E M E R G I N G O P P O RT U N I T I E S F O R L O C A L I Z AT I O N A N D T R A C K I N G

MILITARY APPLICATIONS OF LOCALIZATION, TRACKING, AND TARGETING

JOHN R. LOWELL, TOTAL IMMERSION SOFTWARE, INC.
GPS antenn

ABSTRACT
Localization and tracking are among the most general of all navigation applications. The military employs numerous examples of these applications supported by a global navigation architecture. Strategies for dealing with lack of support from portions of this architecture are discussed using some general missions involving localization and/or tracking that highlight particular aspects of these general strategies.

GPS receiv Satellite ephemeres

Earth orientation

INTRODUCTION
Positions (x Velocities (x

Localization and tracking are among the most general of all navigation applications. The military employs numerous examples of these applications supported by a global navigation architecture. The authors discuss strategies for dealing with lack of support from portions of this architecture.

Localization, or determining ones position on a map, and tracking, or maintaining that solution over time, describe a broad set of applications in the navigation community. This article discusses a subset of these applications employed in the context of military operations, which utilize positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) systems and services to achieve desired performance levels. It reviews some of the general strategies that may be employed against these military applications and briefly points out some of the tradeoffs that ensue in their deployment. It is not meant to be an exhaustive examination, but rather provides an appropriately abstracted lens through which to view these critical technical applications. For most militaries, PNT services are delivered by a global architecture that provides accurate answers to a fundamental set of questions: What time is it? Where am I? Which way am I facing? How am I moving or navigating? These questions are simple enough on the surface; however, the answers to these questions are of critical importance to military operations, especially when appended by an additional set of questions regarding opposing military forces: Where is the opposition? Which way is the opposition facing? How is the opposition moving or navigating? This added set of questions comprises the
J. R. Lowell was with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Arlington, VA 22203 USA.

focus of targeting applications in effect, I must solve the localization and tracking problems for the target as well as for me. It has taken hundreds of years of steady technological advancement to develop an architecture that provides consistent, high-quality answers to these questions for military systems across much of the globe. Furthermore, the evolution of applications such as localization, tracking, and especially targeting are the principal drivers of continuous PNT architectural change. For example, Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) such as the United States Global Positioning System (GPS) provide high-quality location solutions in most geographic areas, and therefore serve as a foundational element in the overall PNT architecture. The quality of GNSSbased location services has altered the expectations for capabilities in geographic areas not served by these satellite systems. Four such areas of interest to militaries are buildings, jungles, underground, and underwater. Demand for more accuracy in these environs is forcing alterations in the PNT architecture. Tracking applications tend to place even more stressing demands on PNT architecture and the services it provides, as they typically rely on a common framework and reference system to which they may tie their operation and a communication system to transfer information about the tracked entity to the tracker. As a result, the first section of this article will look at how PNT services provide location solutions, the dependence of performance on the functions that compose these services, and the performance trade-offs inherent in the engineering of such solutions. The second section will continue this discussion into applications with more of a targeting emphasis. Overall, through the use of a few generic examples, this article is intended to provide a big picture context to the problems of localization and tracking.

LOCALIZATION VIA PNT SERVICES

FUNCTIONS OF PNT SYSTEMS
The systems that provide a user access to PNT services can be viewed as composed of several key functions. First, there are components that

60

1536-1284/11/$25.00 2011 IEEE

IEEE Wireless Communications April 2011

GPS antenna

GPS receiver Satellite ephemeres GPS processor Earth orientation

Positions (x3) Velocities (x3)

Inertial measurement unit

The algorithms, typically Kalman filters, that convert GNSS signals and IMU measurements into PNT outputs rely on several database structures such as Earth orientation parameters, satellite ephemeris data, and global gravity maps.
Positions (x3)

Accelerometer (x3)

Acceleration IMU processor Gravity map/ model Kalman filter Attitude (x3) Velocities (x3)

Gyroscope (x3)

Angular rate

Figure 1. Schematic of a typical aircraft navigation system, utilizing an inertial measurement unit (IMU) and a GPS receiver. Internal feedback and feed forward utilization is not shown for clarity.

make physical measurements such as time or rotation rate. Measurement outputs are fed into algorithms that convert them into useful information. This can be something as simple as a scale factor conversion of voltage into a physically meaningful value such as acceleration, or as complicated as the output of an extended Kalman filter that combines acceleration, rotation rate, and GPS time of arrival or pseudorange measurements into a real-time position estimate. Regardless, without these algorithms, the system will not function. A set of databases provide reference content and store algorithm output for later processing. Finally, a communication network connects these pieces together and enables the end result to be delivered to the user. As a brief example, a typical aircraft navigation system receives signals from GNSS satellites. Antennae capture these signals, which provide the information to navigation algorithms needed to determine time and position of the platform. Additionally, an inertial measurement unit (IMU) provides measurements of such quantities as acceleration and rotation at a high rate dynamic information to compute aircraft orientation and velocity as needed by aircraft

flight control systems. The algorithms, typically Kalman filters, that convert GNSS signals and IMU measurements into PNT outputs rely on several database structures such as Earth orientation parameters, satellite ephemeris data, and global gravity maps. Figure 1 shows a simplified diagram of how this works. Looking a bit closer, one can classify the measurements performed by a PNT system as being in one of two classes: Absolute or extrinsic measurements, which provide the ability to connect the platform to a global reference frame answering questions like What is my exact latitude? or What time is it? This is often referred to as position fixing. Relative or intrinsic measurements, which only provide information that may be related to the prior or current state of the platform answering questions like Which way am I facing compared to a minute ago? This is often referred to as dead reckoning. In nearly all applications, measurements of both classes are needed. However, the performance of systems depends on the distribution and quality of the measurements within each class. In other words, unfortunate selection of

IEEE Wireless Communications April 2011

61

100,000.0

10,000.0 Geo-location accuracy (m)

1000.0

100.0

EO-IR sensor

ICBM

10.0

1.0

Dimounted PGM released soldier from fighter UAV with Dismount with EO-IR video laser designator Tactical fighter mission

0.1 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10,000.0 100,000.0 Mission range (km)

Figure 2. Geolocation accuracy of various military missions. The location accuracy performance is plotted against the mission range. This view is useful to see that overall location accuracy is nominally constant despite differences in mission range, geography, and navigation system composition. The similarity in accuracy performance can be traced to system performance requirements to ensure interoperability throughout military services.

measurements can result in very poor system performance, while clever selection of measurements (and high-quality algorithms to extract their meaning) can result in excellent system performance. For most aircraft systems, the high quality of the position solution enabled by the GNSS satellites allows the algorithms to tightly constrain errors which would otherwise dominate the performance of the system. Put another way, the overall performance of the aircraft navigation system is determined by the quality of the GNSS position solution. It is arguable that the satellite navigation system serves as the main component of the architecture by which these services are disseminated to personnel around the world, and is a testament to the power of a globally delivered satellite broadcast service. The ease with which GNSS signals are able to be utilized and the high quality of the solutions they provide over much of the globe has turned reliance on their presence into as much a weakness as a strength.

Fighter aircraft on a tactical strike mission employing (GNSS-based) precision guided munition (PGM). Intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) flight. In each case, the missions have been separated into two segments. The first segment focuses on the navigation of the platform to a specified location or along a specified route in effect, this portion of the missions are examples of the localization problem class. The remaining segment focuses on the engagement of the platform with another object located elsewhere on the globe, via a number of different means; these are examples of various instantiations of the tracking problem class. The horizontal axis is the range of the mission segment, while the vertical axis is the geolocation accuracy of that mission segment. Figure 2 points out that nearly all the mission segments presented have navigational accuracies between 5 and 10 m, the nominal accuracy of GNSS. Focusing on the platforms, the data indicate that a tactical fighter on a strike mission would travel about 1100 km to reach the point at which it would need to launch its weapon. At that point, its location would be known to a few meters. Likewise, a UAV carrying an electrooptic video camera would have a mission range of 3300 km with a location accuracy of about 5 m. It is noteworthy that nearly all of the mission accuracies reflect the GNSS performance levels. There are two engineering conclusions that result from this observation. First, delivery of position services via GNSS enables relatively seamless system interoperation. Second, and more important, loss of GNSS services will inevitably degrade system performance, thereby preventing interoperation.

PNT SYSTEMS GEOLOCATION PERFORMANCE WITHOUT GNSS

Now it is instructive to examine the geolocation accuracy of these missions when GNSS is not present. Without going into a detailed assessment of the vulnerabilities of GNSS services, there are a number of reasons this is a reasonable scenario to contemplate for military operations. First, it is possible to prevent local reception of GNSS satellite signals through deliberate methods such as jamming. Second, there are a number of locations where signal transmission is severely degraded due to effects such as multipath scattering and excess attenuation, resulting in an effective loss of GNSS service. Figure 3 shows the results of simulations of military mission performance under such conditions. Two things immediately stand out in the results as shown: first, the situation is much worse in most of the cases examined; and second, many of the missions become untenable under these circumstances. Focus again on the platforms, taking the fighter mission first. The tactical fighter on its strike mission could travel up to 1100 km to reach the point at which its navigation system would indicate the pilot should launch the weapon. The data points shown make the worst case assumption that the pilot has not performed any intermediary navigation fixes the data points plot the unaided output of the platforms

PNT SYSTEMS GEOLOCATION PERFORMANCE WITH GNSS

In order to see how performance depends on GNSS characteristics, it is instructive to look at a number of military missions in terms of their geolocation characteristics. These missions are selected as they span much of the problem space of localization, tracking, and targeting problems. These missions are shown in Fig. 2: A dismounted soldier travels to clear a target building, then climbs to the roof and employs a laser designator. A large unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) mission with electro-optic infrared (EO-IR) video camera sensor operating during loitering orbit (a closed flight path around a fixed spot).

62

IEEE Wireless Communications April 2011

navigation system, while the line below the point indicates the full range of errors should intermediate navigation fixes be used during a mission. Given the technical performance of the tactical fighter inertial navigation system and the quality of current gravity maps, a good estimate of worst case navigation error is slightly more than 1 km at the end of its 1.75 h mission. Likewise, a UAV that lost GNSS immediately after taking off on its 3300 km mission would end up with a navigation error in excess of 50 km if left to continue along its programmed flight path, again given the technical performance of current UAV inertial navigation systems and current gravity maps [1]. In reality, of course, the UAV would return to base shortly after loss of GNSS signal. Each of these missions accrues significant geolocation errors over elapsed mission time. It is interesting to note that there is a clear correlation between increased mission range and increased geolocation error; a weaker correlation exists with mission elapsed time, but is not shown.

100,000.0 UAV with EO-IR video 10,000.0

Geo-location accuracy (m)

PGM released from fighter

1000.0 Dimounted soldier EO-IR sensor Dismount with laser designator

Tactical fighter mission

100.0

ICBM

10.0

1.0

0.1 0.1

1.0

10.0

100.0 1,000.0 Mission range (km)

10,000.0 100,000.0

STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING LOCALIZATION

Not apparent from the discussion above is how differences in the quality of the relative measurements (i.e., the inertial measurement sensors) drive larger differences in system performance under conditions of GNSS outage. Since the GNSS measurements are a form of absolute measurement using an external signal, it is desirable to know the extent to which any such measurements can be made. This is a key question that frames any technical response to a scenario in which GNSS signals are lost. Should no signals at all be available to the navigation system, one must surmise that absolute measurements will be extremely problematic, if not impossible. Should some signals be available, albeit not GNSS signals, then the problem appears considerably different, and is addressed by a number of emerging techniques [2, 3]. A quick reminder of the fundamental characteristics of navigation error growth points to the strategies that may be used given the scenario. A cartoon of this error growth is shown in Fig. 4. This error growth occurs due to the integration steps done in processing inertial sensor measurements. Accelerometer and gyroscope scale factor and bias measurement errors, which are random on a per-measurement basis, become additive in time. Interplay between these measurements in characteristic navigations leads to the behavior shown in the figure. Although notional, it demonstrates the behavior that allows one to discern the key strategies that will improve performance. First, note that the initial navigation error is not zero, but a value with a magnitude set by the quality of the absolute measurements used for initialization of the system. Given that these absolute measurements are not continuously available (i.e., they are pulsed signals with some repetition frequency), knowledge of the state of the navigation system is propagated forward in time using a set of relative measurements, typically via either dead reckoning or a fully realized inertial solution. The rate of error growth during this period is essentially determined by the quality of the mea-

Figure 3. Geo-location accuracy of various military missions without the aid of GNSS location services. The location accuracy is plotted against the mission range. The vertical lines show the range of errors from best case (full GNSS availability) to worst case (no GNSS and no intermediate fixes) assuming navigation system component performance remains constant.

surements of inertial quantities and the rate at which those measurements are performed. After some time, another absolute measurement is available to the system, at which point it corrects its location, thereby bounding its accumulated error (assuming of course that the absolute errors are less than the propagated relative errors at this point). The absolute measurement typically also resets the error to a value closer to its initial value, starting the cycle over again. From this simple diagram, we can see the key strategies emerge for improving overall system localization performance: Improve the quality of absolute measurements Increase the frequency of absolute measurements Improve the quality of relative measurements Regardless of the technical approach (which here should include the possibility that the improvements center around the other functional elements of the navigation system algorithms, databases, and communication network) used in a particular navigation system, they can all tie their performance gains back to one or more of these strategies. For example, a prudent avenue to pursue should no external signals be available for absolute measurements would be to utilize improved inertial measurement units or utilize other relative measurements that result in slower navigation error growth. Examples of this would include using methods of optical flow [4, 5], Doppler velocity sensors [6], and use of advanced inertial technologies such as micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) [7] or atom interferometers [8, 9]. Several of these techniques will be evident in the other articles of this special issue. Should alternate absolute measurement signals be available, it would be prudent to look into whether these other signals are of sufficient quality and frequency to help improve system performance, and put in place algorithms that

IEEE Wireless Communications April 2011

63

Figure 4. Notional growth of navigation errors as a function of time in a system utilizing both absolute and relative measurements to determine its location.

can utilize the different signals toward that end. These techniques have been characterized as navigation via signals of opportunity (SoOP) [2, 3]. Finally, actively providing signals for absolute measurements can deliver high-quality solutions at the expense of additional infrastructure [10].

TRACKING AND TARGETING VIA PNT SERVICES

Since the application of targeting focuses on determining the location of another entity (whether person or object), there is a tremendous similarity in the underlying system design considerations. In fact, the underlying functions of military tracking systems are identical to those described in the section above. The principal difference is an increased reliance on a communication network to pass location information from the targeted entity to the entity doing the targeting. An added complication is that the application at hand may require the tracking of multiple entities. In general, the larger the number of tracked entities, the more difficult the integration of the information will be. This leads to strong pressure to utilize absolute locations for multiple tracked entities over relative positions; however, this will also depend strongly on the specific method by which tracking is performed. Returning to the examples of Figs. 2 and 3, the engagement portions of these missions are clearly examples (albeit somewhat limited) of targeting applications: illuminating a target at a specific location with a laser designator, determining the relative (and absolute) location of a target and handing the information off to the flight control of a precision guided weapon, and providing geo-registered coordinates for the output of a video camera. In the latter case, multiple specific targets could be tracked within the video stream of the sensor and this information disseminated across an entire theater of operations. In the example of the tactical fighter launching a PGM, one can see the similarities between localization and tracking applications. For mission segment of the PGM flight, it is assumed

for consistency that the PGM starts its flight with perfect knowledge of its position (as was done with the tactical fighter). At the end of the PGM flight absent any further GNSS input, the geo-location error of the PGM grows to several kilometers under this worst-case scenario. Any strategy to mitigate this error growth would draw directly from those laid out in the previous section, and so will not be discussed any further. Using an EO-IR video camera to track multiple targets presents a somewhat different challenge from a system perspective due to differences in the geometry of the problem. First, note that the geolocation error of the video camera does not depend much on whether GNSS is available or not. In order to be able to communicate the location of the tracked objects, a common reference coordinate system must be established for the entire video stream and the alignment and geometry of the relevant components involved in the act of tracking must carefully be monitored and maintained. This process typically involves, at a minimum, localization of the platform within the reference coordinate system (of the GNSS if available), knowledge of the orientation of the camera within that coordinate system, a model of the optical characteristics of the camera, and a detailed 3D terrain map. The terrain map is used to estimate of the how the measured pixels intersect the ground, given the absence of a raw range measurement in passive imaging camera systems. In the absence of GNSS signals, maintaining alignment between each of these elements becomes a daunting technical challenge. In fact, typical systems rely on postprocessing of video to achieve their best results due to limited performance of inertial sensors [11]. Analysis of newly emerging inertial technologies indicates that geo-registered imagery without post processing should be within reach in the near future [12]. This example of a tracking application fails to emphasize how critical a robust communication system is to successful tracking of multiple entities. Because the hardware that would be used for such a mission can easily be envisioned as one integrated component that is carried by the UAV, one tends to ignore the high-bandwidth communication that goes on inside. However, the difference becomes clear if the camera were to have a field of view so narrow as to only see a single target. Then the complexity involved in tracking multiple targets becomes much more obvious, and the critical nature of the communication network becomes evident. Clearly these missions do not represent the entirety of localization, tracking, or targeting applications. In particular, there is a large class of non-military applications tracking people and objects either indoors (e.g., factory workers, firefighters) or underground (e.g., miners). These applications are being addressed by researchers today and are an active part of the navigation research landscape, as seen in the other articles in this issue. From these articles, and news headlines the world over, it is clear that the emergence of widespread geolocation services has enabled tremendous growth in a number of industries (e.g., shipping) and is revolutionizing the way people interact with the world. It has

64

IEEE Wireless Communications April 2011

likewise revolutionized the manner and precision with which military operations occur throughout the modern world, providing the technical means to conduct military activities in proximity to civilian populations. Future military systems will continue this trend by utilizing ever more precise munitions to further limit collateral damage of their operation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A great deal of thanks goes to Mark Kasevich, Brent Young, and Alan Zorn of AOSense, Inc. (Sunnyvale, California) for detailed simulations of inertial navigation system performance beyond what is presented here. I would also like to thank Dan Kaufman, Greg Kovacs, Laura Rea, Mark Rosker, Andrei Shkel, and Stefanie Tompkins for fruitful discussions on the fundamental issues driving improved navigation system performance.

[7] D. H. Titterton and J. L. Weston, Strapdown Inertial Navigation Technology, Stevenage and Reston, IEEE and AIAA, Ch. 5 and 7, 2004. [8] T. L. Gustavson, A. Landragian, and M. A. Kasevich, Rotation Sensing with a Dual Atom-Interferometer Sagnac Gyroscope, Classical and Quantum Gravity, vol. 17, pp. 2385. [9] N. Barbour and G. Schmidt, Inertial Sensor Technology Trends, IEEE Sensors J., vol. 1, Dec. 2001, pp. 33239. [10] B. D. Elrod and A. J. Van Dierendonck, Psuedolites, in B. W. Parkinson and J. J. Spilker, Eds., The Global Positioning System: Theory and Applications, vol. 164 in Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, AIAA, 1996. [11] M. M. R. Mostafa and K.-P. Schwarz, A Multi-Sensor System for Airborne Image Capture and Georeferencing, Photogrammetric Eng. & Remote Sensing, vol. 66, Dec. 2000, pp. 141723. [12] A. Zorn and M. Kasevich, AOSense, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, private communication, Mar. 2010.

BIOGRAPHIES
J OHN R. L OWELL (jlowell@totimm.com) holds a B.S. in physics from the U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colorado (1990), an M.S. in physics from The Ohio State University, Columbus, (1991), and a Ph.D. in atomic and molecular physics from the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, (1998). He is currently director of software and system iIntegration at Total Immersion Software, Inc., Arlington, Virginia. Prior to that he was a program manager in the Defense Sciences Office of DARPA, where he managed several navigation-related programs. He was also program manager at the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, an associate professor of physics at the U.S. Air Force Academy, director of the Phillips Laboratory Data Processing Facility, and a research scientist for the Air Force Phillips Laboratory. He has a broad set of research interests including advanced measurement technologies for navigation systems, integration of sensors into advanced systems, ultra-fast lasers, optical signal processing, using simulations for improved training, and novel medical technologies. He is a member of the American Physical Society, the Optical Society of America, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

REFERENCES
[1] C. Jekeli, Inertial Navigation Systems with Geodetic Applications, Ch. 5, de Gruyter, 2001. [2] P. Enge, GPS Modernization: Capabilities of the New Civil Signals, presented at Australian Intl. Aerospace Cong., Brisbane, Australia, Jul. 29Aug 1, 2003. [3] B. S. Kim, Evaluating the Correlation Characteristics of Arbitrary AM and FM Radio Signals for the Purpose of Navigation, Masters thesis, School of Eng., Air Force Inst. Tech., Dayton, OH, 2006. [4] B. K. P. Horn and B. G. Schunk, Determining Optical Flow, Artificial Intelligence, vol. 17, pp. 185203. [5] A. Giachetti,, M. Campani, and V. Torre, The Use of Optical Flow for Road Navigation, IEEE Trans. Robotics and Automation, vol. 14, Feb. 1998, pp. 3448. [6] M. Kayton and W. R. Fried, Avionics Navigation Systems, Wiley, 1997, ch. 10.

The emergence of widespread geolocation services has enabled tremendous growth in a number of industries (e.g., shipping) and is revolutionizing the way people interact with the world. It has likewise revolutionized the manner and precision with which military operations occur throughout the modern world.

IEEE Wireless Communications April 2011

65