examination of the effect of night vision …cradpdf.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/pdfs/unc48/p525050.pdf ·...

DRDC Toronto CR-2004-173

EXAMINATION OF THE EFFECT OF NIGHT VISION DEVICES ON

C7A1 TARGET ENGAGEMENT ACCURACY

by: Harry A. Angel

Humansystems® Incorporated 111 Farquhar St., 2nd floor

Guelph, ON N1H 3N4

Project Director: David W. Tack (519) 836 5911

PWGSC Contract No. W7711-9-7582/001/TOR

Call-Up 7582-10 HSI SIREQ Item #6

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 Authorities LCol Linda Bossi and Capt Denis Tang

(416) 635-2197

December 2004

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, 2004

© Sa Majesté la Reine, représentée par le ministre de la Défense nationale, 2004

Humansystems® Effect of NVD on C7A1 Target Engagement Accuracy Page i

Abstract

A four-day trial was performed at the Canadian Forces training facility in Farnham, PQ over the period of 17 to 21 August 2000. Twelve regular force infantry personnel from the 3rd Battalion 22eme Regiment were required to complete a standardized rifle night marksmanship test using monocular (AN/PVS-14), biocular (AN/PVS-7, AN/PVS-504) Night Vision Goggles (NVGs) and laser aiming aids (AN/PAQ-4C infra red (IR) and Carbine visible laser)systems during gallery range (known distance) night target engagements. with the C7A1 rifle. Engagement performance with NVGs and lasers was compared to day and night baseline performance without augmentation, engagement performance with parachute flare illumination assistance, and performance with the in-service Maxi-Kite night sight. Secondary aims of this trial included: investigation to determine if day target engagement performance with night vision devices utilizing with pinhole covers was comparable to nighttime target engagement performance; if far target engagement performance differed according to night vision goggle device (monocular versus biocular versus binocular); if night target engagement performance without NVGs could be improved with the use of a visible aiming device and if night target engagement performance with night vision devices was better than baseline nighttime target engagement performance using visible illumination (flares). Human factors tests included target engagement accuracy, user acceptance and NVG design criteria of importance.

Day time performance of NVGs (using pinhole covers) was not comparable to night time performance. The shooting results show no significant difference in target engagement performance between the in-service AN/PVS-504 and AN/PVS-7 and AN/PVS-14 Generation III Omni 4 NVGs. The best overall night engagement performance was with the Maxi-Kite sight followed by the standard C7A1 with active illumination. Target engagement performance at night with NVGs dropped exponentially at ranges greater than 50m and no targets were engaged with the NVGs at 300m. There were no significant differences in target engagement performance between the NVG types at any range. The latest Generation III NVGs (AN/PVS-7, AN/PVS-14) were rated by the participants as being significantly more acceptable than the older in-service AN/PVs-504 NVG for night target engagement. The use of a visible aiming device did not significantly improve shooting performance at night (without NVGs). Overall, shooting performance using visible illumination was superior to performance while wearing NVGs.

Based on the results of this trial, further research and investigation were recommended in the areas of: evaluating more powerful visible and IR lasers; investigating Binocular NVG performance; investigating afocal lens magnification effects; investigating effects of using NVGs as dedicated night sights; and developing universal helmet mounts.

Humansystems® Effect of NVD on C7A1 Target Engagement Accuracy Page ii

Résumé

Un essai de quatre jours a été mené à l’établissement d’entraînement des Forces canadiennes de Farnham (Québec) du 17 au 21 août 2000. Douze membres de l'infanterie de la Force régulière, armés du fusil C7A1 et équipés de LVN monoculaires (AN/PVS-14) et bi-oculaires (AN/PVS-7 AN/PVS-504) ainsi que de dispositifs de visée laser (laser infrarouge (IR) AN/PAQ-4C et laser visible Carbine), ont été soumis à un test normalisé d'adresse au tir de nuit lors d’engagements de cibles en champ de tir à tranchées (distance connue). Les performances d’engagement avec les LVN et les lasers ont été comparées aux performances de base de jour et de nuit sans assistance, aux performances d’engagement avec illumination par fusées parachutes, et aux performances obtenues avec l’aide du viseur de nuit Maxi-Kite en usage. Les objectifs secondaires visaient à déterminer : si les performances d’engagement de cible le jour avec des dispositifs de vision nocturne à écran troué étaient comparables aux performances d’engagement de cibles la nuit; si les performances d’engagement de cibles lointaines différaient selon le type de LVN (monoculaires, bi-oculaires, binoculaires); si les performances d’engagement de cibles la nuit sans LVN pouvaient être améliorées avec l’aide d’un dispositif de visée à lumière visible; et si les performances d’engagement de cibles la nuit à l’aide de dispositifs de vision nocturne étaient supérieures aux performances d’engagement de cibles la nuit obtenues avec l’aide de dispositifs d’illumination visible (fusées). L’évaluation ergonomique s’est fondée sur la précision d’engagement de cibles, l’acceptation par les utilisateurs et les critères d’importance pour la conception des LVN.

Les performances de jour des LVN (avec écrans troués) n’étaient pas comparables aux performances de nuit. Les résultats de tir n’indiquent pas de différence sensible au niveau des performances d’engagement de cibles entre l’AN/PVS-504 en usage et les LVN Omni 4 de 3e génération AN/PVS-7 et AN/PVS-14. Dans l’ensemble, les meilleures performances d’engagement de nuit ont été obtenues avec le viseur Maxi-Kite, suivi par le fusil standard C7A1 avec illumination active. Les performances d'engagement de cibles à l'aide de LVN la nuit chutaient exponentiellement aux distances supérieures à 50 m et aucune cible n’a été engagée avec les LVN à 300 m. On n'a pas constaté de différence sensible dans les performances d'engagement entre les différents types de LVN pour aucune distance. Les participants ont jugé les dispositifs LVN de 3e génération (bi-oculaires AN/PVS-7, monoculaires AN/PVS-14) sensiblement supérieurs aux bi-oculaires AN/PVS-504, utilisés depuis plus longtemps, pour l'engagement de cibles la nuit. L’utilisation de dispositifs de visée à lumière visible n’a pas amélioré sensiblement les performances de tir la nuit (sans LVN). Dans l’ensemble, les performances de tir assisté par illumination visible étaient supérieures aux performances obtenues en utilisant les LVN.

D'après les résultats de cet essai, nous recommandons une étude plus approfondie et des recherches plus poussées en ce qui concerne l'évaluation de lasers à lumière visible et IR plus puissants, l'étude des performances des LVN binoculaires, l'étude des effets d'agrandissement de lentilles afocales, l'étude des effets de l'utilisation de LVN comme viseurs nocturnes fixes, et le développement de harnais de casque universels.

Humansystems® Effect of NVD on C7A1 Target Engagement Accuracy Page iii

Executive Summary

DCIEM is currently investigating the human factors of enhanced vision for dismounted infantry applications. These studies include investigations of the effects of varying night vision goggle (NVG) designs on critical soldier tasks in naturalistic settings. The soldier tasks under investigation include: bush lane target detection and engagement performance; dismounted terrain traverse performance; and distant target detection, identification and engagement performance.

The primary aim of this field trial was to quantify the effects of utilizing monocular (AN/PVS-14), biocular (AN/PVS-7D, AN/PVS-504) NVG’s and laser aiming aids (AN/PAQ-4C infra red (IR) and Carbine visible laser) during gallery range night target engagements with the C7A1 rifle. Engagement performance with NVG’s and lasers was compared to day and night baseline performance without augmentation, engagement performance with parachute flare illumination assistance, and performance with the in-service Maxi-Kite night sight.

A four-day trial was performed at a Canadian Forces Gallery Shooting Range in Farnham, PQ over the period of August 17 to August 21, 2000. Twelve regular force infantry personnel from the 3rd Battalion 22eme Regiment participated in the trial. Participants performed a modified night engagement marksmanship test, firing ten rounds at progressively closer target distances (300m, 200m, 100m, 50m) while using different vision enhancement devices. During each test block, the order of conditions was balanced among participants. Human factors (HF) tests included target engagement accuracy, user acceptance and NVG design criteria of importance. Data collected included target engagement accuracy (gathered from the electronic range equipment), subjective questionnaire assessment and descriptive data including visual acuity measurements and luminance measurements.

The daylight target engagement performance was highest with an 80.6% hit percentage across all ranges (50, 100, 200 and 300m). At night, the best overall target engagement performance was with the Maxi-Kite sight (70.8 %) followed by active illumination (48.1%), biocular AN/PVS-504 (33.1%), monocular AN/PVS-14 (32.1%), biocular AN/PVS-7D (29.5%). Target engagement with eyes only was 19.8%,and eyes only with laser was 17.3%. As expected target engagement performance was best at 50 m, and the baseline daylight target engagement performance was highest with a 97.8% hit percentage. Best overall night engagement performance was with the Maxi-Kite sight (90.0 %), followed by active illumination (93.3%), biocular AN/PVS-504 (90.4%), monocular AN/PVS-14 (80.8%), biocular AN/PVS-7D (87.5%), Eyes Only (67.5%) and Eyes Only with laser (55%). Target engagement performance at night with NVG’s dropped exponentially at ranges greater than 50m. No targets were engaged with the NVG’s at 300m. There were no significant differences in target engagement performance between the NVG types at any range. The latest Generation III NVG’s (biocular AN/PVS-7D, monocular AN/PVS-14) were rated by the participants as being significantly more acceptable than the older in-service biocular AN/PVS-504 NVG for night target engagement.

Based on the results of this trial, further research and investigation are recommended in the areas of: evaluating more powerful visible and IR lasers; investigating Binocular NVG performance; investigating afocal lens magnification effects; investigating effects of using NVG’s as dedicated night sights; and developing universal helmet mounts.

Humansystems® Effect of NVD on C7A1 Target Engagement Accuracy Page iv

Sommaire

L’IMCME étudie actuellement les facteurs ergonomiques associés à la vision améliorée aux fins d’applications de l’infanterie débarquée. Ces études portent sur les effets de divers types de lunettes de vision nocturne (LVN) sur des tâches critiques exécutées par les soldats dans un contexte naturaliste. Les performances sont étudiées pour les tâches suivantes : détection et engagement de cibles dans des champs de tir à tranchée; traversée de terrains à pieds; et détection, identification et engagement de cibles éloignées.

L’essai sur le terrain avait comme premier objectif de quantifier les effets de l’utilisation de LVN monoculaires (AN/PVS-14) et bi-oculaires (AN/PVS-7D, AN/PVS-504), et d’aides laser à la visée (laser infrarouge AN/PAQ-4C et laser visible Carbine) lors de l’engagement de cibles la nuit dans un champ de tir à tranchée avec le fusil C7A1. Les performances d’engagement avec les LVN et les lasers ont été comparées aux performances de base de jour et de nuit sans assistance, aux performances d’engagement avec illumination par fusées parachutes, et aux performances obtenues avec l’aide du viseur de nuit Maxi-Kite.

Une étude sur le terrain de quatre jours a été menée au champ de tir à tranchée des Forces canadienne de Farnham (Québec) entre le 17 et le 21 août 2000. Douze membres de l’infanterie de la Force régulière, du 3e Bataillon du 22e Régiment, y ont participé. Ils ont été soumis à un test d’adresse au tir modifié lors d’engagements de nuit et ont effectué douze rondes de tir à des distances de plus en plus rapprochées de la cible (300 m, 200 m, 100 m, 50 m) en utilisant, pour ce faire, différents dispositifs d’amélioration de la vision. Pour chaque bloc de tests, l’ordre des conditions était contrebalancé entre les participants. L’évaluation ergonomique a examiné la précision d’engagement de cible, l’acceptation par les utilisateurs et les critères d’importance pour la conception des LVN. La collecte des données englobait les éléments suivants : précision de l’engagement de cible (établie au moyen d’équipement électronique de détection), évaluation d’un questionnaire subjectif et données descriptives comprenant des mesures de l’acuité visuelle et de la luminance.

Les performances d’engagement de cibles le jour ont été les meilleures avec un pourcentage de coups au but de 80,6 % pour l’ensemble des distances (50, 100, 200 et 300 m). La nuit, les meilleures performances à ce titre ont été obtenues avec le viseur Maxi-Kite (70,8 %), suivi par les dispositifs d’illumination active (48,1 %), le bi-oculaire AN/PVS-504 (33,1%), le monoculaire AN/PVS-14 (32,1%), le bi-oculaire AN/PVS-7D (29,5 %). Pour l’engagement de cibles à l’oeil nu sans assistance, le pourcentage était de 19,8 %, et, pour l’engagement à l’oeil nu avec assistance laser, il était de 17,3 %. Comme on le prévoyait, les performances étaient meilleures à 50 m, et les performances de base le jour étaient les plus élevées, avec un pourcentage de coups au but de 97,8 %. Dans l’ensemble, les meilleures performances de nuit ont été obtenues avec le viseur Maxi-Kite (90,0 %), suivi par les dispositifs d’illumination active (93,3 %), le bi-oculaire AN/PVS-504 (90,4 %), le monoculaire AN/PVS-14 (80,8 %), le bi-oculaire AN/PVS-7D (87,5 %), l’oeil nu (67,5 %) et l’oeil nu assisté par laser (55 %). Les performances d’engagement de cibles à l’aide de LVN la nuit chutaient abruptement aux distances supérieures à 50 m. Aucune cible n’a été engagée avec les LVN à 300 m. On n’a pas constaté de différences sensibles dans les performances d’engagement entre les différents types de LVN pour aucune distance. Les participants ont jugé les dispositifs LVN de dernière génération

Humansystems® Effect of NVD on C7A1 Target Engagement Accuracy Page v

(III) (bi-oculaire AN/PVS-7D, monoculaire AN/PVS-14) sensiblement supérieurs aux bi-oculaires AN/PVS-504, utilisés depuis plus longtemps, pour l’engagement de cibles la nuit.

D’après les résultats de cet essai, nous recommandons une étude plus approfondie et des recherches plus poussées en ce qui concerne l’évaluation de lasers à lumière visible et IR plus puissants, l’étude des performances des LVN bi-oculaires, l’étude des effets d’agrandissement de lentilles afocales, l’étude des effets de l’utilisation de LVN comme viseurs nocturnes fixes, et le développement de harnais de casque universels.

Humansystems® Effect of NVD on C7A1 Target Engagement Accuracy Page vi

Table of Contents

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

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

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

SOMMAIRE ..................................................................................................................................................IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..............................................................................................................................VI

LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................................................VIII

LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................................................IX

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

2. AIM .................................................................................................................................................... 2

3. METHOD........................................................................................................................................... 3 3.1 OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................... 3 3.2 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN................................................................................................................ 3 3.3 NIGHT VISION GOGGLE SYSTEMS ................................................................................................. 4

3.3.1 Biocular AN/PVS-7D ................................................................................................................... 4 3.3.2 Monocular AN/PVS –14............................................................................................................... 5 3.3.3 Biocular AN/PVS-504 .................................................................................................................. 6 3.3.4 Carbine visible laser .................................................................................................................... 7 3.3.5 AN/PAQ-4C.................................................................................................................................. 8 3.3.6 Maxi-Kite Image Intensified Weapon sight .................................................................................. 9

3.4 TRIAL PARTICIPANTS .................................................................................................................. 10 3.5 CARBINE VISIBLE LASER ............................................................................................................. 11 3.6 WEATHER CONDITIONS............................................................................................................... 12 3.7 ILLUMINATION CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................... 12 3.8 SHOOTING RANGE LAYOUT ........................................................................................................ 12 3.9 TARGETS..................................................................................................................................... 13 3.10 DATA COLLECTION..................................................................................................................... 13

3.10.1 Quantitative Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 13 3.10.2 Subjective Data Collection......................................................................................................... 14

3.11 PROCEDURES .............................................................................................................................. 15 3.11.1 Set-up ......................................................................................................................................... 15 3.11.2 Preliminary ................................................................................................................................ 15 3.11.3 Testing Procedures..................................................................................................................... 15

3.12 TRIAL SCHEDULE........................................................................................................................ 16 3.13 TRIAL OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 17 3.14 TARGET ENGAGEMENT CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... 17

3.14.1 Day Baseline Test....................................................................................................................... 17 3.14.2 Night Tests.................................................................................................................................. 18

4. RESULTS......................................................................................................................................... 19

Humansystems® Effect of NVD on C7A1 Target Engagement Accuracy Page vii

4.1 PRELIMINARY RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 19 4.1.1 Day with Pin-hole Covers Versus Night Time Performance...................................................... 19 4.1.2 Day with Visible and IR Laser Engagement Performance......................................................... 19 4.1.3 Monocular versus Biocular versus Binocular Night Engagement Performance........................ 20

4.2 RANGE RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 20 4.2.1 Night Target Engagement Performance According to Night Vision Goggle Device/Condition 20 4.2.2 Baseline Day Conditions vs. Night Shooting with Eyes Only vs. Night Shooting with Eyes and

Laser .......................................................................................................................................... 27 4.2.3 Night Target Engagement Performance Night Vision Devices Versus Visible Illumination

(paraflares) ................................................................................................................................ 29 4.3 SUBJECTIVE RESULTS ................................................................................................................. 31

4.3.1 Task/Compatibility Results......................................................................................................... 31 4.3.2 Criteria of Importance Results ................................................................................................... 32

5. DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................................. 33

6. RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................ 39

7. REFERENCES................................................................................................................................ 41

ANNEX A PERSONAL INFORMATION................................................................................................A-1

ANNEX B TASK/COMPATIBILITY ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE ........................................ B-1

ANNEX C CRITERIA OF IMPORTANCE QUESTIONNAIRE ..........................................................C-1

Humansystems® Effect of NVD on C7A1 Target Engagement Accuracy Page viii

List of Tables

TABLE 1: COMPOSITE NVG DATA COLLECTION BLOCKS .................................................................................... 3 TABLE 2: TRIAL SCHEDULE .............................................................................................................................. 16 TABLE 3: HIT PERCENTAGES FOR ALL TRIAL CONDITIONS ................................................................................ 21 TABLE 4: POST HOC COMPARISONS FOR ALL TRIAL CONDITIONS ...................................................................... 22 TABLE 5: HIT PERCENTAGES AT 300M FIRING POINT ........................................................................................ 23 TABLE 6: POST HOC COMPARISONS AT 300M.................................................................................................... 23 TABLE 7: HIT PERCENTAGES AT 200M FIRING POINT ........................................................................................ 24 TABLE 8: POST HOC COMPARISONS AT 200M.................................................................................................... 24 TABLE 9: HIT PERCENTAGES AT 100 M FIRING POINT........................................................................................ 25 TABLE 10: POST HOC COMPARISONS AT 100M.................................................................................................. 26 TABLE 11: HIT PERCENTAGES AT 50 M FIRING POINT........................................................................................ 26 TABLE 12: POST HOC COMPARISONS AT 50M.................................................................................................... 27

Humansystems® Effect of NVD on C7A1 Target Engagement Accuracy Page ix

List of Figures

FIGURE 1: BIOCULAR AN/PVS-7D..................................................................................................................... 4 FIGURE 2: MONOCULAR AN/PVS-14 ................................................................................................................. 5 FIGURE 3: BIOCULAR AN/PVS-504 ................................................................................................................... 6 FIGURE 4: CARBINE VISIBLE LASER .................................................................................................................... 7 FIGURE 5: AN/PAQ-4C...................................................................................................................................... 8 FIGURE 6: THE MAXI-KITE IMAGE INTENSIFIED WEAPONSIGHT.......................................................................... 9 FIGURE 7: CG 634 WITH MOUNTING BRACKET (AN/PVS-14 IN UP POSITION) .................................................. 10 FIGURE 8: AN/PVS-504 HEAD HARNESS SYSTEM............................................................................................. 11 FIGURE 9: C7A1 RIFLE WITH CARBINE VISIBLE LASER ..................................................................................... 11 FIGURE 10: TSP 410 ILLUMINATION METER BY HOFFMAN ENGINEERING ........................................................ 12 FIGURE 11: THE SHOOTING RANGE AT 100M .................................................................................................... 12 FIGURE 12: MECHANICAL SHOOTING RANGE TARGET IN RAISED POSITION....................................................... 13 FIGURE 13: ANV-20/20 NVD INFINITY FOCUS SYSTEM .................................................................................. 14 FIGURE 14: ANV-20/20 ACUITY RESOLUTION PATTERN ................................................................................. 14 FIGURE 15: STANDARD RATING SCALE (ENGLISH VERSION) ............................................................................. 15 FIGURE 16: TARGET ILLUMINATION WITHOUT FLARES ..................................................................................... 16 FIGURE 17: TARGET ILLUMINATION WITH FLARE ............................................................................................. 16 FIGURE 18: HIT PERCENTAGE VERSUS FIRING DISTANCE FOR ALL TRIAL CONDITIONS ...................................... 20 FIGURE 19: HIT PERCENTAGE VERSUS FIRING DISTANCE FOR ALL TRIAL CONDITIONS ...................................... 28 FIGURE 20: TARGET ENGAGEMENT PERFORMANCE FOR BASELINE CONDITIONS DAY VS. NIGHT ...................... 29 FIGURE 21: NIGHT VISION DEVICES VERSUS VISIBLE ILLUMINATION BASELINE ................................................ 30 FIGURE 22: TASK/COMPATIBILITY QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS .......................................................................... 31 FIGURE 23: CRITERIA OF IMPORTANCE RESULTS .............................................................................................. 32 FIGURE 24: TARGET PRESENTATION ................................................................................................................. 34 FIGURE 25: BIOCULAR AN/PVS-7D WITH 3X AFOCAL MAGNIFIER LENS ......................................................... 35 FIGURE 26: AN/PVS-14 RIFLE MOUNT ............................................................................................................. 35 FIGURE 27: MONOCULAR AN/PVS-14 RIFLE MOUNT WITH 3X LENS ................................................................ 36

Humansystems® Effect of NVD on C7A1 Target Engagement Accuracy Page 1

1. Background

DCIEM is conducting research to study the human factors of Enhanced Vision for Dismounted Infantry applications. Night vision goggles (NVG’s) can be used to amplify ambient light and thus improve target and obstacle detection.

A field study was conducted using NVG’s in a shooting range setting. In a previous trial, studies were conducted on the effects of varying NVG optical lens design and image display characteristics on critical soldier tasks in a naturalistic “bush-lane”setting. This trial was designed as a continuation of the bush-lane trial. The bush lane trial examined the suitability of various NVG’s for shooting in a naturalistic setting, and in performing tasks such as terrain traversal and obstacle avoidance. Conversely, this shooting range trial examines NVG-aided shooting performance at various distances and illumination conditions in a controlled shooting range setting. Both trials rate specific NVG’s using objective shooting performance measures and subjective questionnaire data.

NVG’s vary according to optical design and image presentation. Optical designs include non see-through (Type I) and see-through (Type II). Type I goggles are usually composed of direct optics, and the user views the intensified image directly on a phosphorus screen. Type II goggles use a combiner lens to superimpose the intensified image on top of the natural one and uses folded optics.

NVG’s can also be categorized according to the image presented to the eye. There are three divisions according to this classification: monocular, biocular and binocular. The monocular system feeds the intensified image to one eye, the biocular system feeds the same image to both eyes, and the binocular system feeds two separate images to each eye. The monocular system has an objective lens assembly, an image intensifier tube, and a housing assembly. Although the user of a monocular NVG would see a reduced field of view in the NVG, the image would be intensified. The other eye is unaided. The biocular system has an objective lens assembly, an image intensifier tube, a housing assembly, and two eyepieces. The same intensified image is presented to both eyepieces. The binocular system uses two objective lens assemblies, two image intensifier tubes, and a binocular housing assembly.

This trial addresses 3 primary issues. Although visual perception research and field studies have identified a number of advantages and disadvantages with monocular, biocular and binocular NVG’s (refs A, B, C, D, E, F), no controlled studies on dismounted soldier target engagement performance with these devices have been identified. Thus while NVG’s are known to enhance foot travel and vehicle operation at night, it is less well understood how they affect shooting performance. Secondly, a number of miniature laser systems are also now in service which support night shooting. These laser-aiming devices are advertised to significantly improve day and night shooting performance, both with and without NVG’s. While the benefits of these aiming assists are well known to police emergency response teams and military Special Forces teams, controlled field trial evidence is not available. Lastly, NVG image intensification tube designs have improved dramatically over the past 10 years and the corresponding quantitative improvement in target engagements performance is not well known. This trial will address these 3 important questions.


2. Aim

The primary aim of this field trial is to examine the effects of using various night vision devices during static target engagements with the C7A1 rifle. Secondary aims of this trial include:

• Investigation to determine if day target engagement performance with night vision devices utilizing pinhole covers is comparable to nighttime target engagement performance.

• Investigation to determine if night target engagement performance differs according to night vision goggle device (monocular versus biocular versus binocular).

• Investigation to determine if day or night target engagement performance can be improved with the use of a laser aiming device.

• Investigation to determine if night target engagement performance with night vision devices is better than baseline nighttime target engagement performance using visible illumination (flares).


3. Method

3.1 Overview The following description provides a general overview of the trial method. Further details are provided in subsequent sections.

A four-day trial was performed at a Canadian Forces Gallery Shooting Range in Farnham, PQ over the period of August 17 to August 21, 2000. Twelve regular force personnel participated in the trial. Participants performed a marksmanship test firing ten rounds at progressively closer target distances (300m, 200m, 100m, 50m), while using different vision enhancement devices.

During each test block, the order of conditions was balanced among participants. Human Factors (HF) tests included target engagement accuracy, user acceptance, and NVG design criteria of importance. Data collected included target detection and accuracy performance measures (gathered from the electronic range equipment), subjective questionnaire assessment, and descriptive data including visual acuity measurements and luminance measurements at each firing point.

3.2 Experimental Design The data collection blocks in Table 1 were used in the trial.

Table 1: Composite NVG data collection blocks

Data Block Test Period NVG Conditions Participants Pilot (data not used)

Night One (pilot)

• biocular AN/PVS-7D with laser aiming light • monocular AN/PVS-14 with laser aiming light • biocular AN/PVS-504 with laser aiming light • Eyes Only with laser aiming light • Eyes Only

n=8

1 Night Two • Artificial illumination (paraflares) n=8 2 Night Two • biocular AN/PVS-7D with laser aiming light

• monocular AN/PVS-14 with laser aiming light • biocular AN/PVS-504 with laser aiming light • Eyes Only with laser aiming light • Eyes Only

n=8

3 Night Three • Artificial illumination (paraflare) n=4 4 Night Three • biocular AN/PVS-7D with laser aiming light

• monocular AN/PVS-14 with laser aiming light • biocular AN/PVS-504 with laser aiming light • Eyes Only with laser aiming light • Eyes Only

n=4

5 Day Four • Eyes Only n=9 6 Night Four • Maxi-Kite weapon sight n=9


The first night was used to pilot the test conditions. Data collected during this block was not used. Data collected in the second and third data blocks were used to develop a baseline for nighttime shooting using artificial illumination in the form of paraflares. The second and fourth data blocks involved data collection for NVG assisted and bare eye nighttime shooting. In these data blocks, the order of conditions was altered amongst participants in order to minimize order effects. The fifth data collection block involving daylight shooting was conducted to develop a baseline for comparison of nighttime and daytime target engagement performance. The final data collection block tested target engagement performance using the Maxi-Kite weapon sight.

3.3 Night Vision Goggle Systems

3.3.1 Biocular AN/PVS-7D The biocular AN/PVS-7D is a lightweight, high performance passive third generation biocular image intensifier system – see Figure 1. The biocular AN/PVS-7D 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 biocular unit consisting of an objective lens assembly, an image intensifier tube, a housing assembly, and a binocular eyepiece assembly. The housing is mounted to a face mask assembly, which is held by head straps to the user's head.

Figure 1: Biocular AN/PVS-7D

The assembly incorporates an infrared (IR) light source, which provides illumination to permit close in viewing. Features include automatic brightness control, bright source protection, low battery indicator and high-resolution unity F1.2 lens.


The AN/PVS-7D 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 20 cm- to infinity

Interocular Adjustment -6D to +2D

Power Source 2 AA

Weight 680 grams

3.3.2 Monocular AN/PVS –14 The monocular AN/PVS-14 is a lightweight, high performance passive third generation monocular image intensifier system - see Figure 2. The 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 AN/PVS-14 has the following specifications:


Intensifier Tube Gen. III

System Gain 3000 fL/fL


Depth of field 25 cm to infinity


Power Source 2 AA

Weight 392 grams

3.3.3 Biocular AN/PVS-504 The biocular AN/PVS-504 is a lightweight, high performance passive second generation image biocular NVG system – see Figure 3. The biocular AN/PVS-504 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 biocular unit consisting of an objective lens assembly, an image intensifier tube, a housing assembly, and a binocular eyepiece assembly. The housing is mounted to a face mask assembly, which is held by head straps to the user's head.

Figure 3: Biocular AN/PVS-504


The biocular AN/PVS-504 has the following specifications:


Intensifier Tube Gen. II


Depth of field 25 cm to infinity


Power Source 2 AA

Weight 774 grams

3.3.4 Carbine visible laser The 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 a maximum range of 500 meters, depending on the ambient light available.

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 Milli-watts (mW) max

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

Beam Divergence ≤ 0.8 milli-radian (mR)

Beam Modulation Steady

3.3.5 AN/PAQ-4C The AN/PAQ-4C is an infrared aiming light that attaches to the C7A1 rifle for night target engagement – see Figure 5. When the system is turned on, it sends a steady infrared beam invisible to the naked eye along the C7A1’s line of fire, designating the point of impact on the target. The system utilizes a Class I laser (Helium-Neon) to generate the aiming point. The system marks targets out to a maximum range of 200-300 meters depending on the ambient light available.

The system weighs 9 ounces and is powered by either one lithium battery or two standard AA batteries. The characteristics of the laser are as follows:

Figure 5: AN/PAQ-4C


The AN/PAQ-4C has the following specifications:

Wavelength 830 nanometers

Power Output 0.7 Milli-watts (mW)

Range in Meters 1,000

Beam Width 0.3 milli-radian (mR)

Beam Modulation Steady

3.3.6 Maxi-Kite Image Intensified Weapon sight The Maxi-Kite image intensified weapon sight by Pilkington Optronics is a lightweight passive night vision device intended for use in either a hand-held surveillance role or a weapon-mounted role-see Figure 6. When weapon-mounted, it can be zeroed using its adjustable reticule. The Maxi-Kite is a combination of the Kite weapon sight and an afocal lens assembly. The mounting bracket has a mounting interface for sniper rifles, heavy machine guns, and shoulder launched/crew served anti-tank weapons. The Maxi-Kite features 6x magnification and a high-resolution image for observation and accurate weapon aiming at long-range targets. It is designed for use with the AFV Crewman’s helmet, the soldier’s helmet, NBC respirators, NBC clothing and military spectacles.

Figure 6: The Maxi-Kite image intensified weaponsight


The Maxi-Kite has the following specifications:

Magnification 6X

Intensifier Tube Gen. III X 1

Field of View 5.5 degrees

Power Source 2 AA (2x1.5V)

Weight 1500 grams

3.4 Trial Participants Twelve regular force infantry were recruited from the 3rd Battalion 22eme Regiment, Valcartier PQ. Participants that had passed their MLOC (Minimum Level of Capability) C7A1 test were chosen for the trial. Participants completed a background information questionnaire related to their military experience (see Annex A). Eleven participants were corporals and one was a private. Six participants had between one and five years of service, four had between five and ten years of service and two had more than ten years of service experience. The participants were organized into two groups with the first group containing eight participants and the second containing four participants.

Participants were dressed in fighting order with CG 634 helmets. An adjustable bracket was attached to the participant’s helmet to mount the AN/PVS-7D and AN/PVS-14 – see Figure 7. The AN/PVS-504 required the use of dedicated head harness systems – see Figure 8.

Figure 7: CG 634 with mounting bracket (AN/PVS-14 in up position)


Figure 8: AN/PVS-504 head harness system

3.5 Carbine visible laser As required, the Carbine visible laser was mounted on the participant’s C7A1 rifle. The aiming light was mounted in front of the C79 optical sight on the weaver rail – see Figure 9. The laser light was triggered by a pressure sensitive switch secured with Velcro to the participant’s C7A1 hand guard. The laser aiming light was then manually bore sighted to the C7A1 optical sight at a range of 100 meters.

Figure 9: C7A1 rifle with Carbine visible laser


3.6 Weather Conditions The NVG’s were evaluated during seasonal conditions at Farnham, PQ (17 to 21 August, 2000).

3.7 Illumination Conditions Illumination readings were taken at 300m, 200m, 100m and 50m immediately after each firing using the TSP 410 illumination meter by Hoffman Engineering - see Figure 10.

Figure 10: TSP 410 illumination meter by Hoffman Engineering

3.8 Shooting Range Layout The Canadian Forces Gallery shooting range used for the trial at Farnham PQ (see Figure 11) featured 30 shooting lanes. There were raised firing points at 300m, 200m and 100m. At 50m, soldiers fired from the standing position. At all other ranges, soldiers fired from the prone position. The range is equipped to electronically record all target data. Targets were set to automatically lower when ten shots had been fired.

Figure 11: The shooting range at 100m


3.9 Targets Standard green mechanically controlled shooting targets were used in the trial - see Figure 12.

Figure 12: Mechanical shooting range target in raised position

3.10 Data Collection Data collection included qualitative and quantitative data in the following categories:

• Rifle Firing Performance

• Visual Acuity

• Illuminance Assessment

• Task/Compatibility Assessment (Questionnaire)

• Criteria of Importance (Questionnaire)

3.10.1 Quantitative Data Collection 3.10.1.1 Rifle Firing Performance

Rifle firing accuracy was recorded automatically using the electronic range equipment. Each participant started at each firing point with ten rounds. The participants fired two series of five rounds at the targets at each range. They were instructed to fire only if they could clearly identify the target. The targets were set to drop automatically after five rounds were fired.


3.10.1.2 Visual Acuity

Prior to departing for the shooting range, participants were screened for visual acuity. A Snellen chart mounted on a wall in a well-lit range building was used to test participants for visual acuity. Stereoscopic ability was not tested. After initial fitting and adjustment, the participants’ visual acuity (smallest bar pattern) with each NVG system was measured using an ANV-20/20 night vision test device from Hoffman Engineering - see Figure 13. Participants were screened to a minimum of 20/40 visual acuity with the NVG devices using a grid test pattern – see Figure 14.

Figure 13: ANV-20/20 NVD Infinity Focus System

Figure 14: ANV-20/20 Acuity Resolution Pattern

3.10.1.3 Illuminance Assessment:

At each firing point, illuminance was measured using a Hoffman Engineering TSP-410 illuminance meter.

3.10.2 Subjective Data Collection While the objective data focused on visual acuity (while wearing the NVG’s) and weapon firing results, the subjective data collection questionnaires (see Annex B) focused on the following HF criteria:

1. Visual Attributes

2. Task Assessment

3. Compatibility Assessment

4. Physical Assessment/Comfort

5. Overall Acceptability

The Criteria of Importance Questionnaire (Annex C) included the following factors:

1. Functionality

2. Physical Demands


3. Compatibility with other equipment

4. Visual Attributes

5. Task Completion

Participants rated NVG acceptability in the task/compatibility questionnaires using the following seven-point scale (Figure 15).

Figure 15: Standard rating scale (English version)

3.11 Procedures

3.11.1 Set-up Each day, new batteries were installed in each NVG to be used in the trial, and the lenses were cleaned using lens paper. The NVG’s and appropriate helmet straps and head harness systems were checked and prepared for use. The electronic range equipment was prepared for the trial conditions.

3.11.2 Preliminary Participants had their visual acuity measured using a standard Snellen chart at a distance of 20 feet. The participants zeroed their weapons and bore-sighted their laser aiming devices at a distance of 100m before beginning the trials.

3.11.3 Testing Procedures During nights two and three of the trial, participants were issued NVG’s according to the matrix shown in Table 3 below. Participants in conditions that required an NVG were issued the appropriate NVG by DCIEM staff. After installing the NVG on the helmet, participants received assistance in adjusting the lens of the NVG to a visual acuity of 20/40 or better using the visual acuity test box. Once all of the participants within a condition had their NVG’s properly adjusted, they proceeded to their firing lane at 300m. Participants were instructed to fire ten rounds only if they could see a target. This process was repeated at 200m, 100m and 50m from the target. While shooting at 300m, 200m and 100m, trial participants used a prone firing position. At 50m, they fired from a standing position. When participants had finished firing, they completed a task/compatibility questionnaire indicating the acceptability of various aspects of the NVG they had worn for that relay. They were then issued the appropriate NVG for the next round of firing and repeated the entire procedure. After firing under all five conditions, participants completed a Criteria of Importance questionnaire.


Each night’s testing began with the illumination engagement test serials. On command, a series of parachute flares (paraflares) were fired behind the relay. The flares were aimed such that they would illuminate over the targets on the windward side and thus would drift along the targets. For each five-round grouping, a minimum of two flares were fired. If the flares were improperly positioned, more flares were fired. The effect of the flares on target illumination is illustrated in Figures 16 and 17.

Figure 16: Target illumination without flares

Figure 17: Target illumination with flare

3.12 Trial Schedule Table 2 outlines the four-day trial schedule:

Table 2: Trial schedule

Time Day One- All Day Two- Group A Day Three- Group B Day Four- Groups A,B

1700-1800 Dinner Dinner Dinner Dinner

1800-2100

Groups A, B Initial Briefing Intro to NVG’s Range set up

Group A, B Day – Eyes Only Range set-up

2100-0400

Groups A, B Intro night shoot Artificial illumination Eyes Only Eyes + laser Biocular AN/PVS-7D + laser Monocular AN/PVS-14 + laser Biocular AN/PVS-504 + laser

Group A Artificial visual illumination Eyes Only Eyes + laser Biocular AN/PVS-7D + laser Monocular AN/PVS-14 + laser Biocular AN/PVS-504 + laser

Group B Artificial visual illumination Eyes Only Eyes + laser Biocular AN/PVS-7D + laser Monocular AN/PVS-14 + laser Biocular AN/PVS-504 + laser

Group A, B Maxi-Kite sight


The trial schedule began with an initial briefing where participants were welcomed and introduced to the trial team. Participants were briefed on the trial schedule and data collection methods. Questionnaire briefings explained the standard rating scale, the data scoring methods, and rules of questionnaire completion. The night vision devices were introduced and participants were provided with a demonstration of NVG assembly, adjustment, and features. Participants then completed each serial. At the completion of each rifle-firing serial, the participants were issued a Task/Compatibility Questionnaire. After completing all serials, they were asked to complete the Criteria of Importance Questionnaire.

3.13 Trial Overview The field trial included eight test conditions; one day condition and seven night conditions. Each of the twelve soldiers participating in the trial completed each of the eight conditions, with the exception of Maxi-Kite shooting and daylight shooting, where only nine soldiers were available.

Four day conditions were initially planned for the trial. These included:

• Day – Eyes Only baseline

• Day – Biocular AN/PVS-7D with AN/PAQ-4C (pin hole)

• Day – Monocular AN/PVS-14 with AN/PAQ-4C (pin hole)

• Day – Monocular AN/PVS-14 with AN/PAQ-4C (pin hole) rifle mounted

Because pilot testing using pinhole covers found them to be ineffective, only the day Eyes Only baseline could be completed in this study. As a result, day target engagement performance (with night vision devices utilizing the pinhole covers) could not be compared with night target engagement performance.

The following comparisons were made in this study:

Night target engagement performance according to NVG device and condition

Day and night target engagement performance – Eyes Only versus Eyes Only with AN/PAQ-4C laser aiming device.

Night target engagement performance with night vision devices versus baseline nighttime target engagement performance using visible illumination (flares).

3.14 Target Engagement Conditions

3.14.1 Day Baseline Test The purpose of the day baseline test was to develop a rigorous set of data for target engagement performance at 300m, 200m, 100m, and 50m target ranges. The use of these ranges will allow investigators to determine system capability ranges. For this baseline, soldiers completed a standard marksmanship test during daylight hours. Soldiers first zeroed their weapons and then completed the scored marksmanship test using the C7A1 rifle.


3.14.2 Night Tests There were a total of seven night conditions including:

• Artificial illumination (paraflares) – this was the inservice baseline

• Eyes Only (no vision augmentation)

• Eyes Only with AN/PAQ-4C - The Eyes Only versus Eyes Only with AN/PAQ-4C test was planned to identify the effects of the AN/PAQ-4C on night target engagement performance without the use of NVG’s.

• Biocular AN/PVS-7D with AN/PAQ-4C

• Monocular AN/PVS-14 with AN/PAQ-4C

• AN/PVS-504 with AN/PAQ-4C

• Maxi-Kite Sight

The purpose of night artificial illumination test was to develop a rigorous set of baseline data for target engagement performance at 300m, 200m, 100m, and 50m target ranges. Soldiers completed a modified marksmanship test at night using artificial illumination in the form of paraflares. At each target band (50m, 100m, 200m, 300m), there were three separate illuminations. The first two series of illuminations were for separate five round application shoots, and the last illumination was for the short burst (10 round) shoot. Thus there were a total of 12 illuminations for each night illumination test.

For all other conditions, participants completed a modified marksmanship test at night using the appropriate systems. Soldiers were instructed to fire only if they could properly identify their target.


4. Results

4.1 Preliminary Results

4.1.1 Day with Pin-hole Covers Versus Night Time Performance One of the purposes of this investigation was to determine if day target engagement performance with night vision devices equipped with pinhole covers was comparable to nighttime target engagement performance. It had been hypothesized that testing NVG’s during daylight hours with pinhole covers would accurately simulate nighttime testing conditions. In order to pilot test this hypothesis before running marksmanship tests with participants, the investigators attempted to view the Snellen visual acuity chart with both the biocular AN/PVS-7D and the monocular AN/PVS-14 while using their pinhole covers. A passable acuity (20/40 or better) could not be achieved.

The investigators then attempted to view the targets at 300m, 200m and 100m using the monocular AN/PVS-14 with the pinhole cover. The targets were not visible even at 100m, whereas in pilot testing with the monocular AN/PVS-14 at night, almost all participants were able to see the targets at 100m. Additionally, the monocular AN/PVS-14 automatic shut-off feature activated while trying to view the targets during the day with the pinhole covers. Many NVG’s are equipped with an automatic shut-off feature, which cuts the power to the NVG if the lens is exposed to too much light. Because of these factors, after the initial piloting, the investigators decided it was not feasible to run the pinhole tests.

4.1.2 Day with Visible and IR Laser Engagement Performance Another purpose of this investigation was to determine if day or night target engagement performance could be improved with the use of a visible or infrared aiming device. It had been hypothesized that day and night target engagement performance would be improved if shooters would simply had to put the “dot” on the target to aim accurately. In order to pilot test this hypothesis before running marksmanship test with the participants, investigators attempted to view the visible and IR aiming dots on the targets at 300m, 200m and 100m. The investigators utilized the monocular AN/PVS-14 with the pinhole cover to view the IR dot from the AN/PAQ-4C.

The investigators could not detect the visible laser dot (Carbine visible laser) at 100, 200 or 300m. The power of this visible laser is deliberately set low to permit eye-safe training. Thus, the Carbine visible laser was not powerful enough to detect during the day at 100m under high illumination conditions.

The investigators also attempted to engage targets using the AN/PAQ-4C laser while wearing the monocular AN/PVS-14 with a pinhole cover. Neither the targets nor the IR laser were visible at 100m. As well, the monocular AN/PVS-14 goggle’s automatic shut-off feature activated while trying to view the targets during the day. Thus the AN/PAQ-4C Laser was not powerful enough to detect during the day at 100m under high illumination conditions using a monocular AN/PVS-14 with a pinhole cover.


4.1.3 Monocular versus Biocular versus Binocular Night Engagement Performance

Another purpose of this investigation was to determine if night target engagement performance differed according to night vision goggle device (monocular versus biocular versus binocular). Unfortunately, binocular NVG’s were not available for assessment. Thus, the investigation was limited to monocular versus biocular NVG’s.

4.2 Range Results Three quantitative comparisons of interest are presented in this section. The first considers night target engagement performance across all conditions. After this overview, the next two comparisons focus on specific areas of interest. The second comparison assesses Eyes Only daytime target engagement performance versus night target engagement performance, with both Eyes Only and eyes assisted with laser pointers. Finally, night target engagement performance with night vision devices is compared with night target engagement using visible illumination in the form of paraflares.

4.2.1 Night Target Engagement Performance According to Night Vision Goggle Device/Condition

Quantitative results are presented in terms of overall shooting performance and shooting performance at each firing point (300m, 200m, 100m and 50m), as shown in Figure 18.

Figure 18: Hit percentage versus firing distance for all trial conditions


Overall, the Maxi-Kite condition performed the best at the 100, 200 and 300m ranges. While participants wearing NVG’s performed better than those who had no NVG’s, the benefits in performance dropped as the range increased. Providing active illumination improved target engagement performance over the Eyes Only condition, but not to the level of the Maxi-Kite performance.

4.2.1.1 Overall Results

In order to compare overall performance, scores across the 50, 100,200 and 300m ranges were consolidated. As expected, the daylight target engagement performance was highest with an 80.6% hit percentage. The best night engagement performance was with the Maxi-Kite sight (70.8 %) followed by active illumination (48.1%), biocular AN/PVS-504 (33.1%), monocular AN/PVS-14 (32.1%), biocular AN/PVS-7D (29.5%), Eyes Only (19.8%) and Eyes Only with laser (17.3%). Overall means and standard deviations are shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Hit percentages for all trial conditions

Hit Percentage (%)

Condition

Mean

S.D.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Visible illumination

48.1 11.1 X

Biocular AN/PVS-7D

29.5 10.1 X

Monocular AN/PVS-14

32.1 16.5 X

Biocular AN/PVS-504

33.1 6.8 X

Eyes Only 19.8 14.2 X Eyes and Laser

17.3 12.4 X

Daylight Shooting

80.6 9.3 X

Maxi-Kite Weapon sight

70.8 17.7 X

Post-hoc tests (p<0.05) were conducted to determine any significant differences between conditions across all shooting distances. The results of these tests are summarized in Table 4.


Table 4: Post hoc comparisons for all trial conditions

Significant Differences (p<0.05)

Condition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Visible illumination (1) 2<1 3<1 4<1 5<1 6<1 7>1 8>1

Biocular AN/PVS-7D (2) 1>2 6<2 7>2 8>2

Monocular AN/PVS-14 (3) 1>3 5<3 6<3 7>3 8>3

Biocular AN/PVS-504 (4) 1>4 5<4 6<4 7>4 8>4

Eyes Only (5) 1>5 3>5 4>5 7>5 8>5

Eyes and Laser (6) 1>6 2>6 3>6 4>6 7>6 8>6

Daylight Shooting (7) 1<7 2<7 3<7 4<7 5<7 6<7

Maxi-Kite Weapon sight (8) 1<8 2<8 3<8 4<8 5<8 6<8

There were no significant differences between the in-service NVG (biocular AN/PVS-504) and the Generation III NVG’s (biocular PVS-7D and monocular AN/PVS-14). There were also no significant differences between the two Generation III NVG’s. Furthermore, target engagement performance with the AN/PVS-7D goggle did not lead to better shooting performance than Eyes Only. There was also no significant difference between shooting with Eyes Only and shooting with Eyes Only and either the infrared or visible laser. No significant difference in engagement performance was seen between daylight shooting and shooting with the Maxi-Kite weapon sight.

In order to determine if there were significant differences between conditions depending on the firing distance, analytical tests were conducted on the mean hit percentage results at each point. The results are presented for each range, beginning at 300m.

4.2.1.2 300m Firing Point Results

Participants engaged targets at 300m under only 3 conditions: the daylight shoot, visible illumination and using the Maxi-Kite weaponsite. The mean hit percentage and standard deviations for each condition at 300m are shown in Table 5. Hit percentages were 45.6% during the daytime tests, 42. 2% when using the Maxi-Kite sight, and 11.6% with active illumination.


Table 5: Hit percentages at 300m firing point

Hit Percentage (%)

Condition Mean S.D. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Visible illumination

11.6 14.0 X

Daylight Shooting

45.6 32.8 X

Maxi-Kite Weapon sight

42.2 25.3 X

Post-hoc test comparisons at 300m are shown in Table 6. Hit percentages for daylight shooting and shooting with the Maxi-Kite sight at this distance did not differ, although both were significantly better than shooting with visible illumination. Participants could not identify targets using their NVG’s or with Eyes Only at this distance.

Table 6: Post hoc comparisons at 300m


Condition 1 7 8

Visible illumination (1) 7>1 8>1

Daylight Shooting (7) 1<7

Maxi-Kite Weapon sight (8) 1<8

4.2.1.3 200m Firing Point Results:

The means and standard deviations at 200m are shown in Table 7. Some participants were able to hit the targets wearing NVG’s at 200m. As expected, the daylight target engagement performance was highest, with a 78.9% hit percentage. The best night engagement performance was with the Maxi-Kite sight (66.7 %) followed by active illumination (34.2%), biocular AN/PVS-504 (2.5%), monocular AN/PVS-14 (6.7%), biocular AN/PVS-7D (0.8%), Eyes Only (0%) and Eyes Only with laser (0%).


Table 7: Hit percentages at 200m firing point

Hit Percentage (%)

Condition

Mean

S.D.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Visible illumination (1)

34.2 22.7 X

Biocular AN/PVS-7D (2)

0.8 2.9 X

Monocular AN/PVS-14 (3)

6.7 16.1 X

Biocular AN/PVS-504 (4)

2.5 8.6 X

Eyes Only (5) 0 0 x

Eyes and Laser (6)

0 0 x

Daylight Shooting (7)

78.9 19.0 X

Maxi-Kite Weapon sight (8)

66.7 39.1 X

Significant differences at 200m are shown in Table 8. Daylight shooting, Maxi-Kite shooting and shooting with visible illumination were all significantly better than shooting with NVG’s or nighttime shooting with Eyes Only, or with Eyes Only and laser.



Condition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Visible illumination (1) 2<1 3<1 4<1 5<1 6<1 7>1 8>1

Biocular AN/PVS-7D (2) 1>2 7>2 8>2

Monocular AN/PVS-14 (3) 1>3 7>3 8>3

Biocular AN/PVS-504 (4) 1>4 7>4 8>4

Eyes Only (5) 1>5 7>5 8>5

Eyes and Laser (6) 1>6 7>6 8>6

Daylight Shooting (7) 1<7 2<7 3<7 4<7 5<7 6<7

Maxi-Kite Weapon sight (8) 1<8 2<8 3<8 4<8 5<8 6<8



The means and standard deviations at 100m are shown in Table 9.

Table 9: Hit percentages at 100 m firing point

Hit Percentage (%)

Condition

Mean

S.D.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


53.3 23.5 X


32.7 38.2 X


40.8 41.9 X


39.1 25.4 X

Eyes Only (5) 11.7 29.2 X Eyes and Laser (6) 14.2 23.1 X Daylight Shooting (7)

100 0 x


84.4 26.5 X

Unlike the 200 or 300m conditions, some participants were able to hit the targets at 100m with Eyes Only. As expected, the daylight target engagement performance was highest with a 100% hit percentage. The best night engagement performance was with the Maxi-Kite sight (84.4 %) followed by active illumination (53.3%), biocular AN/PVS-504 (39.1%), monocular AN/PVS-14 (40.8%), biocular AN/PVS-7D (32.7%), Eyes Only (11.7%) and Eyes Only with laser (14.2%).

At the 100m mark, both daylight shooting, and Maxi-Kite shooting were significantly better than all other conditions - see Table 10. Visible illumination hit percentages were also significantly higher than all conditions (except the Maxi-Kite and daylight shooting conditions). Furthermore, shooting performance with both the monocular AN/PVS-14 and the biocular AN/PVS-504 was significantly higher than Eyes Only nighttime shooting.




Condition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Visible illumination (1) 2<1 3<1 4<1 5<1 6<1 7>1 8>1 Biocular AN/PVS-7D (2) 7>2 8>2 Monocular AN/PVS-14 (3) 5<3 7>3 8>3 Biocular AN/PVS-504 (4) 5<4 7>4 8>4 Eyes Only (5) 1>5 3>5 4>5 7>5 8>5 Eyes and Laser (6) 1>6 7>6 8>6 Daylight Shooting (7) 1<7 2<7 3<7 4<7 5<7 6<7 Maxi-Kite Weapon sight (8) 1<8 2<8 3<8 4<8 5<8 6<8


The means and standard deviations at 50m are shown in Table 11. Like the 100m condition, some participants were able to hit the targets with Eyes Only. As expected, the daylight target engagement performance was highest with a 97.8% hit percentage. The best night engagement performance was with the Maxi-Kite sight (90.0 %) followed by active illumination (93.3%), biocular AN/PVS-504 (90.4%), monocular AN/PVS-14 (80.8%), biocular AN/PVS-7D (87.5%), Eyes Only (67.5%) and Eyes Only with laser (55%).

Table 11: Hit percentages at 50 m firing point

Hit Percentage (%)

Condition

Mean

S.D.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


93.3 8.9 X


87.5 16.6 X


80.8 30.0 X


90.8 14.4 X

Eyes Only (5) 67.5 39.3 X Eyes and Laser (6) 55.0 32.9 X Daylight Shooting (7)

97.8 4.4 X


90.0 14.1 X


The Eyes Only and Eyes Only with laser condition received lower scores than other methods. There were no significant differences between the Eyes Only conditions, nor amongst the other group. The significant differences identified by Post-hoc tests at 50m are shown in Table 12.



Condition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Visible illumination (1) 5<1 6<1

Biocular AN/PVS-7D (2) 6<2

Monocular AN/PVS-14 (3) 5<3 6<3

Biocular AN/PVS-504 (4) 5<4 6<4

Eyes Only (5) 1>5 3>5 4>5 7>5 8>5

Eyes and Laser (6) 1>6 2>6 3>6 4>6 7>6 8>6

Daylight Shooting (7) 5<7 6<7

Maxi-Kite Weapon sight (8) 5<8 6<8

4.2.2 Baseline Day Conditions vs. Night Shooting with Eyes Only vs. Night Shooting with Eyes and Laser

In order to develop a baseline for target engagement performance, unaided shooting performance during the day was is compared to both unaided and laser-assisted target engagement performance at night — see Figure 19.


Figure 19: Hit percentage versus firing distance for all trial conditions

As can be expected, daytime shooting performance was significantly better than visually un-aided night shooting performance.

At 50m, participants detected and hit 55% of the targets with the laser aimer and 67% of the targets without the laser aimer. It should be noted that participants using the laser aimer did not utilize their C79 scope, while participants using Eyes Only utilized their C79 scope. This result suggests that someparticipants did gain some benefit from using their scope at this short range. The 3x scope amplified what little light was available, allowing participants to see the targets more clearly.

While participants using the C79 sight adjusted their sights throughout the range practice (300-100m) , those using the visible lasers did not physically adjust their aimpoint, but compensated manually. The effect of zeroing the visible laser at 100m and engaging targets at 50m was not assessed. Given the relative straight trajectory at this range, this should not have affected the results significantly.

At 100m, participants detected and hit 11.7% of the targets without the laser aimer and 14.2 % of the targets with the laser aimer. Unlike the results at 50m, the C79 scope did not offer any advantages at this range. As with the other IR lasers,participants did appear to gain some benefit from the laser aimer, due to the characteristic reflections of the light beam on the target. Targets, that had been previously pierced by a number of bullets, noticeably split the beam a number of ways when the laser beam hit the target. Participants used this cue to know when they were on target. As such, they were cautioned to use their laser only after they positively identified their target and just before firing.


As can be seen in Figure 20, target engagement performance decreased rapidly at night at all ranges greater than 100m. None of the participants detected any targets at 200 or 300m with Eyes Only or Eyes Only with laser.

Figure 20: Target engagement performance for baseline conditions day vs. night

4.2.3 Night Target Engagement Performance Night Vision Devices Versus Visible Illumination (paraflares)

Target engagement performance with NVG’s was compared to the artificial illumination method for nighttime shooting — see Figure 21.


Figure 21: Night vision devices versus visible illumination baseline

At 50m, there were no significant differences in engagement accuracy using artificial illumination (93.8 %) versus NVG’s (80.8 to 90.8%). At 100m, artificial illumination resulted in significantly better target engagement (53.3%) than with NVG’s (32.7 – 40.8%). At 200m, using artificial illumination (34.2%) yielded significantly results than with NVG’s (0.8- 6.7%). While none of the subject engaged targets at 300m with NVG’s,11.6% of the targets were hit while using paraflares.

Overall, using artificial illumination led to significantly better target engagement performance than any of the NVG’s. It should be noted, however, that the amount of illumination provided during these engagements was not normal. For each five round grouping, a minimum of two flares were fired. If the flares were poorly positioned, additional flares were fired. Thus this was an optimal shoot with paraflares. Over 70 paraflares were used during these limited tests. Operationally, units would have access to much less ammunition. While this approached an optimum test with paraflares, participant performance was significantly poorer than daytime performance for ranges greater than 50m. At close ranges (50m), performance with NVG’s was not significantly different from performance with paraflares.

There were no significant differences between NVG types for all ranges. The monocular AN/PVS-14 performed as well as the biocular PVS-7D and the in-service biocular PVS-504. Users of all the NVG devices could detect the IR laser beam of the AN/PAQ-4C on the target equally well.


4.3 Subjective Results Qualitative information about the NVG’s was gathered using two questionnaires. The task/compatibility questionnaire was completed after each shooting serial, and the criteria of importance questionnaire was completed at the end of all the shooting serials. Qualitative information was gathered for the NVG conditions only.

4.3.1 Task/Compatibility Results After each shooting serial, the participants completed a task/compatibility questionnaire with respect to the NVG system they had worn. These results are shown in Figure 22.

PVS7 PVS14 PVS504

SIREQ NVG III TrialAN/PVS-7 vs. AN/PVS-14 vs. AN/PVS-504

Plot of Means

7, 1

4> 5

047,

14>

504

7, 1

4> 5

047,

14>

504

14>

7, 5

04

7, 1

4> 5

047,

14>

504

7, 1

4> 5

04

14>

77,

14>

504

Completely Unaccepta

Reasonably Unaccepta

Barely Unacceptable

Borderline

Barely Acceptable

Reasonably Acceptabl

Completely Acceptabl

Vis

ual S

harp

ness

Vis

ual D

isto

rtion

Fiel

d of

Vie

wD

epth

Per

cept

ion

Tgt D

etec

tion

(Fro

ntE

ase

of A

imin

gE

ase

of F

iring

Wea

pon

Han

dlin

gU

se o

f Las

er P

trE

ase

of In

stal

latio

nE

ase

of A

djus

tmen

tV

isua

l Fat

igue

Wei

ght (

on h

ead)

Nau

sea

Nec

k D

isco

mfo

rtB

alan

ceS

tabi

lity

on H

elm

etV

entil

atio

n/Fo

ggin

gO

vera

ll A

ccep

tanc

e

Significant Differencesat p < 0.05

Figure 22: Task/Compatibility questionnaire results

Across all the criteria assessed, participants rated the monocular AN/PVS-14 as being “Barely to Reasonably Acceptable” (5.5) for night target engagement. Conversely, the participants rated the biocular AN/PVS-7D as being “Borderline to Barely Acceptable” (4.7) and the biocular AN/PVS-504 as being “Barely Unacceptable to Borderline” for night target engagement. Overall the participants rated the monocular AN/PVs-14 as being significantly more acceptable than the biocular AN/PVS-504.

Significant differences (p<.05) in the qualitative assessment of each NVG are also identified in Figure 22. The biocular AN/PVS-7D and the monocular AN/PVS-14 both received a


significantly better acceptance rating than the biocular AN/PVS-504 in the Visual Sharpness, Visual Distortion, Field of View, Depth Perception, Ease of Installation, Ease of Adjustment and Visual Fatigue/Headaches categories. Furthermore, both the biocular AN/PVS-7D and the monocular AN/PVS-14 were ranked significantly more acceptable than the biocular AN/PVS-504 overall. The monocular AN/PVS-14 was also rated more acceptable than the biocular AN/PVS-504 in Target Detection (Front). The monocular AN/PVS-14 was ranked significantly more acceptable than the biocular AN/PVS-7D in Target Detection (Front) and Ventilation/Fogging.

4.3.2 Criteria of Importance Results A Criteria of Importance questionnaire was administered at the end of testing. Participants rated the perceived importance of various design criteria for selecting or assessing an 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. Summary descriptive results (mean and standard deviation) are depicted in Figure 23 below. The criteria have been arranged from most important to least important.

Mean+SDMean-SD

Mean

Criteria of Importance Results

Plot of Means and One Standard Deviation

not important

of very little impo

of little importance

of some importance

reasonably important

very important

extremely important

Fiel

f of V

iew

Fogg

ing

Vis

ual S

harp

ness

Fogg

ing

(vis

ion)

Une

ven

terr

ain

(mov

eW

eigh

t on

Hea

dG

lass

es c

ompa

tibili

tV

isua

l Dis

torti

onS

tabi

lity

on H

elm

etV

isua

l Fat

igue

Nec

k D

isco

mfo

rtS

peed

of M

ovem

ent

Tgt D

etec

tion

(fron

tW

eapo

n C

ompa

tibilit

yR

oute

det

erm

inat

ion

Tgt D

etec

tion

(sid

e)E

ase

of A

djus

tmen

tD

epth

Per

cept

ion

Bal

ance

on

head

Eas

e of

Inst

alla

tion

Free

dom

from

Nau

sea

Figure 23: Criteria of importance results

All Criteria listed were within one standard deviation of very important (6).


5. Discussion

Trial results indicate that while NVG’s with pinholes may be suitable for daytime classroom training, the pinholes cannot duplicate the system performance at night. The rationale for investigating this area was to see if NVG assessment always had to be done at night. If NVG assessment could be done during the day, the trials could be performed quicker and easier. This trial, however, suggests that NVG’s will have to be assessed at night, or in lighting controlled buildings.

In an attempt to understand why the NVG’s with pinhole lenses did not perform as well during the day as their systems did at night, visual acuity tests were performed using a Snellen Chart. As expected the visual acuity achieved with the Snellen Chart was superior to that achieved with the Hoffman 20/20 box. This result was expected because the Snellen Chart illumination is far greater than the Hoffman 20/20 grid illumination. As well, the Snellen Chart letters were easier to discern than the grid patterns. Grid pattern charts are available to assess NVG acuity; the chart illuminations will have to be closely controlled to match the Hoffman test conditions in order to use them. Although participants were able to adjust their goggles to infinity for this gallery range experiment, they may need to focus their goggles closer during terrain traverse tasks. Thus, charts may be useful to assess how far participants adjust their goggles to for terrain traverse.

Unfortunately, only monocular and biocular NVG’s were assessed in this trial. Due to equipment limitations, the shooting performance with binocular NVG’s (Type I and Type II) was not assessed.

The power of the eye-safe visible and AN/PAQ-4C IR lasers was not sufficient to engage targets past 50m during the day. Given that more powerful visible and IR lasers exist (AN/PEQ-2), these should be examined to see if they could be used past 50m during the day. While these systems are not eye safe and cannot be used for training, they could be treated as weapons and be used in combat for sighting purposes only.

The shooting results show no significant difference in target engagement performance between the in-service biocular AN/PVS-504, biocular AN/PVS-7D and monocular AN/PVS-14 Generation III Omni 4 NVG’s. These results do not confirm the results of the bush-lane trial, where the newer Generation III NVG’s performed significantly better than the older in-service NVG (G). Unlike the bush lane trial, participants were not searching for targets in this trial, but knew that targets would be located in their lane. Targets were bordered by black and white vertical markers to the left and a square white marker to the right. Furthermore, the base of the targets was differentiated by the top of the mound – see Figure 24. These results do confirm the results of the bush-lane trial in that there were no significant differences between the target engagement performance of the biocular AN/PVS-7D and the monocular AN/PVS-14. Currently Generation IV NVG’s with even superior performance are being produced. The performance of these new systems has yet to be examined.


Figure 24: Target presentation

Compared to a bush lane test, the gallery range shooting test is much less demanding from a visual noise perspective. If the shooter could identify his target lane, he could concentrate his efforts in a small area to locate his target. Although participants were instructed not to do so, some may have used their IR laser to pinpoint their target in the search zone, and used the cue of multiple rays to know when they were on the target. In fact, then, the laser aimer (rather than NVG type) may have influenced performance in this study. Participants using the biocular AN/PVS-7D and monocular AN/PVS-14 could easily detect the AN/PAQ-4C laser beam. Participants using the older biocular AN/PVS-504 could also detect the multiple ray returns when the AN/PAQ-4C hit the bullet riddled targets.

At 300m, participants failed to hit any targets at night, either with the naked eye or while using NVG’s. At 300m, performance with the Maxi-Kite rifle-mounted sight was comparable to daytime shooting results. This may be due, in large part, to the 6x magnification and the Generation III night vision lens that the Maxi-Kite possesses. This result suggests that magnified night vision may be the most effective way to improve nighttime target engagement, especially at longer ranges. An afocal 3x lens is also available for use with the biocular AN/PVS-7D and monocular AN/PVS-14 – see Figure 25. US Army and Marine Forces currently move with their normal NVG’s, and upon reaching a fixed position, use the 3x lens for target detection and engagement.

Left Marker

Right Marker Target


Figure 25: Biocular AN/PVS-7D with 3x Afocal magnifier lens

The effects of magnification may also explain why performance with the C79 sight was superior to Eyes Only performance at closer ranges. Soldiers using the sight could focus on the identified target area to localize the target. As such, performance results using the Maxi-Kite and C79 sight may be confounded due to magnification effects and may or may not be due to NVG effects. Although some participants successfully engaged targets at 300m with artificial illumination from paraflares, the mean number of hits was not significant.

Engaging targets with NVG’s and laser aimers in a non-standard posture was new to all the participants. Some participants had more difficulty adapting to a new posture. These same participants performed better just using the C7A1 rifle or with the Maxi-Kite sight. Aside from the magnification benefits, these sights allowed the user to adopt their normal prone firing position. Thus, it may be of some benefit for mounting night vision aids on the rifle as a dedicated night sight. The monocular AN/PVS-14 can be mounted on a rifle to act as a rifle sight - see Figure 26.

Figure 26: AN/PVS-14 rifle mount


The monocular AN/PVS-14 can also be mounted on the rifle with the 3x lens – see Figure 27.

.

Figure 27: Monocular AN/PVS-14 rifle mount with 3x lens

At the 200m firing point, some participants were able to successfully engage targets while wearing NVG’s. While some participants could successfully use their monocular AN/PVS-14 for target engagement, most participants could not detect the targets with the biocular AN/PVS-7D or biocular AN/PVS-504. This finding indicates that NVG’s may not be suitable for shooting at distances of greater than 200m. However, there is some evidence that use of 3x afocal lens and/or IR illumination may improve target detection and engagement. Accidental illumination by vehicle headlights demonstrated that NVG performance could be improved with some artificial illumination. Thus, effects of IR illumination should be explored during range firing.

When firing at the 100m mark, mean target engagement performance while wearing NVG’s rose considerably, compared to performance at 200m or 300m. However, standard deviations were generally quite wide, except in the case of daylight shooting, where target engagement was 100%. These wide standard deviations may be explained by differences in shooting ability, or the soldier’s lack of familiarity in shooting with night vision devices.

At 50m, there were no significant differences between the NVG conditions, the Maxi-Kite weapon sight, visible illumination or daylight shooting. Shooting performance in these categories was significantly better than shooting with Eyes Only or with eyes and a laser pointer. The exception to this is the biocular AN/PVS-7D, which was not significantly different than Eyes Only for shooting performance at 50m.

The superiority of biocular NVG’s over monocular NVG’s for target engagement seen in other trials was not displayed during this range trial. Binocular sensitivity to low luminance contrast is greater than monocular sensitivity, thus the binocular or biocular vision should outperform the monocular vision. This was not demonstrated in this trial. It is possible that limitations with the NVG’s or the fact that the amplified images are at higher luminance levels minimize this physiological effect. Given that targets are positioned relatively far away, the benefits of binocular NVG’s are also questionable for target engagement.


Baseline testing on the performance effects of visible lasers at night was performed. At all distances, there was no significant advantage to using aiming lasers over using Eyes Only at night. This contradicts a hypothesis stemming from results in the previous bush-lane trial (ref), namely that lasers were beneficial for target engagement. As mentioned earlier, the bush lane is much less demanding from a visual noise perspective test compared to the gallery range shooting test. Soldiers do not have to differentiate between trees, rocks and the targets, but rather search in a small definable area. As well, bush lane testing requires rapid engagement response versus the much slower deliberate shooting during the gallery range test. This suggests that laser sights may be more beneficial during close quarters combat.

Overall, shooting performance using visible illumination was superior to performance while using NVG’s. Performance in the illumination condition was statistically superior only at 200m and 100m ranges. At 50m, target engagement was 93.3% with visible illumination, 90.8% using the biocular AN/PVS-504, 87.5% using the biocular AN/PVS-7D and 80.8% using the monocular AN/PVS-14, and there was no statistical difference between NVG’s in terms of target engagement at this range. At a distance of 300m, although 11.6% of targets were successfully engaged during visible illumination, no targets were successfully engaged by participants when wearing NVG’s. This finding indicates that visible illumination can be used for firing at 100m or 200m, NVG’s are just as appropriate for closer-range shooting. As noted earlier, however, the amount of illumination provided in these tests was not representative of the illumination that would be available to operational units. Participant comments consistently indicated that the use of more limited paraflare ammunition would have greatly dropped engagement performance. Thus operationally, engagement performance with paraflares may in fact closely resemble performance with NVG’s.

The tactical effect of using paraflares versus NVG’s should be examined. The psychological effect of taking casualties while being hidden in the night should be compared to the use of active white light illumination.

While quantitative analysis showed no significant differences between NVG’s, the results of the task/compatibility questionnaire indicate that participants found the biocular AN/PVS-7D and monocularAN/PVS-14 NVG’s much more acceptable than the older in-service biocular AN/PVS-504 NVG’s. Qualitative data was not collected for the non-NVG conditions. Many of the comments about the AN/PVS-7D reveal problems with fit, such as balance and weight distribution of the unit and compatibility with the helmet. Three participants commented that targets could only be seen at a distance of 100 metres or closer. Other issues that received more than one comment were the lack of compatibility with the Canadian helmet, problems with fogged lenses, problems handling of the weapon up close (such as loading the weapon) and neck discomfort. There were a few negative comments about vision with the biocular AN/PVS –7D. Comments indicated that the monocular AN/PVS-14 was the lightest and best-balanced NVG. While three participants commented that the monocular AN/PVS-14 was good or “the best”, two participants commented on difficulties with visual fatigue in one eye because of the monocular design of the AN/PVS-14.

The biocular AN/PVS-504 received many negative comments regarding fit and vision with the device. Like the biocular AN/PVS-7D and monocular AN/PVS-14, participants commented that they could not see the targets from further away than 100m, and that it was difficult to handle the weapon up close while wearing the device. They also stated the AN/PVS- 504 goggles were


heavy and poorly balanced. The Canadian Forces is currently replacing the older image intensification tubes of the biocular AN/PVS-504 with Generation III Omnibus IV equivalent tubes. These biocular AN/PVS504A systems should have comparable vision performance to the biocular AN/PVS-7D and monocular AN/PVS-14.

For all three NVG’s, there were negative comments concerning the weight of the devices, stability, ability to detect targets from further away than 100m, lens fogging up due to eyecups, and difficulties working with weapons up close.

In the criteria of importance questionnaire, participants ranked the visual issues Field of View, Freedom from fogging, and Visual Sharpness as the most important criteria. Participants rated the older in-service biocular AN/PVS-504 less acceptable than the latest NVG’s for these criteria. Even though the AN/PVS-504 has the same field of view, participants identified the poorer acuity associated with the NVG as a loss of field of view.


6. Recommendations

The Land Force should examine the operational benefit of giving more powerful visible and IR aiming lasers to the combat arms. Visible and IR lasers were shown to provide a significant improvement in target engagement success, either by themselves or in combination with NVG’s in the bush lane experiment (ref) and in this study’s gallery range testing at distances less than 100m. The tactical and safety implications of using visible and IR laser aiming lights or even more powerful systems should be examined in detail. The performance of the AN/PEQ-2 with its more powerful IR laser or its variant’s visible laser should be examined in a gallery range test.

The Land Forces should examine the operational benefit of using focused visible and IR illumination. Although not assessed in this trial, additional visible and IR illumination helped with target detection. Gallery range performance of NVG’s with focused IR and white light illumination should be compared to their current performance. The tactical implications of using visible and IR illumination should be examined in detail. The US is currently developing a family of IR illumination mortar rounds. Preliminary testing suggests that these IR illumination rounds burn comparably brighter (in the IR) and longer than conventional illumination rounds. If Canada deploys significant numbers of NVG’s, then the provision of 60mm and 81mm IR illuminating mortar rounds should be investigated.

The Land Forces should examine the operational benefit of using afocal magnifier lenses with NVG’s. The afocal magnifier lenses may improve target detection distances and engagement performance at all ranges. Gallery range performance of the NVG’s with the 3 power lenses should be compared to performance of the C7A1 rifle with its 3.5 power Elcan scope and the 6x Maxi-kite sight.

The Land Forces should examine the operational benefit of using the monocular AN/PVS-14 with or without the 3x power afocal magnifier lens as a dedicated rifle sight (in conjunction with appropriate sights). Having a system that could be mounted on the rifle could allow the NVG to be used with optical sights such as the C79 or with Red-dot sights. The tactical implications of having a system that could be used for terrain traverse or as a dedicated rifle sight should be examined.

Potential performance benefits of binocular NVG’s over monocular or biocular NVG’s for terrain traverse were not quantitatively assessed during either the previous bush-lane trial (ref) or in this shooting range trial. The benefits of NVG type for terrain traverse should be investigated in a future trial. This investigation should examine a variety of terrain types, i.e., open ground, open forest, dense forest, urban, and in-building movement. Each course should include a variety of obstacles and hazards.

The superiority of binocular NVG’s over monocular or biocular NVG’s for target engagement was not quantitatively assessed during this shooting range trial. The benefits of a Type I (non-see through) or Type II (see-through) binocular NVG for target engagement should be investigated in a future trial.

The operational benefits of the latest Generation IV NVG systems should be compared to the performance of the biocular AN/PVS-504A systems and the performance of the biocular


AN/PVS-7D and monocular AN/PVS-14 system. Operational performance should be examined in terms of bush lane performance, gallery range performance, terrain traverse and recce patrolling performance, and close combat urban operations performance.

While the Maxi-Kite night sight was shown to be effective in night shooting, the image intensification tube that is imbedded in the sight may be dated. The Land Forces should investigate the efficacy of replacing the older Generation III image intensification tube with a later Generation III tube or a Generation IV tube. The Maxi-Kite sight is a fairly large and cumbersome sight. As such, the Land Force should examine alternatives that offer the same performance at much less bulk and weight.

The Land Force should examine the operational benefit of designing a new helmet mount or modifying the current ITT helmet mounts so they are compatible with the Soldiers Helmet CG-634. The front bracket arms of the ITT helmet mount do not properly fit the brim of the Canadian helmet.

The Land Forces should examine the operational benefit of developing a universal helmet mount that could function with in-service NATO NVG’s. Currently the biocular AN/PVS-7D and monocular AN/PVS-14 require one mount, the biocular AN/PVS-504 does not have a helmet mount, the binocular AN/AVS-502 requires another mount, and the binocular ANVIS-9 still another mount. The use of a common helmet keeper and mounting block with NVG adapter interfaces would allow Canadian soldiers to use most available NVG’s. The provision of a family of adapter interfaces could allow Canadian troops to use other NATO NVG’s while operationally deployed.


7. References

A. 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.

B. 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

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

D. 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

E. 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

F. LEGER, A., ROUMES, C., GARDELLES, C., CURSOLLE, J.P., and KRAUS, J.M. (1988) Binocular HMD For Fixed-Wing Aircraft: A Trade-Off Approach. Proceedings of SPIE – The International Society for Optical Engineering, 1988

G. 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 CR2004-172. Toronto:ON, Defence Research and Development Canada.

Humansystems® Effect of NVD on C7A1 Target Engagement Accuracy Page A-1

Annex A Personal Information

Humansystems® Effect of NVD on C7A1 Target Engagement Accuracy Page A-2

Renseignements Personnels Veuillez indiquer les renseignements demandés dans les espaces fournis: Numéro matricule Nom

jjjjjjjjjjjjj jjjjjjjjjjjjjjj Unité CGPM

jjjjjjjjjjjjjj kkkk Grade Sexe

Soldat $ MR subalterne $ MR supérieur $ Officier $ Homme $ Femme $

Composante

Force régulière $ Force de réserve $ Autre $

Durée du service en tant qu’adulte

0 - 1 an $ 1 - 5 ans $ 5 - 10 ans $ Plus de 10 ans $

Expérience opérationnelle (par théâtre)

Moyen-Orient $ Plateau du Golan $ Sinaï $ Croatie $ Bosnie $ Rwanda $ Chypre $ Somalie $ Cambodge $ Haïti $ Autre $ _______________________________ Grandeur (pieds/pouces) <5’1 5’1 5’2 5’3 5’4 5’5 5’6 5’7 5’8 5’9 5’10 5’11 6’0 6’1 6’2 6’3 6’4 6’5 >6’5

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Poids (livres) <13

0 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190 195 200 205 210 >21

0

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Circonférence de poitrine (pouces) <34 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 >50

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Circonférence de taille (pouces) <24 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 >40

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Humansystems® Effect of NVD on C7A1 Target Engagement Accuracy Page B-1

Annex B Task/Compatibility

Assessment Questionnaire


Excellence in Applied Ergonomics

RENSEIGNEMENT PERSONNEL Écrire lisiblement votre numero dans l'espace ci-bas et indiquer votre équipment.

Numero # aaa PVS –7 $ PVS-14 $ PVS-504 $ Sans LVN $

Illumination: IR $ Visible $ Sans $ LVN Utilization: Tout les temps $ Autre $

Évaluez les critères

suivants

Évaluation de L'utilisateur

☺ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Commentaires

VISION

Netteté visuelle @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Distortion visuelle @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Champs de vision @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Perception des profondeurs

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

COMPATIBILITÉ

Installation des LVN @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Facilité d'adjustement (vertical)

@ @ @ @ @ @ @



suivants


☺ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Commentaires

CHARACTÉRISTIQUE PHYSIQUE

Fatigue visuelle Maux de tête

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

Poids (sur la tête) @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Nausée @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Inconfortable au cou @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Équilibre sur la tête @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Stabilité sur le casque @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Ventilation/Embué @ @ @ @ @ @ @

TÂCHES

Abilité à déterminer meilleur route

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

Détection des obstacles

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

Facilité se déplacer sur terrain accidenté

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

Vitesse de déplacement

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

Parcours des obstacles @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Détection des cibles (vers l'avant)

@ @ @ @ @ @ @



suivants


☺ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Commentaires

TÂCHES (SUITE)

Détection des cibles (vers les côtés)

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

Facilité à pointer l'arme

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

Facilité de tirer avec l'arme

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

Maniement de l'arme @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Facilité d'utilisation A des pointeurs laser

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

Pointeurs laser utilizer

Visible @ IR @

Maniement de l'arme @ @ @ @ @ @ @

GLOBALE

Acceptabilité globale pour la tâche @ @ @ @ @ @ @

COMMENTAIRES

Humansystems® Effect of NVD on C7A1 Target Engagement Accuracy Page C-1

Annex C Criteria of Importance

Questionnaire


RENSEIGNEMENT PERSONNEL Écrire lisiblement votre nom dans l'espace ci-bas.

NOM aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Évaluer l'importance des items suivants

Échelle D'évaluation Pas Peu Assez Extrêmement Important Important Important Important Très peu De quelque Très Important Importance Important

Fonctionalité

Facilité d'installation des LVN @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Facilité d'adjustment (vertical) @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Demande Physique

Poids(sur tête) @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Fatigue visuelle de tête @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Inconfortablement au cou @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Equilibre sur la tête @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Stabilité sur la casque @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Compatibilité

Compatibilité avec l'arme @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Compatibilité avec les lunettes @ @ @ @ @ @ @


Vision

Netteté visuelle @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Distortion visuelle @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Champs de vision @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Nausée @ @ @ @ @ @ @


Perception des profondeurs @ @ @ @ @ @ @


Évaluer l'importance des items suivants

Échelle D'évaluation Pas Peu Assez Extrement Important Important Important Important Très peu De quelque Très Important Importance Important

Tâches

Détection des cibles (vers l'avant)

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

Détection des cibles (vers les côtes)

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

Abilité à déterminer la meilleur route

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

Parcours des obstacles @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Facilité àse deplacer sur terrain accidenté

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

Vitesse de déplacement @ @ @ @ @ @ @

COMMENTAIRES:

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: DRDCToronto

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

Monitoring:

Contracting: DRDCToronto

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 C7A1 Target EngagementAccuracy (U)Examen de l’effet de dispositifs de vision nocturne sur la précision d’engagement decible avec le fusil C7A1

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

Harry A. Angel

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

December 2004

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

62

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

7

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:

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.)

W7711−9−7582/001/TOR

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 2004−173

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

SIREQ #6

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

Defence departments in approved countries − Document has initial limited distributionthrough Exploitation Manager − TTCP and NATO countries and agencies − Unlimitedafter initial limited distribution

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

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 four−day trial was performed at the Canadian Forces training facility in Farnham, PQover the period of 17 to 21 August 2000. Twelve regular force infantry personnel from the3rd Battalion 22eme Regiment were required to complete a standardized rifle nightmarksmanship test using monocular (AN/PVS−14), biocular (AN/PVS−7, AN/PVS−504)Night Vision Goggles (NVGs) and laser aiming aids (AN/PAQ−4C infra red (IR) andCarbine visible laser)systems during gallery range (known distance) night targetengagements. with the C7A1 rifle. Engagement performance with NVGs and lasers wascompared to day and night baseline performance without augmentation, engagementperformance with parachute flare illumination assistance, and performance with thein−service Maxi−Kite night sight. Secondary aims of this trial included: investigation todetermine if day target engagement performance with night vision devices utilizing withpinhole covers was comparable to nighttime target engagement performance; if far targetengagement performance differed according to night vision goggle device (monocularversus biocular versus binocular); if night target engagement performance without NVGscould be improved with the use of a visible aiming device and if night target engagementperformance with night vision devices was better than baseline nighttime targetengagement performance using visible illumination (flares). Human factors tests includedtarget engagement accuracy, user acceptance and NVG design criteria of importance.Day time performance of NVGs (using pinhole covers) was not comparable to night timeperformance. The shooting results show no significant difference in target engagementperformance between the in−service AN/PVS−504 and AN/PVS−7 and AN/PVS−14Generation III Omni 4 NVGs. The best overall night engagement performance was withthe Maxi−Kite sight followed by the standard C7A1 with active illumination. Targetengagement performance at night with NVGs dropped exponentially at ranges greaterthan 50m and no targets were engaged with the NVGs at 300m. There were no significantdifferences in target engagement performance between the NVG types at any range. Thelatest Generation III NVGs (AN/PVS−7, AN/PVS−14) were rated by the participants asbeing significantly more acceptable than the older in−service AN/PVs−504 NVG for nighttarget engagement. The use of a visible aiming device did not significantly improveshooting performance at night (without NVGs). Overall, shooting performance using visibleillumination was superior to performance while wearing NVGs.Based on the results of thistrial, further research and investigation were recommended in the areas of: evaluatingmore powerful visible and IR lasers; investigating Binocular NVG performance;investigating afocal lens magnification effects; investigating effects of using NVGs asdedicated night sights; and developing universal helmet mounts.

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; NVG;night vision goggles; target engagement; monocular; biocular; binocular; enhanced vision;laser; CVL; Carbine visible laser; AN/PVS−14; AN/PVS−7D; AN/PVS−504; AN/AVS−502;Maxi−Kite night sight

examination of the effect of night vision …cradpdf.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/pdfs/unc48/p525050.pdf ·...

Documents