Decision Support for Fighter Pilots
18
1 DAT/SEN May 4, 2006 Decision Support Decision Support for Fighter for Fighter Pilots Pilots Lars Rosenberg Randleff Lars Rosenberg Randleff Ph.D. student Ph.D. student Danish Defence Research Establishment Danish Defence Research Establishment
description
Decision Support for Fighter Pilots. Lars Rosenberg Randleff Ph.D. student Danish Defence Research Establishment. Rationale. Numbers of threats, guidance methods, and countermeasures are increasing 650 missile systems developed - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of Decision Support for Fighter Pilots
1DAT/SENMay 4, 2006
Decision SupportDecision Supportfor Fighter Pilotsfor Fighter Pilots
Lars Rosenberg RandleffLars Rosenberg Randleff
Ph.D. studentPh.D. student
Danish Defence Research Danish Defence Research EstablishmentEstablishment
2DAT/SENMay 4, 2006
Rationale
• Numbers of threats, guidance methods, and countermeasures are increasing• 650 missile systems developed• 200-300 missile systems currently deployed
(http://missile.index.ne.jp)
• Not easy to find the best action• Takes training to do it in time• Solution depends on mission
• “The worlds best pilot as the co-pilot”• A work in progress…
3DAT/SENMay 4, 2006
Challenges
• Lack of information• Both in flight and in development
• Information may be self-contradictory• Onboard systems may be wrong
• Best solution depends on a lot of parameters• Avionics, route, scenario, inventory, …
• Should be found in real-time
4DAT/SENMay 4, 2006
Missile Guidance
Semi-active Radar
Infrared
Electro-Optical
Active Radar
Track-Via-Missile
INS/GPS
Command
Beam Rider
Anti-Radiation
5DAT/SENMay 4, 2006
Scenario
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
x 104
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4x 10
4
6DAT/SENMay 4, 2006
Parameters
α
ρ
7DAT/SENMay 4, 2006
Lethality
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5
x 104
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4x 10
4
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5
x 104
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4x 10
4
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 5000
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Scenario Lethality
8DAT/SENMay 4, 2006
Countermeasures
• Jammer• Emits RF radiation• Very “loud”, use
only when needed
• Towed Decoy• A towed jammer• Use once only• Limited resource
• Chaff• Forms a cloud with
a RCS comparable to that of the aircraft
• Limited resource
9DAT/SENMay 4, 2006
Reduction of Lethality (α)
10DAT/SENMay 4, 2006
Reduction of Lethality (ρ)
11DAT/SENMay 4, 2006
An Example
• α = 125°ρ = 80%
• R = Rα∙ Rρ
• RJ,α = 0.80RJ,ρ = 0.50RJ = 0.40
• RD,α = 0.75RD,ρ = 0.80RD = 0.45
• RC,α = 0.05RC,ρ = 0.60RC = 0.03
12DAT/SENMay 4, 2006
Highest Reduction
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
x 104
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
x 104
None
Jammer
Chaff
Decoy
13DAT/SENMay 4, 2006
Constraints
• The towed decoy can be used a limited number of times (~3)
• Chaff can be dispensed a limited number of times (~30)
• No countermeasure should be chosen, if none is needed
14DAT/SENMay 4, 2006
Building a Mathematical Model
tot
iii
iiii
N
iiitot
LS
RRR
MTRLTPL
1
)),,,(1()(
,,
1
n
ttprod
tt
best
n
ttsum
SS
SS
SS
0
0
}{max
15DAT/SENMay 4, 2006
Decision Schedule
Jammer
Decoy
Chaff
16DAT/SENMay 4, 2006
Concluding Remarks
• Is it better to look ahead? How much?
• Can calculations be done fast enough? What should be the timeframe?
• Does uncertainty make a difference?• Scenario• Reductions
17DAT/SENMay 4, 2006
Credits
• Dr. Fred Wright, GTRI• Problem, concept
• Mr. Steen Søndergard, DDRE• Models, numbers
• Dr. Jesper Larsen, IMM/DTU• Mathematical model
18DAT/SENMay 4, 2006
Questions?
