By Raj Raheja, CEO, Heartwood

At times, technology articles overstate the potential that Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR) offer for training, as low cost headsets and devices are commercially available and relatively easy to deploy.

By now, all services of the military either have deployed or are the in process of developing VR/AR based training exercises.

The U.S. Navy hopes to save $1 billion by incorporating AR technology into their shipbuilding process (through Newport News Shipbuilding). By adding the 3D component of augmented reality to the traditional 2D approach, shipyard workers can quickly understand and perform tasks like placing studs in a bulkhead or steel panel, saving hours per person/task daily.

On the Operations and Maintenance side, virtual reality training is being deployed for Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) crews, providing critical, real-time feedback.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, although there are some lessons to be learned and caveats to keep in mind, as experience is gained.

Many teams want to start deploying (or trying out) VR/AR-based training without accounting for fundamental training needs and lifecycle considerations. This siloed approach will stall and limit project or program ROI.

Here is an effective roadmap that companies can follow from the start, when deploying visual and immersive training solutions:

1. Plan for Training + VR/AR, not VR/AR + Training

VR/AR must be additive in the training lifecycle, not siloed – as a tech innovation available to only those few with the specific hardware on hand. Approximately 80% of the cost involved in creating immersive VR/AR Operations & Maintenance training content can be re-purposed across many platforms – like web, mobile, and laptops. This [...]

By Val Chrysostomou, Curtiss-Wright Defense Solutions

There has recently been a proliferation of cameras and sensors on-board ground and airborne platforms for situational awareness applications. This means there is a growing challenge of how best to provide operators with as much usable visual information as possible while ensuring that the data is readable and actionable in real time. Adding to the complexity of the problem is the fact that the operator is typically limited, because of space, weight and power requirements, with a single display screen.

If the operator has to switch between views to access the information to gain good situational awareness, the result can be delays and an incomplete picture that hinder the mission. This includes alternating between different layers of information from numerous different sensor feeds. The video should be presented to the user in a way that helps them meet their objectives as poorly displayed information can cause confusion that can be detrimental to the mission.

The most effective video management systems (VMS) enable a platform’s crew to control their video options – such as sensor inputs, screen configuration, underlay maps and video recording –directly from their touchscreen display. When a crew member’s display also serves as the VMS control center, complete control of surveillance video comes at the touch of a button. The principal advantages of a VMS are simpler integration and maintenance, reduced cost and higher reliability (simplified inter-unit cabling), and flexibility and scalability for platform upgrades.

• Video streams from multiple sensors or computers
• Distribution of video streams to multiple displays
• Flexible display of video – full-screen or quad/picture-in-picture/picture-by-picture
• Multi-channel recording capability

Depending on the platform, there may be wide variation in how many sensors are supported. [...]

The motivation (inspiration) to write this article came from recent discussions with traditional military and aerospace personnel and, to some extent, with commercial companies interested in flying commercially-available hardware in space. Its purpose is to shed some light on the reasoning behind the selection of hardware for space application with emphasis on COTS. Although the basic question these companies asked centered on whether a military grade single board computer (SBC) could be used for space missions, it was asked in different ways.

George Romaniuk, Director, Space Product Management, Aitech Defense Systems

What would it take to make my SBC space qualified?

Let’s start with some clarification of commonly used phrases like “Space Grade” or “Space Qualified” hardware. It’s unfortunate that these phrases are oftentimes used universally, without thinking about all the issues and considerations associated with the application of hardware for a specific space mission. (Figure 1).

Why are we talking about “Space Grade” parts to begin with? Sending hardware to space was—and is still—very expensive, so the objective is to maximize the mission’s success and lifetime. In order to achieve this, we need to look at the reliability of the parts we would like to use for the mission. (Note, we do not address the effects of radiation here, as it’s addressed later in the article.)

The traditional approach to obtain Electrical, Electronic and Electromechanical (EEE) parts with desired reliability was based on parts that were well-designed both electrically and mechanically as well as manufactured using the same process and materials in quality controlled production lots. These parts were later subject to a screening process intended to identify and remove those few parts that exhibited infant mortality failures.

An important aspect of the screening process is the [...]