaction was found (F(7,84)=2.1419, p=0.048). A summary of the post hoc Duncan’s test is presented in Table 11.

Table 11: Significant differences in target detection/engagement times in day condition

Target Visibility Distance Significant Differences (p<0.05)

Near TB>I,H Open

Far D>LW>R,H,C,TB,I, TW

Near -- Occluded

Far D,LW>C,H, TB,I,R,TW;

C,H>TW


4.1.2 Target Detection/Engagement Times - Night Conditions The mean time to detect targets for the participants with the five night sights against near and far, occluded and non-occluded targets varied from a low of 7 seconds for binocular NVG with LAD for near open targets to a high of 48.5 seconds for binocular NVG with LAD with far open targets.

The target detection/engagement times for the five weapon sights and NVG combinations for near-open, near-occluded, far-open and far-occluded targets tested at night are presented in Figure 24. The mean and standard deviations are presented in Table 12.

Detection Time - Night ConditionsSights vs. Range and Target Exposure


Thermal Wpn Thermal Off-Bore Binocular NVG w /VL Monocular NVG w /VL Monocular NVG w /PEQ2A

Open Targets

Near Far0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Det

ectio

n Ti

me

(sec

)

Occluded Targets

Near Far

Figure 24: Target detection times in night condition

Sight Effects

A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted for the night conditions (5 sights x 2 target distances x 2 target visibilities). A significant main effect was found between the sights (F(4,60)=10.914, p=0.00). A post hoc Duncan’s test found the thermal off-bore sight had significantly longer detection times than the thermal weapon, binocular AN/VIS 9 with the visible laser, monocular AN/PVS 14 with visible laser, and monocular AN/PVS 14 with IR illumination. The binocular AN/VIS 9 with the visible laser and the monocular AN/PVS 14 with the visible laser had significantly longer detection times than the thermal weapon sight. The monocular AN/PVS 14 with the visible laser had significantly longer detection times than the monocular AN/PVS 14 with IR illumination.


Table 12: Mean target detection time for night conditions Open Targets Semi-Occluded Targets All Targets

Sight Near

(sec)

Far

(sec)

Near

(sec)

Far

(sec)

(sec)

Thermal Weapon (TW)

Mean

SD

17.8

±9.6

16.8

±10.9

18.2

±13.1

21.0

±12.5

18.5

±11.4

Thermal Off-bore (TB) Mean

SD

17.9

±15.0

36.5

±17.0

38.8

±17.7

46.4

±13.8

34.9

±18.8

Binocular ANVIS-9 w/ VL (Bn)

Mean

SD

7.0

±8.4

21.1

±12.5

21.6

±14.4

48.5

±17.1

24.5

±20.1

Monocular AN/PVS-14 w/ VL (M)

Mean

SD

17.3

±14.9

19.4

±15.5

24.9

±18.7

47.7

±15.7

27.3

±20.0

Monocular AN/PVS-14 w/ PEQ-2A (IR)

Mean

SD

9.7

±12.3

15.2

±10.3

18.6

14.4

38.1

±18.8

20.4

±17.6

Within the four night sights, a single on-bore vs. off-bore comparison could be made. The comparable (similar magnification or wavelength) system included:


Across all the targets participants using the Thermal Off-bore systems took significantly longer to detect targets than when using the Thermal Weapon sights. Participants using the Thermal Off-bore systems took 1.9 times as long to detect targets as compared to when they were using the Thermal Weapon sight. As found with the day sights, the results indicate a significant penalty in target detection performance (time) with the use of off-bore systems.

Three different NVG/LAD/Illumination systems were evaluated in the night experiment and when examined across all target types and ranges significant differences were observed. The performance of the participants with the binocular NVG with the visible lasers was not significantly different than their performance with the monocular NVG with visible lasers. The participants were not shown to perform significantly better with two NVG tubes as opposed to one tube. Operator performance with the monocular NVG with AN/PEQ2A illuminator was significantly better than when using the monocular NVG alone. The AN/PEQ 2A illuminator helped participants detect targets in shadows, interiors of rooms, doorways, etc.

Participants using the Thermal Weapon sight detected targets significantly faster at night than when just using a monocular or binocular NVG alone. The benefits of a thermal off-bore system were demonstrated in this experiment

Target Range Effects

A significant main effect between far and close targets was found (F(1,15)=53.930, p=0.00). A post hoc Duncan’s test found the far targets were detected significantly slower than close targets.


Target Occlusion Effects

A significant main effect between occluded and open targets was found (F(1,15)=0.39.361, p<0.00). A post hoc Duncan’s test found the occluded targets were detected significantly slower than open targets.

Sight vs. Range Interactions

A significant sight by distance interaction was found (F(4,60)=5.2402, p=0.002). A post hoc Duncan’s test found thermal off-bore, binocular ANVIS 9 with the visible laser, monocular AN/PVS 14 with the visible laser, and the monocular AN/PVS 14 with IR illumination detected far targets significantly slower than close target. No significant difference was found for detection time of close and far targets for the thermal weapon sight.

Sights vs. Occlusion Interactions

A significant sight by target interaction was found (F(4,60)=7.3790, p=0.00). A post hoc Duncan’s test found thermal off-bore, binocular ANVIS 9 with the visible laser, monocular AN/PVS 14 with the visible laser, and the monocular AN/PVS 14 with IR illumination detected occluded targets significantly slower than open targets. No significant difference was found for detection time of occluded and open targets for the thermal weapon sight.

Distance vs. Occlusion Interactions

A significant distance by target interaction was found (F(1,15)=4.6661, p=0.047). Open-close targets are detected significantly faster than occluded-close, open-far and occluded-far targets. Also, occluded-close and open far targets are detected significantly faster than occluded-far targets.

Sight vs. Distance vs. Occlusion Interactions

A significant sight by distance by target interaction found F(4,60)=3.2995, p=0.016). The post hoc Duncan’s results are presented in Table 13.

Table 13: Significant differences in target detection/engagement times in night condition

Target Visibility Distance Significant Differences (p<0.05)

Near TW>Bn Open

Far TB>Bn,M,TW,IR

Near TB>M,Bn,IR,TW Occluded

Far Bn,M,TB,IR>TW

4.1.3 Target Detection/Engagement Times - Thermal Devices – Day versus Night Comparison

The mean time to detect targets for the participants with the two thermal sights in the day and night against near and far, occluded and non-occluded targets varied from a low of 7.2 seconds for the Thermal weapon sight for near open targets in the day to a high of 46.4 seconds for Thermal Off-bore sight against far occluded targets at night.


The mean target detection/engagement times for the thermal weapon sight and the thermal off-bore sight for day and night testing are presented in Figure 25.

Target Detection -Thermal Devices -Day & Night ComparisonSights vs. Range and Target Exposure


Day - Thermal Wpn Day -Thermal Off-bore Night - Thermal Wpn Night - Thermal Off-bore

Open Targets

Near Far0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Targ

et D

etec

tion

(sec

)

Occluded Targets

Near Far

Figure 25: Target detection times for thermal devices - day versus night comparison

Time of Day Effect

A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted (2 day/night x 2 sights x 2 distances x 2 targets). A significant main effect was found for time of day (F(1,12)=59.993, p=0.00). A post hoc Duncan’s test found that target detection was significantly faster during the day than at night.

The participants took 2 times as long to detect targets at night with the Thermal Weapon sight as compared to the day and 2.1 times as long at night with the Thermal Off-bore system as compared to the day. These results suggest that the participants were also using their non-sighting eye or both eyes to detect targets in the day. It should be noted that eye covers were not used by the participants to force them to only use their sighting system in the day to detect targets. The monocular off-bore systems utilized in this experiment allowed participants to use their un-occluded to eye to help detect targets, when occluded as at night detection time increased significantly. These results suggest some caution should be utilized in the use of opaque binocular displays for sighting systems in the day vice a monocular display.


Sight Effect

A significant main effect was found for the sights (F(1,12)=47.601, p<0.00). A post hoc Duncan’s test found that with the thermal weapon sight targets were detected significantly faster than with the thermal off-bore weapon sight.

A single on-bore vs. off-bore comparison could be made:


Whether in the day or night participants using the Thermal Off-bore systems took significantly longer to detect targets than when using the Thermal Weapon sights. In the day participants using the Thermal Off-bore systems took 1.7 times as long to detect targets as compared to when they were using the Thermal Weapon sight. At night participants using the Thermal Off-bore systems took 1.9 times as long to detect targets as compared to when they were using the Thermal Weapon sight.

4.2 Task Acceptance Results Following each detection serial, the soldiers completed a brief task questionnaire on the system utilized. The questionnaire (Annex B) asked soldiers to rate the acceptance of each system for the following criteria: target acquisition, close-in target engagement, far target engagement, static target engagement and overall acceptability of the sighting system for everyday infantry use.

4.2.1 Task Acceptance Day Conditions For daytime engagements, the soldiers rated the C79 was rated between ‘Reasonably Acceptable’ and ‘Completely Acceptable’ – see Figure 26. The Iron, Red-dot and Holographic sights were rated between ‘Barely Acceptable’ and ‘Completely Acceptable’. The LW DVS 1x was rated between ‘Barely Unacceptable’ and ‘Reasonably Acceptable’. The DCIEM 3.4x was rated between ‘Borderline’ and Barely Acceptable. The Thermal Weapon was rated between ‘Barely Acceptable’ and ‘Reasonably Acceptable’. The Thermal Off-bore was rated between ‘Barely Acceptable’ and ‘Reasonably Acceptable’.


Task Questionnaire- Day SightsTask Demand Results


Tgt a

cqui

sitio

n

Clo

se-in

tgt e

ngag

emen

t

Far t

gt e

ngag

emen

t

Stat

ic tg

t eng

agem

ent

Ove

rall a

ccep

tanc

e

Completely Unaccept

Reasonably Unaccept

Barely Unacceptable

Borderline

Barely Acceptable

Reasonably Accept

Completely Accept

Iron C79 Red Dot Holo LW1x D3.4x TW TB

Figure 26: Acceptability Ratings of Day Conditions

Please note that although the graph describes results for six task demand questions, a repeated measures ANOVA was conducted separately for each question for the eight 8 day sights for the 16 participants. Missing data was not replaced, thus the specific number of participants who evaluated each question is noted. Mauchley Sphericity tests were performed to see if the underlying ANOVA assumptions were violated. Where appropriate Greenhouse & Geisser corrections were applied to compensate for ANOVA sphericity violations. Post-hoc Duncan’s test were applied to identify differences between sights..

The analysis of the results for each task question identified a number of significant differences in acceptance between the different day time sights. The descriptive statistics, ANOVA results and significant differences are detailed in Table 14.

Across all the task questions, the participants rated the off-bore systems less acceptable than the on-bore or conventional systems. Off-bore systems were less acceptable for target detection, near and far target engagement and overall acceptance as an everyday infantry sighting system.

The participants did not rate the acceptance of the conventional sights (iron, red-dot, holographic or C79 sight) significantly different in this urban detection test. The C79 optic sight performed as well as the close combat sights for target detection, near and far target engagement and overall acceptance. It should be noted that this urban detection test did not involve room clearing tasks but utilized the detection of targets several buildings away.


Table 14: Acceptability Ratings of Day Conditions Mean Acceptance Significant Difference

(p<0.05) Criteria Iron C79 Red-

dot Holo LW

DVS (1x)

DCIEM (3.4x)

Thermal Weapon

Thermal Off-Bore

Target acquisition N=10, F(7, 63)=14.427, p=.00000

6.50 ±0.97

6.0 ±0.67

6.60 ±0.22

6.70 ±0.48

3.50 ±1.51

4.00 ±1.49

4.90 ±1.37

5.40 ±1.17

I,R,H>LW,D,TW,TB; C>LW,D,TW; TW,TB>LW; TB>D

Close-in target engagement N=10, F(7, 63)=8.4790, p=.00000

6.60 ±0.52

6.00 ±1.05

6.70 ±0.48

6.70 ±0.48

5.10 ±1.37

4.90 ±1.10

5.60 ±1.50

5.90 ±0.57

R,H>LW,D,TW,TB; I>LW,D,TW; C>LW,D; TB>LW,D

Far Target engagement N=11, F(7, 70)=11.473, p=.00000

5.82 ±0.87

6.36 ±0.81

5.73 ±1.01

5.82 ±1.25

3.27 ±1.27

3.82 ±1.33

5.00 ±1.55

5.45 ±0.82

I,R,H>LW,D; C>LW,D,TW; TW,TB>D,LW

Static Target engagement N=10, F(7, 63)=9.5939, p=.00000

6.50 ±0.53

6.40 ±0.70

6.40 ±0.70

6.70 ±0.48

4.70 ±1.57

4.50 ±1.58

5.40 ±1.50

5.90 ±0.88

I,C,R,H>LW,D,TW; TB>LW; TW,TB>D

Overall acceptability of the sighting system for everyday infantry use.N=11, F(7,70)=21.062, p=.00000

6.18 ±0.75

6.00 ±0.63

6.45 ±0.69

6.45 ±0.69

3.45 ±1.29

4.09 ±1.45

4.64 ±0.92

5.36 ±0.81

I,R,H>LW,D,TW,TB; C>LW,D,TW; TW,TB>LW; TB>D,TW

The supposed benefits of magnification or thermal technologies were not realized in the participant acceptance results. As stated earlier the benefits of these technologies may have not been observed because the targets were easy to detect in the day.

The Land Warrior DVS (1x) sight was rated as being unacceptable for everyday infantry sight use.

4.2.2 Task Acceptance Night Conditions The thermal weapon and ANVIS 9 with Visible Laser were rated between ‘Barely Acceptable’ and ‘Completely Acceptable’. The AN/PVS 14 with IR illumination was rated between ‘Borderline’ and ‘Reasonably Acceptable’. The AN/PVS 14 with visible laser was rated between ‘Barely Unacceptable’ and ‘Reasonably Acceptable’. The Thermal Off-bore was rated between ‘Barely Unacceptable’ and ‘Borderline’. The mean acceptability ratings of the five night conditions for the brief task acceptance questionnaire are presented in Figure 27.


Task Questionnaire - Night SightsTask Demand Results


Tgt a

cqui

sitio

n

Clo

se-in

tgt e

ngag

emen

t

Far t

gt e

ngag

emen

t

Stat

ic tg

t eng

agem

ent

Ove

rall a

ccep

tanc

e

Completely Unaccept

Reasonably Unaccept

Barely Unacceptable

Borderline

Barely Acceptable

Reasonably Accept

Completely Accept

TW TB ANVIS 9 w / VL AN/PVS 14 w / VL AN/PVS 14 w / IR

Figure 27: Acceptability Ratings of Night Conditions

Please note that although the graph describes results for six task demand questions, a repeated measures ANOVA was conducted separately for each question for the five night sights for the 16 participants. Mauchley Sphericity tests were performed to see if the underlying ANOVA assumptions were violated. Where appropriate Greenhouse & Geisser corrections were applied to compensate for ANOVA sphericity violations. Post-hoc Duncan’s test were applied to identify differences between sights. The number of participants that were included in each analysis is recorded in the table below.

The analysis of the results for each task question identified a number of significant differences in acceptance between the different day time sights. The descriptive statistics, ANOVA results and significant differences are detailed in Table 15.

Across all the task questions, the participants rated the off-bore system less acceptable than the on-bore or conventional systems. Off-bore system was less acceptable for target detection, near and far target engagement and overall acceptance as an everyday infantry sighting system.

The participants did not rate the acceptance of the conventional sights (iron, red-dot, holographic or C79 sight) significantly different in this urban detection test. The C79 optic sight performed as well as the close combat sights for target detection, near and far target engagement and overall acceptance. It should be noted that this urban detection test did not involve room clearing tasks but utilized the detection of targets several buildings away.


Table 15: Task Questionnaire Mean Acceptability Ratings of Night Conditions Mean Acceptability

Criteria Thermal Weapon

Thermal Off-Bore

ANVIS 9 with Visible Laser

AN/PVS 14 with Visible Laser

AN/PVS 14 with IR illumination

Significant Difference (p<0.05)

Target acquisition

N=16, F(4, 60)=8.3834, p=.00002

5.75

±1.24

3.44

±1.93

5.63

±0.89

4.75

±1.65

5.06

±1.61

TW,B,IR,M>TB;

TW>M

Close-in target engagement

N=16, F(4, 60)=7.8037, p=.00004

6.13

±1.09

3.81

±1.97

6.06

±0.93

5.38

±1.71

5.31

±1.96

TW,B,IR,M>TB

Far Target engagement

N=16, F(4, 60)=7.9560, p=.00003

5.88

±1.09

3.50

±1.93

5.00

±1.15

3.88

±1.89

4.68

±1.86

TW>TB,M,IR;

B>M,TB

Static Target engagement

N=15,F(4,56)=9.13, p=0.00

6.20

±1.01

3.80

±2.04

5.93

±0.96

4.87

±1.81

4.80

±1.82

TW, B>TB,M,IR;

M,IR>TB

Overall acceptability of the sighting system for everyday infantry use.

N=15, F(4,56)=7.04, p=0.00

5.53

±0.19

3.47

±1.96

5.80

±1.01

4.53

±1.73

4.73

±1.62

TW,B,M,IR>TB;

B>M,IR

The supposed benefits of magnification or thermal technologies were not realized in the participant acceptance results. As stated earlier the benefits of these technologies may have not been observed because the targets were easy to detect in the day.

The Land Warrior DVS (1x) sight was rated as being unacceptable for everyday infantry sight use.

4.3 Exit Questionnaire Results A detailed exit questionnaire was completed for each sight during the focus group at the end of the trial. The questionnaire was split into the following sections: vision/optics, functionality, task demands, compatibility and overall acceptance. The results of each section are presented below.

4.3.1 Vision/Optics Results The vision/optics criteria included magnification, field of view, freedom from glare, alignment demands, freedom from fogging and eye relief.

The visible laser was rated between Reasonably Acceptable and Completely Acceptable, however was not included in a few of the criterion’s analysis because of too few participants responses. The iron and red-dot were rated between Barely Acceptable and Completely Acceptable. The C79 and Holographic sight was rated between Borderline and Completely Acceptable. The DCIEM (3.4x) was rated between Borderline and Completely Acceptable. The Thermal Weapon


and Thermal Off-bore was rated between Barely Unacceptable and Reasonably Acceptable. The LW DVS 1x was rated between Completely Unacceptable and Barely Acceptable. The mean acceptability ratings of the day condition for the vision/optics of the sight of the detailed task acceptance questionnaire are presented in Table 16.

A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted for each criteria (9 sights x 1 criteria). The number of participants that were included in each analysis is recorded in the table below. Post hoc Duncan’s test was conducted to determine significant differences between sights for each criterion. (see Table 16).

For the Magnification criterion the Iron and Visible laser was not included in the analysis because of too few participants responses. The C79 sight was rated significantly more acceptable than all the other sights. The LW DVS 1x was rated significantly less acceptable than all the other sights.

For FOV the Iron, C79, Red-dot and Visible Laser sights were rated significantly more acceptable than the DCIEM 3.4x, Thermal Weapon, Thermal Off-bore, and LW DVS 1x sights. Also, the DCIEM 3.4x, Thermal Weapon, and Thermal Off-bore sights were rated significantly more acceptable than LW DVS 1x.

For the Glare criterion only four participants answered this question for each sight. It was found that the LW DVS 1x was rated significantly less acceptable than the all the other sights.

For Alignment the C79, Red-dot, Holographic, Iron, and Visible Laser were rated significantly more acceptable than the DCIEM 3.4x, Thermal Off-bore, and LW DVS 1x sights. The C79, Red-dot, Holographic sights were rated significantly more acceptable than the Thermal Weapon sight. The Thermal Weapon sight was significantly more acceptable than the Thermal Off-bore. The Thermal Weapon and DCIEM were rated significantly more acceptable than the LW DVS 1x.

For the Fogging criterion the Visible laser was not included in the analysis because of too few participant responses. The Iron, Red-dot, Holographic were rated significantly greater than the C79, Thermal Weapon, DCIEM 3.4x, and LW DVS 1x. The Iron sight was rated significantly greater than the Thermal Off-bore and C79. The Thermal Off-bore and C79 were rated significantly greater than the DCIEM 3.4x and LW DVS 1x sights.

For the Eye Relief criterion the Visible laser was not included in the analysis because of too few participant responses. The Holographic, Red-dot and Iron sights were rated significantly more acceptable than the Thermal Weapon, Thermal Off-bore, DCIEM 3.4x and LW DVS 1x sights. The Holographic was rated significantly more acceptable than the C79 sight. The C79 sight was rated significantly more acceptable than the Thermal Weapon and LW DVS 1x. The DCIEM 3.4 x and Thermal Off-bore was rated significantly more acceptable than the LW DVS 1x.


Table 16: Mean Acceptance of Vision / Optics Criteria Mean Acceptability Rating

Criteria Iron C79 Red-dot Holo LW DVS 1x

DCIEM 3.4x Thermal Wpn

Thermal Off-bore

Visible Laser


Magnification

N=14; F(6,78)=13.036, p=0.00

N=5

Not included

6.50

±0.52

5.36

±1.34

4.93

±1.54

2.71

±1.49

5.07

±1.59

5.21

±0.80

4.43

±1.22

N=2

Not included

C79>all;

All>LW

FOV

N=7; F(8,48)=13.874, p=0.00

6.57

±0.53

5.86

±0.38

6.14

±0.38

6.43

±0.53

2.57

±1.27

4.14

±1.46

3.71

±1.70

4.00

±1.63

6.43

±0.79

I,C,R,H,V>D,TW,TB>LW;

Glare

N=4;

F(8,24)=2.588, p=0.34

5.75

±2.50

5.75

±1.89

5.75

±1.26

6.25

±0.96

2.00

±0.82

4.25

±1.50

5.25

±2.22

5.00

±1.41

6.00

±0.82

LW<all

Alignment

N=14; (8,104)=59.194, p<0.00

6.07

±0.73

6.36

±0.63

6.29

±0.61

6.50

±0.65

1.50

±0.94

5.29

±0.91

5.50

±0.52

3.00

±1.66

6.14

±1.03

I,R,H>C,TW,D,LW;

I>TB,C>D,LW

Fogging

N=8;

F(7,49)=9.01, p=0.00

6.86

±0.35

4.25

±1.28

6.00

0.76

6.13

±0.64

4.25

±1.04

4.38

±1.30

5.00

±1.41

5.63

±0.74

N=5

Not included

I>C,LW,D,TW,TB;

R,H>LW,D,TW,C

TB>LW,D,C

Eye Relief

N=12;

F(7,77)=10.306, p=0.00

6.33

±1.15

5.50

±1.24

6.00

±0.85

6.67

±0.49

3.50

±1.93

4.83

±1.70

4.25

±1.71

4.92

±1.51

N=3

Not included

H,R,I>LW,D,TW,TB;

H>C>LW,TW

D,TB>LW


4.3.2 Reticle Design Results The reticle criteria included reticle pattern, reticle contrast ratio, reticle contrast adjustability and automatic reticle brightness adjustability. Not all criteria applied to all weapon sights tested and therefore were not rated.

The Holographic sight was rated between Reasonably Acceptable and Completely Acceptable. The C79 and Red-dot sights were rated between Barely Acceptable and Completely Acceptable. The DCIEM 3.4x and Thermal Weapon is rated between Borderline and Reasonably Acceptable. The Thermal Off-bore is rated between Barely Unacceptable and Barely Acceptable. The LW DVS 1x is rated between Completely Unacceptable and Barely Unacceptable. The mean acceptability ratings of the reticle of the day conditions (excluding the iron sight) are presented in Table 17.

A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted for each criteria (7 sights x 1 criteria). The number of participants that were included in each analysis is recorded in the table below. Post hoc Duncan’s test was conducted to determine significant differences between sights for each criterion.

For the Pattern criterion the Holographic, C79, Red-dot sights were rated significantly more acceptable than the DCIEM 3.4x, Thermal Off-bore and LW DVS 1x sights. The Holographic sight was rated significantly more acceptable than the Red-dot and Thermal Weapon sight. The Thermal Weapon sight was rated significantly more acceptable than the Thermal Off-bore sight. The DCIEM 3.4x, Thermal Weapon and Thermal Off-bore were rated significantly more acceptable than the LW DVS 1x.

For the Contrast Ratio criterion the C79, Red-dot and Holographic sights were rated significantly more acceptable than the DCIEM 3.4x, Thermal Weapon, Thermal Off-bore and LW DVS 1x. The DCIEM 3.4x and Thermal Weapons sights were rated more significantly more acceptable than the Thermal Off-bore and LW DVS 1x.

For the Contrast Adjustment criterion the C79, Holographic, Red-dot sights were rated significantly more acceptable than the Thermal Off-bore, DCIEM 3.4x, and Land Warrior sights. The C79 and Holographic sight were significantly more acceptable than the Thermal Weapon. The Thermal Weapon, DCIEM 3.4 x and Thermal Off-bore were significantly more acceptable than the LW DVS 1x.

For the Auto Brightness Adjustment the Holographic sight was not included in the analysis because of too few participant responses. The C79, Red-dot, DCIEM 3.4x, and Thermal Weapons sights were significantly more acceptable than the Thermal Off-bore and LW DVS 1x.


Table 17: Mean Acceptable Ratings of Reticle Criteria Mean Acceptability Rating

Criteria C79 Red-dot Holo LW DVS (1X) DCIEM (3.4x) Thermal Wpn Thermal Off-bore


Pattern

N=16, F(6,90)=22.925, p=0.00

5.81

±1.11

5.69

±0.95

6.56

±0.51

2.50

±1.67

4.56

±1.31

5.19

±1.17

4.00

±1.63

H,C,R>D,TB,LW;

H>TW>TB;

H>R;

D,TW,TB>LW

Contrast Ratio

N=11,

F(6,60)=23.790, p=0.00

6.00

±0.63

6.18

±0.98

6.73

±0.47

2.09

±1.30

4.55

±1.44

4.36

±1.50

3.00

±1.84

C,R,H>D,TW>TB,LW

Contrast Adjustment

N=6,

F(6,30)=10.781, p=0.00

6.00

±0.63

5.67

±1.03

6.67

±0.52

1.83

±0.75

4.17

±0.72

4.50

±1.38

3.83

±1.47

C,H,R>D,TB>LW;

C,H>TW>LW;

Auto Brightness Adjustment

N=4,

F(5,15)=13.286, p=0.00

5.50

±0.58

5.25

±00.50

Not included – no responses

1.75

±0.50

5.25

±0.95

4.75

±0.50

3.00

±1.41

C,R,D,TW>LW,TB;


4.3.3 Sight Functionality Results The functionality criteria included ease of mounting, ease of zeroing, estimated maintenance of zero, sight bulk, sight weight and estimated sight durability.

The Iron sight was rated between Reasonably Acceptable and Completely Acceptable. The C79, Red-dot, Holographic, and Visible Laser was rated between Barely Acceptable and Completely Acceptable. The DCIEM 3.4 sight was rated between Reasonably Unacceptable and Reasonably Acceptable. The Thermal Off0bore sight was rated between Reasonably Acceptable and Barely Acceptable. The Thermal Off-bore was rated between Reasonably Unacceptable and Barely Acceptable. The LW DVS 1x was rated between Completely Unacceptable and Barely Acceptable. The mean acceptability ratings of the weapon sights for functionality are presented in Table 18.


For the Mounting criterion the Iron, C79, Red-dot, Holographic and Visible Laser were rated significantly more acceptable than the DCIEM 3.4x, Thermal Weapon, Thermal Off-bore, and LW DVS 1x. The DCIEM 3.4x and Thermal Weapon sights were rated significantly more acceptable than the Thermal Off-bore and LW DVS 1x.

For the Zeroing criterion the Iron, C79, Red-dot and Holographic sights were significantly more acceptable than DCIEM 3.4x, Thermal Weapons, Thermal Off-bore and LW DVS 1x. The DCIEM 3.4x, Thermal Weapon and Visible Laser were significantly more acceptable than Thermal Off-bore and LW DVS 1x. The Thermal Off-bore were significantly more acceptable than the LW DVS 1x.

For the Maintenance of Zero the Iron, C79, Red-dot, and Holographic sights were rated significantly more acceptable than the Thermal Weapon, DCIEM 3.4x, Thermal Off-bore and LW DVS 1x sights. The Visible Laser, DCIEM 3.4x, and Thermal Weapons were rated significantly more acceptable than the Thermal Off-bore and LW DVS 1x. The Visible Laser was rated significantly more acceptable than the DCIEM 3.4x sight.

For the Sight Bulk the Iron, Holographic, C79 were rated significantly more acceptable than Thermal Off-bore, DCIEM 3.4x, Thermal Weapon Sight and LW DVS 1x. The Iron and Holographic sights were rated significantly more acceptable than the C79 sight. The Thermal Off-bore was rated significantly more acceptable than the DCIEM 3.4x, Thermal Weapon, and LW DVS 1x sights. The DCIEM 3.4x was rated significantly more acceptable than the Thermal Weapon and LW DVS 1x sights. The Thermal Weapon sight was rated significantly more acceptable than the LW DVS 1x sight.

For the Sight Weight the Iron, Red-dot, Visible Laser and Holographic sights were rated significantly more acceptable than the LW DVS 1x, Thermal Off-fore DCIEM 3.4x and Thermal Weapon sights. The Iron was rated significantly more acceptable than the C79 sights. The C79 was rated significantly more acceptable than the Thermal Off-bore, DCIEM 3.4x, and Thermal Weapon. The Thermal Off-bore was rated significantly more acceptable than the DCIEM 3.4x


Table 18: Mean Acceptability Ratings of the Sights Functionality Mean Acceptability Rating


DCIEM 3.4x

Thermal Wpn

Thermal Off-bore

Visible Laser


Mounting

N=15,

F(8,112)=21.281, p=0.00

6.67

±0.49

6.67

±0.49

6.40

±0.74

6.87

±0.35

3.67

±1.95

5.20

±1.25

5.27

±1.33

4.00

±1.56

6.47

±0.64

I,C,R,H,V>D,TW>LW,TB;

Zeroing

N=15,

F(8,112)=48.189, p=0.00

6.27

±0.88

6.67

±0.49

6.47

±0.74

6.73

±0.59

1.80

±1.01

5.27

±1.33

5.33

±0.98

3.07

±1.79

6.00

±1.25

I,C,R,H>D,TW>TB>LW;

V>TB>LW

Maintenance of Zero

N=13,

F(8,96)=26.683, p=0.00

6.23

±1.01

6.15

±0.90

6.15

±0.55

6.31

±0.75

2.23

±1.42

4.31

±1.44

4.77

±1.24

2.77

±1.42

5.62

±1.12

I,C,R,H>TW,D,TB,LW;

V,TW,D>TB, LW;

V>D

Sight Bulk

N=14,

F(8,104)=44.767, p=0.00

6.93

±0.27

5.79

±0.80

6.57

±0.65

6.79

±0.43

4.29

±1.82

3.07

±1.69

1.64

±0.93

4.29

±1.07

6.14

±0.86

I,H,R,V,C>TB>D>TW>LW

I,H>C

Sight Weight

N=11,

F(8,80)=25.888, p=0.00

7.00

±0.00

5.82

±0.87

6.45

±0.69

6.82

±0.40

4.91

±2.07

3.45

±2.07

1.54

±0.93

4.54

±1.13

6.18

±0.87

I,R,V,H>LW,TB>D>TW

I>C>TB>D>TW

Sight Durability

N=14,

F(8,104)=33.23, p=0.00

6.50

±0.85

6.21

±0.89

5.57

±1.02

5.86

±1.41

2.14

±1.41

2.57

±0.94

3.29

±1.59

2.43

±1.65

5.00

±1.57

I,C>V;

I,C,R,H,V>LW,D,TW,TB

TW>LW


and Thermal Weapon sights. The DCIEM 3.4x was rated significantly more acceptable than the Thermal Weapon sight.

For the Sight Durability the Iron, C79, Red-dot, Holographic and Visible Laser were rated significantly more acceptable than the LW DVS 1x, DCIEM 3.4x, Thermal Weapon, and Thermal Off-bore. The Thermal Weapon was rated significantly more acceptable than the LW DVS 1x.

4.3.4 HMD Functionality Results The HMD functionality criteria included HMD bulk and HMD weight.

The LW DVS 1x, DE\CIEM 3.4x and Thermal Off-bore were rated between Borderline and Reasonably Unacceptable. The mean acceptability ratings for the functionality of HMDs are presented below in Table 19.


Table 19: Mean Acceptability Ratings for HMD Functionality Mean Acceptability Rating

Criteria LW DVS (1x) DCIEM (3.4x) Thermal Off-bore Significant Difference (p<0.05)

HMD Bulk

N=14, F(2,26)=0.867, p=0.432

4.86

±1.61

4.21

±1.97

4.64

±1.60

NS

HMD Weight

N=14, F(2,26)=0.255, p=0.777

5.21

±1.53

5.29

±1.59

5.07

±1.38

NS

No significant differences between acceptability ratings of the LW DVS, DCIEM and thermal off-bore sights for HMD bulk and HMD weight were found.

4.3.5 Task Demands Results The task demands criteria included target acquisition, speed of aiming, close-in target engagement, far target engagement, trench firing and standing firing.

The C79 and Holographic sights were rated between Reasonably Acceptable and Completely Acceptable. The Red-dot and Visible Laser were rated between Barely Acceptable and Completely Acceptable. The Iron sight was rated between Borderline and Reasonably Acceptable. The Thermal Weapon was rated between Reasonably Unacceptable and Reasonably Acceptable. The DCIEM 3.4x and Thermal Off-bore was rated between Barely Unacceptable and Barely Acceptable. The LW DVS 1x was rated between Reasonably Unacceptable and Borderline. The mean acceptability ratings of task demands for the weapon sights are presented in Table 20.


Table 20: Mean Acceptability Ratings of Task Demands Mean Acceptability Rating


DCIEM 3.4x

Thermal Wpn

Thermal Off-bore

Visible Laser


Target Acquisition

N=16, F(8,120)=28.954, p=0.00

6.31

±1.08

6.00

±0.73

5.69

±1.40

6.56

±0.63

2.44

±1.36

3.88

±1.50

4.81

±1.05

3.25

±1.61

6.13

±0.81

H,R,I,C,V>TW>D,TB>LW

H>R;

Speed of Aim

N=16,

F(8,120)=37.095, p=0.00

6.31

±0.79

6.00

±0.82

6.19

±0.83

6.69

±0.48

2.56

±1.31

3.81

±1.51

4.94

±1.00

4.13

±1.41

6.31

±0.79

I,C,H,R,V>TW>TB,D>LW

Close-in Target

N=15,

F(8,112)=18.973, p=0.00

6.47

±0.64

6.20

±0.77

6.27

±0.70

6.87

±0.35

3.60

±1.55

4.60

±1.76

5.13

±1.36

4.93

±1.28

6.33

±0.82

I,C,R,H,V>TW,TB,D>LW

Far Target

N=15,

F(8,112)=15.401, p=0.00

4.80

±1.15

6.47

±0.64

5.53

±1.87

6.07

±1.10

2.20

±1.26

4.13

±1.92

5.13

0.92

3.53

±1.88

5.00

±1.20

C,H>I>TB>LW;

C>TW,V,D,TB>LW;

R>D,TB>LW;

H>V,D,TB>LW;

TW,V>TB

Trench Firing

N=14

F(8,104)=12.551; p=0.00

6.14

±0.66

6.29

±0.61

6.21

±0.80

6.50

±0.52

3.43

±1.79

4.50

±1.65

5.71

±0.91

4.57

±1.34

5.50

±1.22

I,C,H,R,V,TW>TB,D>LW;

H>V

Standing Firing

N=15

F(8,112)=27.216; p=0.00

6.27

±0.70

6.00

±0.76

6.07

±1.10

6.73

±0.46

3.13

±1.51

3.20

±1.57

3.00

±1.89

3.67

±1.54

6.00

±0.76

I,C,R,H,V>LW,TW,TB,D



4.3.6 Compatibility Results The Iron, Red-dot and Holographic sights were rated between Reasonably Acceptable and Completely Acceptable. The C79 and Visible Laser were rated between Barely Acceptable and Completely Acceptable. The Thermal Weapon was rated between Borderline and Reasonably Acceptable. The LW DVS 1x and Thermal Off-bore was rated between Barely Unacceptable and Barely Acceptable. The DCIEM 3.4x was rated between Reasonably Unacceptable and Barely Acceptable. The mean task acceptability ratings of the compatibility of the sights are presented in Table 21. The compatibility criteria consisted of compatibility with the C79, helmet and equipment.


For compatibility with the C7 the iron, C79, red-dot, holographic, and visible laser sights were rated significantly more acceptable than the LW DVS 1x, DCIEM 3.4x, Thermal Weapon, and Thermal Off-bore sights. For compatibility with the helmet the iron, red-dot, holographic and visible laser were rated significantly more acceptable than the thermal weapon, thermal off-bore, DCIEM 3.4x and LW DVS 1x sights. Also, the C79 sight was rated significantly more acceptable than the LW DVS 1x and DCIEM 3.4x. For compatibility with equipment the iron, C79, red-dot, holographic, and visible laser was rated significantly more acceptable than thermal weapon, thermal off-bore, DCIEM 3.4x and LW DVS 1x. The thermal weapon sight was rated significantly more acceptable than the thermal off-bore, DCIEM 3.4x, and LW DVS 1x. The thermal off-bore was rated significantly more acceptable than DCIEM 3.4x and LW DVS 1x sight.

4.3.7 Overall Acceptance Results The overall acceptance criteria included overall acceptability of the sighting system for static target engagement, moving target engagement, daytime infantry use, and nighttime infantry use.

The Holographic sight was rated between Barely Acceptable and Completely Acceptable. The Iron and C79 were rated between Borderline and Completely Acceptable. The Red-dot, Thermal Weapon, and Visible Laser were rated between Borderline and Reasonably Acceptable. The Thermal Off-bore sight was rated between Reasonably Unacceptable and Barely Acceptable. The DCIEM 3.4x was rated between Completely Unacceptable and Barely Acceptable. The LW DVS 1x was rated between Completely Unacceptable and Barely Unacceptable. The mean overall acceptance ratings are presented in Table 22.

A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted for each criteria (9 sights x 1 criteria). The number of participants that were included in each analysis is recorded in the table below. Post


hoc Duncan’s test was conducted to determine significant differences between sights for each criterion.

For the overall acceptance of the sights for static targets the iron, C79, red-dot, holographic and visible laser were rated significantly more acceptable than the Thermal Weapon, Thermal Off-bore, DCIEM 3.4x and LW DVS 1x. The Holographic sight was rated significantly more acceptable than the Red-dot sight. The Thermal Weapon was rated significantly more acceptable than the Thermal Off-bore, DCIEM 3.4x and LW DVS 1x. The Thermal Off-bore and DCIEM 3.4x were rated significantly more acceptable than the LW DVS 1x.

For the overall acceptance of the sights for moving targets the Holographic, C79, and Iron were rated significantly more acceptable than the Thermal Weapon, DCIEM 3.4x, Thermal Off-bore, and LW DVS 1x. The Holographic and C79 were rated significantly more acceptable than the Red-dot and Visible Laser. The Thermal Weapon was rated more acceptable than the DCIEM 3.4x, Thermal Off-bore and LW DVS 1x. The DCIEM 3.4x and Thermal Off-bore were rated significantly more acceptable than LW DVS 1x. The Red-dot was rated significantly more acceptable than LW DVS 1x.

For the overall acceptance of the sights for day time use the Holographic, C79, Iron and Red-dot sights were rated significantly more acceptable than the Thermal weapon, DCIEM 3.4x, Thermal Off-bore and LW DVS 1x. The Holographic, C79 and Iron were rated significantly more acceptable than Visible Laser. The Visible Laser was rated significantly more acceptable than DCIEM 3.4x, Thermal Off-bore and LW DVS 1x. The Thermal Weapon and DCIEM 3.4 were rated significantly more acceptable than the LW DVS 1x. The Thermal Weapon was rated significantly more acceptable than the Thermal Off-bore.

For the overall acceptable of the sights for night time use the Thermal Weapon, Visible Laser, C79, Red-dot, Holographic, Thermal Off-bore and Iron were rated significantly more acceptable than the DCIEM 3.4x and LW DVS 1x. The Thermal Weapon and visible Laser were rated significantly more acceptable than the Iron sight.


Table 21: Mean Acceptability Ratings for Compatibility

Mean Acceptability Rating Criteria Iron C79 Red-dot Holo LW DVS

1x DCIEM 3.4x

Thermal Wpn

Thermal Off-bore

Visible Laser


C7 N=15, F(8,112)=13.837, p=0.00

6.60 ±0.51

6.53 ±0.64

6.53 ±0.64

6.80 ±0.41

4.27 ±1.75

4.80 ±1.15

4.93 ±1.49

5.00 ±1.07

5.87 ±1.25

I,C,R,H,V>LW,D,TW,TB

Helmet N=9, F(8,64)=7.528, p=0.00

6.56 ±0.53

5.67 ±2.06

6.44 ±0.73

6.89 ±0.33

3.44 ±2.19

3.56 ±2.01

4.89 ±1.69

4.56 ±1.42

6.22 ±0.97

I,R,H,V>TW,TB,D,LW; C>LW,D

Equipment N=12, F(8,88)=23.242, p=0.00

6.67 ±0.49

6.17 ±1.03

6.50 ±0.67

6.75 ±0.45

3.25 ±2.09

2.75 ±1.36

5.08 ±1.31

3.75 ±1.86

6.25 ±0.87

I,C,R,H,V>TW>TB>D,LW

Table 22: Mean Overall Task Acceptance of Sights

Mean Acceptability Rating Criteria Iron C79 Red-dot Holo LW DVS

1x DCIEM 3.4x

Thermal Wpn

Thermal Off-bore

Visible Laser


Static Target N=14, F(8,104)=33.438, p=0.00

6.21 ±0.70

6.36 ±0.63

5.86 ±0.86

6.64 ±0.50

2.29 ±1.27

4.14 ±1.41

5.14 ±1.10

4.36 ±1.22

6.00 ±0.78

I,C,R,H,V>TW>TB,D>LW; H>R

Moving Target N=13 F(8,96)=32.930, p=0.00

5.92 ±0.86

6.23 ±0.73

5.31 ±1.11

6.69 ±0.48

1.54 ±0.66

3.54 ±1.56

4.77 ±1.09

2.85 ±1.57

5.08 ±1.44

H,C,I>TW>D,TB>LW; H,C>R,V R>LW

Day Time Use N=10, F(8,72)=27.98, p=0.00

6.00 ±0.82

6.60 ±0.52

5.50 ±0.97

6.60 ±0.52

1.90 ±0.88

3.60 ±1.35

4.00 ±1.70

2.70 ±1.16

4.90 ±0.88

C,H,I,R>TW,D,TB,LW; H,C,I>V>D,TB; V,TW,D>LW; TW>TB

Night Time Use N=10, F(8,72)=15.081, p=0.00

4.10 ±1.73

4.60 ±1.58

4.50 1.27

5.10 ±1.52

1.40 ±0.70

1.70 ±0.95

5.60 ±0.52

4.40 ±1.35

5.50 ±1.71

TW,V>I>D,LW; C,R,H,TB>D,LW


4.4 Focus Group Discussion Participants liked the four conventional on-bore sights (red-dot, holographic, iron and C79) for combat during the day. They also believed that there are situations in which an off-bore video sight or thermal sight could be useful provided improvements are made to the current designs. Below is a summary of comments made by the participants about the sights and NVG’s during the focus group discussion.

Participants found the holographic sight to be a good universal sight. In general, the majority of participants preferred it to the red-dot sight. One feature of the holographic sight that participants liked was the ability to change the brightness of the reticle. However, participants did express concerns about the holographic sight’s durability, lack of offsets for far target shooting, and need for batteries. They also felt that they had to “chase” the reticle dot at times and would like magnification to be built into the sight.

Participants found the red-dot sight easy to aim, bore sight, and adjust the reticle brightness. The red-dot reticle pattern was preferred to the holographic reticle pattern despite finding the reticle too large. Participants expressed concerns about red-dot sight durability, need for batteries, and its ability to work in cold weather. Participants found the adjustments cap annoying. Participants wanted to see the lens cap removed because it reduced their ability to scan over the sight.

Participants liked the iron sight because it is small, simple and light. They found it easy to hit close moving targets. They thought it was a good sight for urban combat. Participants identified the iron sight’s lack of offsets for far target shooting as a its worst disadvantage.

Considering the assets of the C79, participants identified the magnification, estimated maintenance of zero, and durability. Participants suggested the sight on the C79 would improve with an anti-fogging device. Some participants said that their helmet rested on the sight when they were shooting.

Participants found the current design of the off-bore video sights (LW DVS or DCIEM) to be unacceptable for use. However, if improvements were made to the systems, participants saw a role for this type of sight. Suggested improvements for both systems included a reduction in the weight and wires, a cover or brim over the camera to reduce glare, better image quality, and a faster refresh rate of the camera and display. For the LW DVS system, the participants found the reticle pattern too large and it obscured small distant targets. For the DCIEM sight, the participants liked the zoom capability and ease of zeroing. The roles participants saw for a video off-bore sight are in FIBUA (to look around blind corners) and in crowd confrontation and on recce patrol (to take pictures). Participants said they would never use this type of sight in the woods or in a defense position. They also mentioned that only 1-2 systems would be required per section. Participants suggested that it would be useful to place a display on the back of the lead solider using the system so that other members of the section could see what was happening.

The majority of participants believed the thermal weapon mounted sight would be good for static night defence. When walking at night, participants found it difficult to know where they were going and therefore would like to have a NVG on the other eye. The participants liked the magnification and reticle pattern of the sight. However, they found the maintenance of the sight zero to be poor, because it is top heavy and did not have a stable mount. The participants also found the sight to be too heavy. There was concern about the sight causing tunnel vision.


During the day, participants found the glare from the sun washed out the sight picture. Participants were also concerned about the inability to determine if a target is friendly or foe in the sight picture.

Many comments were raised about the thermal off-bore sight. The participants mentioned this sight would be useful for FIBUA. However, they would like the sight to have a zoom capability and increase the FOV about 2-3x. They found the reticle pattern to be too large. They said a higher contrasting colour for the reticle should be chosen. All the participants commented the sight did not hold its zero. Participants also experienced display wash out from the sun or fast scanning with the camera. Consistent with the thermal weapon mounted sight, participants were concerned about the inability to determine if a target is friendly or foe in the thermal off-bore sight picture.

Both the LW DVS and the thermal off-bore sight used the same HMD. The participants found the HMD obscured the one eye’s FOV, resulting in blind spots. This was most salient when on the move, rather than standing still. Participants did not find the HMD to be stable. They found the instability of the HMD easier to deal with during the day than at night because both eyes were able to see what was around. Also, both the LW DVS and the thermal off-bore sight used the Land Warrior software to zero the weapon. All participants commented this alignment process took too long. They would prefer being able to physically move the reticle instead of using the software to zero the sight.

Participants liked using the visible laser sight, especially in an urban environment because it helped to light up the room and allowed for quick target engagement. When the sight is used, however, the solder’s position is given away. Consequently, they mentioned they would prefer an IR illuminator.

The binocular (ANVIS-9) and monocular (AN/PVS-14) NVGs were both equally liked by the participants. The participants mentioned that the monocular NVG would make other tasks easier because one eye was still dark-adapted. The participants also had concerns about the mount for the binocular NVG. They suggested the binocular ANVIS-9 mount needs up/down and tilt adjustments.

4.5 Criteria of Importance Results A Criteria of Importance questionnaire was administered during the focus group. Participants rated the perceived importance of various design criteria for selecting or assessing a weapon sight and a NVG device. Participants ranked each criterion using a seven-point scale of importance. These ratings were then used to produce a criterion of importance ranking. Criteria have been generally arranged in order of strongest to weakest importance.

4.5.1 Weapon Sight Results The result of the criteria of importance questionnaire for weapon sights is presented in Figure 28.


Criterial of Importance - Weapon Sight

mai

nten

ace

zero

stab

iliy

on ri

flesp

eed

of a

imin

gru

gged

ness

visu

al d

isto

rtio

nad

j poi

nt o

f ai

mvi

sual

sha

rpne

ssim

age

stab

ility

corre

ct p

oint

of

aim

rifle

com

patib

ility

free

dom

fro

m f

oggi

ngcr

awlin

gey

e-re

lief

stab

le f

ire p

ositi

ontr

igge

r man

ipul

atio

nef

fect

of

brea

thin

gba

lanc

e on

rifl

esi

ght

alig

nmen

tm

agni

ficat

ion

bulk

focu

s ad

jw

gt o

n w

eapo

nw

ide

FO

Vhe

lmet

runn

ing

dete

ct f

all s

hot

bore

sig

htin

gde

pth

perc

eptio

ntw

o-ey

es d

etec

tion

equi

pmen

ton

e ey

e de

tect

ion

stab

ility

on

head

eye-

fatig

ueba

lanc

e on

hea

dre

mov

al o

f sig

htsi

ght

inst

alla

tion

neck

dis

com

fort

wgt

on

head

glas

ses

Of No Importance

Of Slight Importance

Of Little Importance

Of Some Importance

Moderately Important

Very Important

Extremely Important

Figure 28: Criteria of importance summary – Weapon Sights

Very Important to Extremely Important

Participants rated the following eight weapon sight criteria in the highest importance category: maintenance of sight zero, stability on the rifle, speed of aiming, ruggedness, freedom from visual distortion, ease of adjusting point of aim, visual sharpness – resolution, and image stability.

Very Important

Participants rated the following weapon sight criteria ‘Very Important’: ease of obtaining the correct point of aim, rifle compatibility, freedom from fogging, compatibility with tactical movement – crawling, ease of maintaining constant eye relief between shots, steadiness (adopting stable fire positions), steadiness (trigger manipulation), steadiness (effects of breathing), balance on the rifle, ease of obtaining the correct sight alignment, magnification, bulk/snagging, ease of eye relief/focus adjustment, weight on the weapon, wide field of view, compatibility with helmet, compatibility with tactical movement – running, ability to detect fall of shot, ease of sight collimation (bore sighting), depth perception, two eyes open target detection, compatibility with equipment and one eye open target detection.


The following six criteria were considered ‘Moderately Important’ for a weapon sight: stability on the head, eye fatigue, balance on the head, ability to remove sight for storage, ease of sight installation and neck discomfort.


Of Some Importance

Only two criteria were considered ‘of Some Importance’ for a weapon sight: the weight on the head and compatibility with prescription glasses.

4.5.2 Night Vision Goggle Results The result of the criteria of importance questionnaire for night vision goggles is presented in Figure 29.

Very Important to Extremely Important

The participants rated two criteria in the highest importance category: ease of NVG focus adjustment and target engagement.

Very Important

The following criteria were rated ‘Very Important’ for NVG’s: bulk/snagging, eye fatigue, visual sharpness, freedom from fogging, stability on the head, target detection, weight on the head, freedom from visual distortion, field of view, ease of NVG position adjustment, compatibility with helmet, depth perception, balance on the head, ability to detect obstacles, compatibility with tactical movement – crawling, compatibility with equipment, speed of movement, compatibility with tactical movement – running, rifle compatibility, neck discomfort, ease of movement over broken ground, and ease of obstacle traverse.

Criteria of Importance - Night Vision Goggles

focu

s ad

jtg

t en

gagm

ent

bulk

eye

fatig

uevi

sual

sha

rpne

ssfo

ggin

gst

abilit

y -

head

targ

et d

etec

tion

wgt

on

head

visu

al d

isto

rtio

nF

OV

posi

tioni

ng a

djhe

lmet

dept

h pe

rcep

tion

bala

nce

on h

ead

dete

ct o

bsta

cles

craw

ling

equi

pmen

tsp

eed

of m

ov't

runn

ing

rifle

com

patib

ility

neck

dis

com

fort

mov

't br

oken

grd

obst

acle

tra

vers

ena

usea

best

rout

ein

stal

latio

ngl

asse

s

Of No Importance

Of Slight Importance

Of Little Importance

Of Some Importance


Very Important

Extremely Important

Figure 29: Criteria of importance summary – NVGs



Three criteria were rated in this category of importance for NVGs: freedom from nausea, ability to determine the best route, and ease of NVG installation.

Of Some Importance

Only the compatibility with glasses was rated in this category of importance for NVGs.


5. Discussion

This trial was one of two sighting and system studies conducted for the SIREQ-TD Programme in FBES II. The first study, reported elsewhere, examined the effects of sighting system on engagement accuracy in a combat range while this study examined system effects on speed of detection in an urban setting. The detection results and subjective feedback from the participants in this trial should be reviewed in conjunction with accuracy performance of these systems in the combat range study (Angel & Hawes, 2005).

The detection performance of on-bore daytime sighting systems (iron, C79 optic, reflex red dot and holographic) during simulated urban engagement scenarios were quantified in this experiment using open and partially hidden targets. The targets were located at relatively close distances (<100m). Across all the targets, the target detection/engagement times of the conventional on-bore sights (iron, C79, red-dot and holographic) and the thermal weapon mounted sight did not vary significantly (9.3 to 12 seconds). The advantage of reflex sights and iron sights over optical sights for urban target detection tasks were not demonstrated in this experiment. It is believed that participants used their unaided eye to help detect the day time targets and only utilized their magnified sight or thermal sight to confirm target location or presence. The semi-occluded targets used in this experiment were 50% exposed and relatively easy to detect. Differences between unmagnified and thermal sights over reflex sights may be more noticeable if more hidden targets are utilized. The majority of participants indicated that the holographic sight was the most preferred day sight.

The detection performance of two off-bore video daytime sighting systems (Land warrior DVS 1x and the DCIEM 3.4x Gunsight) and one thermal off-bore sight (Nytech Land warrior system) during simulated urban engagement scenarios were quantified in this experiment using open and partially hidden targets. Across all the targets, the target detection/engagement times of the video off-bore sights did not vary significantly (21.2 to 24.4 seconds). The thermal off-bore system performed better than the video off-bore system (16.0 seconds). On average participants using the off-bore systems took 1.8x as long to detect targets as compared to the conventional sights. Participants using the off-bore DCIEM 3.4xsystem took 2.2 x as long to detect targets as compared to when they were using the comparable magnified C79 sight.

The five on-bore sights had significantly shorter target detection/engagement times than the off-bore thermal sight and both off-bore video sights during daylight. With on-bore sights, the soldier can detect a target with the naked eye, and then bring the weapon sight to his eye in line with the target. When using an off-bore sight, the soldier may detect the target with the naked eye, take a few seconds to find a reference point on the image in the HMD, and then only locate the target in the HMD. Also, the off-bore video sights had the slowest detection/ engagement times. This might be explained by the slow scan rates the participants used in order to prevent the image from washing out. The refresh rates on the off-bore systems were slow. The four conventional on-bore sights were consistently rated more acceptable then both thermal devices and both off-bore video sights in the brief and detailed task acceptability questionnaire.

For the LW DVS (1x) and the DCIEM (3.4x) off-bore video sights no significant difference in detection/engagement time and task acceptance criteria from the brief questionnaire were found.


However, in response to criteria in the detail task acceptance questionnaire, participants found the DCIEM sight to be more acceptable than the LW DVS for vision/optics, reticle, functionality, task demands and overall acceptance. It is not clear whether these higher acceptability ratings are a function of the increased magnification or because of differences in resolution and HMD types between the sights. As a note, all acceptability ratings of both off-bore video sights were ‘Barely Acceptable’ or below.

The differences in the detection performance of the on-bore and off-bore thermal sighting systems during the day and night were quantified. The mean time to detect targets for the participants with the two thermal sights in the day and night against near and far, occluded and non-occluded targets varied from a low of 7.2 seconds for the Thermal weapon sight for near open targets in the day to a high of 46.4 seconds for Thermal Off-bore sight against far occluded targets at night. The participants took 2 times as long to detect targets at night with the Thermal Weapon sight as compared to the day and 2.1 times as long at night with the Thermal Off-bore system as compared to the day. These results suggest that the participants were also using their non-sighting eye or both eyes to detect targets in the day. The monocular off-bore system utilized in this experiment allowed participants to use their un-occluded to eye to help detect targets, when occluded as at night detection time increased significantly. These results suggest some caution should be utilized in the use of opaque binocular displays for sighting systems vice a monocular display. For the brief task acceptability questionnaire no significant difference in acceptability ratings were found between the on-bore and off-bore thermal sights. For the detailed task acceptance questionnaire, the thermal weapon sight was rated significantly more acceptable than the thermal off-bore sight for vision, reticle, functionality, task demand, compatibility and overall acceptance criteria. It is unclear whether the differences mentioned above are a function of on-bore versus off-bore sights because the thermal weapon sight and thermal off-bore sight have different resolution, detector types, field of view, and magnification.

The differences in the detection performance of the NVG and thermal sighting systems during the night were quantified. The mean time to detect targets for the participants with monocular NVG with and without IR illumination and the binocular NVG at night against near and far, occluded and non-occluded targets varied from a low of 20.4 seconds for the monocular NVG with illumination to a high of 27.3 seconds for the monocular NVG without illumination (across all targets). The binocular ANVIS-9 and the monocular AN/PVS-14 did not have significantly different detection/engagement times. The detection performance of binocular NVGs over monocular NVGs was not demonstrated in this urban test. The binocular NVG did have significantly higher acceptability ratings than the monocular NVG. The higher acceptability rates of the binocular NVG maybe a function of the NVG capturing more light because of the two tubes than with the one tube in the monocular NVG, and thus presenting a clearer image. Operationally the significant advantage of equipping every soldier with two NVG tubes (binocular system) was not demonstrated.

The Thermal Weapon sight detected targets significantly faster than the monocular or binocular NVG without auxiliary illumination. The thermal sight had the shortest target detection times at night (18.5 seconds on average). Over all target visibility categories, the monocular AN/PVS-14 with the PEQ-2A illuminator had shorter target detection times (20.4 seconds) than the monocular AN/PVS-14 with the visible laser (27.3 seconds). Unlike the results of a previous bush lane trial (Angel, Massel, Christian and Hawes, 2005), IR illumination was shown to significantly improve detection performance. The monocular NVG with the PEQ-2A illuminator


and the monocular NVG with the visible laser were also not rated significantly different for user acceptance in the task acceptance questionnaire. The results identify the need to field IR illuminators along with LADs for urban operations. Additionally the benefits of dedicated thermal weapon sights were demonstrated in this trial and these benefits may be more noticeable with the use of more hidden targets (75-90% occluded).

The exit questionnaire identified a number of significant differences in acceptance between the different sights for vision/optics, functionality, task demands, compatibility and overall acceptance criteria. Concerns were raised in the exit focus group with the design of the Land Warrior DVS system and the thermal sights in general. The participants in this study could visualize the utility of an off-bore sight in the defence but believed further testing was required. The off-bore systems evaluated required further improvements before they would be operationally acceptable.

The participants identified areas of design importance for both sights and NVGs. The participants indicated that maintenance of sight zero, stability on the rifle, speed of aiming, ruggedness, freedom from visual distortion, ease of adjusting point of aim, visual sharpness – resolution, and image stability and sights were very to extremely important in their acceptance of a weapon sight. The participants rated ease of NVG focus adjustment and target engagement as very to extremely important in their acceptance of an NVG. The results reiterate the need for an LAD for accurate target engagement.


6. Recommendations

The target types used in this experiment were based on the protocol of Kooi (1996). Because Kooi did not state how they standardized occlusion, the hidden targets in this trial were standardized at 50% occlusion. The results of the trial suggest that these hidden targets were too visible and may have not have reflected realistic enemy soldier exposures in urban operations. The use of 75 to 90% occlusion may better reflect reality and should thus be used in future urban lane target detection experiments. While targets were paced in windows and doorways, few were placed within the interior shadows of rooms. In defensive operations fighting positions are typically located back from windows with narrow weapon arcs. Targets in this study were not located deeper in rooms or doorways because of the desire to use the same target from multiple firing locations. Future detection experiments should examine the use a number of well hidden targets located in potential fighting positions

In this trial, some direct comparisons that were planned could not be made because of equipment failure and availability. Therefore, to fully understand the effect of magnification on video off-bore sights, systems with cameras and HMDs with the same characteristics (resolution, refresh rate, etc.) should be investigated. The zoom capability (1 to 3.4x) of the DCIEM Gunsight was also not examined in this trial. The task demands suggest that multiple stage magnifications would be beneficial, i.e. scan with 1x and then switch to higher powers if required. The use of stepped zoom should speed up the search and detection process. The utility of off-bore magnification should be continued to be examined in future SIREQ experiments.

Unfortunately, the thermal systems used in this experiment possessed different characteristics (detector type, resolution, magnification, etc). In order to fully understand the implication of off-bore versus on-bore thermal devices, systems with similar characteristics should be examined. The detection ranges used in this experiment were relatively short but consistent with urban operations. The detection capabilities of the different night systems at longer ranges should be examined in controlled detection, recognition and identification exercises. Participants using the thermal weapon sight had the fastest target detection times. Although the utility of dedicated thermal weapon sights have been demonstrated in this trial, their suitability for offensive operations, patrolling etc. have not been evaluated. SIREQ should continue quantifying the performance and operational impact of thermal weapon sights in different phases of combat.

In this study only NVGs with 40º field of view were tested. In future studies, the impact of different field of views for NVGs in an urban environment should be examined. NVGs with different field of views could be examined in both a field trial and a virtual environment. As found in previous studies, this experiment did not demonstrate a significant advantage to using binocular 40º NVGs over monocular 40ºNVGs. The results suggest that the Land Force should issue monocular NVGs to its soldiers for general use. The results of this trial indicate the utility of focused IR illumination suggesting that the Land Force should acquire AN/PEQ-2 illuminators.

The impact of FOV and magnification on the detection performance of NVGs, thermal sights and other night sights in urban environments should be evaluated in a standardized detection exercise.


Open targets, 50% occluded targets, 90% occluded targets and fully occluded targets should be used where participants have to scan a wide arc (i.e. 120º).

Image intensified and thermal systems both have advantages and disadvantages. With an NVG system, a soldier has a greater ability to determine if a target is friendly or foe in comparison to a thermal system. However, with a thermal system a soldier may be able to detect a potential target better than with an NVG. Therefore, a system that fuses both II and IR together may be very advantageous. An investigation into the implications of a fused II/IR system for both on-bore and off-bore shooting in an urban environment should be conducted. A fused II/IR system should be compared to a similar II system and a similar IR system in an urban environment.

A number of day sights were used in this detection study and while detection performance was not significantly different between the iron, C79, red-dot and holographic sights, the participants indicated a strong preference for the EOTech holographic sight. The utility of issuing the holographic sight for urban operations should be examined in future SIREQ studies.


7. References

A. Angel, H.A. (2004). A Comparison of Monocular, Biocular and Binocular Night Vision Goggles with and without Laser Aiming Devices for Engaging Targets in a Bush Lane. (DRDC T Report CR 2004-172). Toronto, ON: Defence Research and Development Canada – Toronto.

B. Angel, H.A., and Massel, L.J. (2005). Examination of The Effect Of Off-Bore Shooting On Rifle Target Engagement Accuracy During Simulated Engagements. (DRDC T Report CR 2005-070). Toronto, ON: Defence Research and Development Canada – Toronto.

C. Angel, H.A. & Gaughan, P.M. (2005). Examination of the Effect of Night Vision Devices on Rifle Target Engagement Accuracy During Urban Operations. (DRDC T Report CR 2005-069). Toronto, ON: Defence Research and Development Canada – Toronto

D. Angel, H.A., and Hawes, V.L. (2005). Examination of the Effect of Night Vision Devices on Urban Off-Bore Target Detection and Engagement (DRDC T Report CR 2005-018). Toronto, ON: Defence Research and Development Canada – Toronto

E. Angel, H.A., Massel, L.J., Christian, A.B., and Hawes, V.L. (2005). Examination of the Effect of Night Vision Devices on Rifle Target Engagement Accuracy During Bush Lane Engagements. (DRDC T Report CR 2005-066). Toronto, ON: Defence Research and Development Canada – Toronto

F. Angel, H.A.. and Nunes, A. (2004). Examination of the Effect of Night Vision Devices on Dismounted Terrain Traverse. (DRDC T Report CR 2004-176). Toronto, ON: Defence Research and Development Canada – Toronto

G. Angel, H.A., & Woods, H.J. (2004). Examination of the Effect of Night Vision Devices on C7A1 Target Engagement Accuracy. (DRDC T Report CR 2004-173). Toronto, ON: Defence Research and Development Canada – Toronto

H. Boff, K.R., and Lincoln, J.E (Eds.) (1988). Engineering Data Compendium: Human Perception and Performance, Volumes I and II. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH

I. Caldwell, J.L., Cornum, R.L.S., Stephens, R.L., and Rash, C.E. (1990) Visual processing: Implications for helmet-mounted displays, Proceedings of SPIE – The International Society for Optical Engineering, 1290

J. CuQlock-Knopp, V.G., Torgerson, W., Sipes, D.E., Bender, E., and Merritt, J.O. (1995) A Comparison of Monocular, Biocular, and Binocular Night Vision Goggles for Traversing Off-road Terrain on Foot. (ARL-TR-747). Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD; U.S. Army Research Laboratory

K. Feltham, R. A. (1997). Helmet Mounted Gunsight: Fitness Report of Field Trials. (DCIEM Technical Memorandum 97/). Toronto, ON: Defence Research and Development Canada – Toronto


L. Kooi, F.L (1996). Viewing while staying under cover using Head Mounted Displays. Proceedings of Battlefield Systems International 96 ‘Integrated Battlefield Management’ Volume 1. Spearhead Exhibitions Ltd, New Malden Surrey, UK

M. Leger, A., Roumes, C., Gardelles, C., Cursolle, J.P., and Kraus, J.M. (1988) Binocular Helmet-Mounted Display For Fixed-Wing Aircraft: A Trade-Off Approach. Proceedings of SPIE – The International Society for Optical Engineering, 1988

N. McLean, W.E., Rash, C.E., McEntire, J.E., Braithwaite, M.G., and Mora, J.C., (1997). A Performance History of AN/PVS-5 and ANVIS Image Intensification Systems in U.S. Army Aviation. Proceedings of SPIE – The International Society for Optical Engineering, 3058

O. Saliba, A.J. and Meehan J.W. (1996). Annotated Bibliography of Helmet Mounted Sight Systems. (DSTO Report # GD 0097). Melbourne, Australia: Defence Science and Technical Organization

P. Velger, M. (1998) Helmet-mounted displays and sights. Norwood MA: Artech House Inc.

Humansystems® NVD Urban Off-Bore Target Detection & Engagement Page A-1

ANNEX A: Task Acceptance Questionnaire

Humansystems® SIREQ-TD: Malone Report Page B-2

Excellence in Applied Ergonomics

PERSONNEL INFORMATION Clearly print your subject number, and indicate your sight. Please note some of the questions may not apply to all sights.

Subject Number:

aaa Date: _____________

Sight Type: Holographic Sight $

Please rate the following

criteria

Acceptance Rating

☺ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Comments

VISION/OPTICS

Magnification @ @ @ @ @ @ @

FIELD OF VIEW @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Reticle pattern @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Reticle contrast ratio @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Reticle contrast adjustability

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

Freedom from glare @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Alignment demands (Bore sighting)

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

Freedom from fogging @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Eye Relief @ @ @ @ @ @ @



criteria

Acceptance Rating

☺ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Comments

FUNCTIONALITY

Ease of mounting @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Ease of zeroing @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Estimated maintenance of zero

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

Ease of battery changing @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Sight bulk @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Sight weight @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Estimated durability @ @ @ @ @ @ @

TASK DEMANDS

Target acquisition @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Speed of aiming @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Close-in target engagement (0-100m)

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

Far target engagement (>100m)

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

Trench Firing @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Standing Firing @ @ @ @ @ @ @



criteria

Acceptance Rating

☺ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Comments

COMPATIBILITY

Compatibility with C7 @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Compatibility with Helmet

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

Compatibility with Equipment

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

OVERALL ACCEPTANCE

Overall acceptability of the sighting system for static target engagement

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

OVERALL ACCEPTABILITY OF THE SIGHTING SYSTEM FOR MOVING TARGET ENGAGEMENT

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

Overall acceptability of the sighting system for day time infantry use.

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

Overall acceptability of the sighting system for night time infantry use.

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

COMMENTS

Humansystems® NVD Urban Off-Bore Target Detection & Engagement Page B-1

ANNEX B: Criteria of Importance Questionnaire–Weapons Sights

Humansystems® SIREQ-TD: Malone Report Page C-2

CRITERIA OF IMPORTANCE – WEAPONS SIGHTS

PERSONNEL INFORMATION Clearly print your subject number and rate the relative importance of the following factors for Sight selection.

Subject Number aaa

Rate the importance of the following criteria Importance Rating Scale

Of No Of Little Moderately Extremely Importance Importance Important Important Of Slight Of Some Very Importance Importance Important

Functionality

Ease of sight installation @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Ease of sight collimation (bore sighting)

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

Ease of eye relief/ focus adjustment

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

Bulk, snagging @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Ruggedness @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Maintenance of sight zero @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Ability to remove sight for storage

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

Physical Demands

Weight on the head @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Weight on the weapon @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Eye fatigue @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Neck discomfort @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Balance on the head @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Stability on the head @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Balance on the rifle @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Stability on the rifle @ @ @ @ @ @ @




Compatibility (continued)

Rifle compatibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Compatibility with Rx glasses @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Compatibility with helmet @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Compatibility with equipment @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Compatibility with tactical movement -crawling

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

Compatibility with tactical movement -running

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

Vision

Visual sharpness - resolution @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Freedom from visual distortion

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

Wide field of view @ @ @ @ @ @ @


Image stability @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Depth perception @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Magnification @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Target Engagement Tasks

Two eyes open target detection

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

One eye open target detection

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

Ease of obtaining the correct sight alignment

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

Ease of obtaining the correct point of aim

@ @ @ @ @ @ @




Target Engagement Tasks (continued)

Ease of maintaining constant eye relief between shots

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

Speed of aiming @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Steadiness (adopting stable fire positions)

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

Steadiness (trigger manipulation)

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

Steadiness (effects of breathing)

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

Ability to detect fall of shot @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Ease of adjusting point of aim @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Comments:

Humansystems NVD Urban Off-Bore Target Detection & Engagement C-1

ANNEX C: Criteria of Importance Questionnaire– NVGs


CRITERIA OF IMPORTANCE – NVG’s

PERSONNEL INFORMATION Clearly print your subject number and rate the relative importance of the following factors for NVG selection.

Subject Number aaa



Functionality

Ease of NVG installation @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Ease of NVG positioning adjustment

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

Ease of NVG focus adjustment

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

Bulk, snagging @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Physical Demands

Weight on the head @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Eye fatigue @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Neck discomfort @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Balance on the head @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Stability on the head @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Compatibility

Rifle compatibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Compatibility with glasses @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Compatibility with helmet @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Compatibility with equipment @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Compatibility with tactical movement -crawling

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

Compatibility with tactical @ @ @ @ @ @ @


movement -running



Vision

Visual sharpness @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Freedom from visual distortion

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

Field of view @ @ @ @ @ @ @


Freedom from nausea @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Depth perception @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Tasks

Target detection @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Target engagement @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Ability to determine the best route

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

Ability to detect obstacles @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Ease of obstacle traverse @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Ease of movement over broken ground

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

Speed of movement @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Comments:

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, Organizationsfor whom the document was prepared, e.g. Centre sponsoring a contractor's document, or taskingagency, are entered in section 8.)

Publishing: DRDC Toronto

Performing: Humansystems® Incorporated, 111 Farquhar St., 2ndfloor, Guelph, ON N1H 3N4

Monitoring:

Contracting:

2. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION(Overall security classification of the documentincluding special warning terms if applicable.)

UNCLASSIFIED

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 atthe end of the title)

Examination of the Effect of Night Vision Devices on Urban Off−Bore Target Detectionand Engagement (U)Examen de l’effet de Dispositifs de Vision Nocturne sur la Détection et l’engagementd’objectifs Hors Axe en Milieu Urbain

4. AUTHORS (First name, middle initial and last name. If military, show rank, e.g. Maj. John E. Doe.)

Harry A. Angel; Lisa J. Massel; Philip M. Gaughan; Vanessa L. Hawes

5. DATE OF PUBLICATION(Month and year of publication of document.)

July 2005

6a NO. OF PAGES(Total containing information, includingAnnexes, Appendices, etc.)

81

6b. NO. OF REFS(Total cited in document.)

7. DESCRIPTIVE NOTES (The category of the document, e.g. technical report, technical note or memorandum. If appropriate, enter the type of document,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: DRDC Toronto

9a. PROJECT OR GRANT NO. (If appropriate, the applicableresearch and development project or grant under which the document waswritten. Please specify whether project or grant.)

12QG01

9b. CONTRACT NO. (If appropriate, the applicable number under whichthe document was written.)

10a. ORIGINATOR'S DOCUMENT NUMBER (The officialdocument number by which the document is identified by the originatingactivity. This number must be unique to this document)

DRDC Toronto CR 2005−018

10b. OTHER DOCUMENT NO(s). (Any other numbers under whichmay be assigned this document either by the originator or by thesponsor.)

SIREQ #41

11. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY (Any limitations on the dissemination of the document, other than those imposed by security classification.)

Defence departments in approved countries TTCP and NATO countries and agencies

12. DOCUMENT ANNOUNCEMENT (Any limitation to the bibliographic announcement of this document. This will normally correspond to the DocumentAvailability (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 isbilingual.)

(U) A five−day field trial was undertaken at Fort Benning, Georgia in December of 2001.Sixteen volunteer regular force infantry soldiers completed a standardized target detectiontest while using different on−bore and off−bore vision enhancement, aiming, andillumination devices, during the day and at night, in a repeated measures design.Detection performance was tested on at the McKenna MOUT site in Fort Benning,Georgia with fully exposed, partially exposed targets at near distances (40m). HumanFactors (HF) tests included assessments of detection performance, compatibility, useracceptance and criteria of importance. Data collection included questionnaires, focusgroups, performance measures and HF observer assessmentsThis field trial assessed the capabilities of conventional on−bore and off−bore systems forstatic target engagements using blank ammunition. The target detection capabilities foreight day sights and five night sights were evaluated. The sighting systems includedconventional on−bore sights (iron, C79, red−dot, and holographic), two off−bore videosights of different magnification (Land Warrior 1x Digital Video Sight (DVS), Defence andCivil Institute of Environmental Medicine (DCIEM) 3.4x sight, a thermal on−bore sight (TW1000), and a thermal off−bore sight (Land Warrior Nytech system). The capabilities twoimage intensification (II) night vision goggles (NVGs): monocular AN/PVS−14 and thebinocular ANVIS−9 were also recorded. Additionally, the effect of auxiliary infraredillumination (IR) was quantified using the AN/PEQ−2A IR laser with the monocularAN/PVS−14.Differences between individual sight performances in the day were successfully recorded.Overall, no significant differences were found between the four conventional on−boresights for target detection performance. Participants using the four on−bore sights (iron,C79, red−dot, and holographic) detected targets significantly faster than when they wereusing the off−bore sights. While the use of thermal sights did not improve the speed oftarget detection in the day, targets were detected fastest with a Thermal weapon sight atnight. Differences in performance between individual sights in the night were successfullyrecorded.At night no significant difference was found between the binocular (ANVIS−9)and themonocular (AN/PVS−14) NVGs for detection/engagement time. Participants using themonocular NVG with an IR illuminator (AN/PEQ−2A) had significantly shorter targetdetection/engagement times than when not using the auxiliary illumination. Differences insight acceptability ratings were observed.

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 ofEngineering and Scientific Terms (TEST) and that thesaurus identified. If it is not possible to select indexing terms which are Unclassified, the classification of eachshould be indicated as with the title.)

(U) Soldier Information Requirements Technology Demonstration Project; SIREQ TD; nightvision goggles; NVG; target engagement; Land Warrior; off−bore; off−bore sight; visionenhancement; aiming devices; illumination devices; Digital Video Sight; DVS; DCIEM 3.4xsight; thermal sight; red−dotsight; holographic sight; monocular nvg; AN/PVS−14; biocularnvg; AN/PVS−7D; binocular nvg; ANVIS−9; AN/AVS−502AN/PEQ−2A; IR laser

EXAMINATION OF THE EFFECT OF NIGHT VISION …cradpdf.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/PDFS/unc48/p525018.pdf ·...

Documents

Transcript of EXAMINATION OF THE EFFECT OF NIGHT VISION …cradpdf.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/PDFS/unc48/p525018.pdf ·...