Evaluating the Benefit of Networked EW Systems

Greg Chalmers and Keith Mason

The focus of ADF EW procurements for many years has been on EW self protection as a last resort in missile defence.

The 2009 Defence White Paper has put increased emphasis on networked operations, including EW operations.

For example, the sharing of EW sensed information across force elements for situational awareness

Evaluating the capability benefit of EW for networked operations is a very different activity to that of EW for platform self protection.

DSTO has developed a methodology and analysis tool to evaluate the benefit of EW systems to support force level ADF operations.

This methodology and tool provides a means of comparing EW technologies, force-mix options, and CONOPS to measure mission success.

Networked EW for the ADF

OR METHODOLOGY ANALYSIS TOOL

DEFINE THE PROBLEM Identify the issues up front Define scenarios/ missions Determine objectives of the operation

DEVELOP ANALYSIS PLAN Define Alternatives: Force- Mix Option (platforms / EW technologies / threats) Define blue/ red orders of battle (ORBATS) & electronic orders of battle (EOB) Concepts of operation (CONOPS) Doctrine (DOC) Constraints and assumptions Determine variables to be considered

DEFINE MEASURES Measure Of Performance Measure Of Effectiveness Measure Of Force Effectiveness Measure Of Capability

PRODUCE RESULTS Run the model to collect data for each scenario / alternative Number of iterations

DEVELOP SCENARIO(S) Develop & populate scenarios with models, ORBATS, EOBs, CONOPS, DOC & alternative options

ANALYSE RESULTS Compare measures Operational suitability Cost effectiveness Total cost Implications Confidence

ADVICE TO ADF Results presented to Military sponsor Focus on issues for the decision makers Highlight aspects requiring more detailed consideration, if any

DEVELOP MODELS Develop & populate with red and blue force platform, sensor and EW models

VALIDATE MODELS Run model scenarios Where available use Historical data / Subject Matter Experts (SME) / Field Study data to validate results

Model–Test-Model

PROVE THE RESULTS Sensitivity analysis Additional analysis (eg Statistical) Verify results, focusing on measures / suitability, etc (SME, Common Sense)

As Required

1. Define the problem1. Define the problem

2. Develop analysis plan2. Develop analysis plan

3. Define Measures3. Define Measures

4. Produce results4. Produce results

5. Analyse results5. Analyse results

6. Prove the results6. Prove the results

7. Communicate & 7. Communicate & document resultsdocument results

OA Methodology

HLA Network Bus

Entities/Interactions

Entities/Interactions

STAGE/CSMI

HLA HLA

Other Models

OA Module

3D View(Vega Prime)

Analysis Tool

Force Level EW Synthetic Environment

FLEWSE Architecture

Modeling Infrastructure

STAGE: COTS reconfigurable simulation framework for developing tactical synthetic environments. Includes simple platform, EW systems, sensor & weapons models

CSMI (Combined Sensor Modeling Infrastructure): In-house developed EW sensor/effector models to enable computation of EW system performance

Limitations: - Effects based modeling - Does not model detail of

tactical engagements

Analysis Tool - FLEWSE

OA Module Structure

STAGE/CSMI

Executes individual

simulation runs

CONTROL(Stage Batch Runner)Controls a sequenceof simulation runs

RelationalDatabase

(MySQL)

Simulation eventsLogged to database

POST PROCESSIN

G TOOLCreates reports

AnalysisData Extraction

Reports

Selected data queriedfrom database forsequence of runs

Analysis Tool - FLEWSE

Awareness of inbound air threats currently relies on radar surveillance. Could an EW sensor help?

Ground Based ESM (GBESM) offers: Earlier warning than ground based radar Emitter type, platform type, intent

Use OA methodology and tool to compare: Realistic ADF missions with current ADF capabilities Same missions with additional GBESM capability

How does it work: Hypothetical example

1. Define the problem1. Define the problem

2. Develop analysis plan2. Develop analysis plan

3. Define Measures3. Define Measures

4. Produce results4. Produce results

5. Analyse results5. Analyse results

6. Prove the results6. Prove the results

7. Document results7. Document results

Evaluation Process

1. 1. Define the problemDefine the problem

2. Develop analysis plan2. Develop analysis plan

3. Define Measures3. Define Measures

4. Produce results4. Produce results

5. Analyse results5. Analyse results

6. Prove the results6. Prove the results

7. Document results7. Document results

Evaluation Process

Liaise with RAAF and identify issue(s) requiring analysis:

- What is the threat? - What is the effectiveness of current

ADGE systems in detecting, locating and identifying threat systems, and how a GBESM may help

Select a scenario as a context for the evaluation through elaboration of the RAAF and Adversary’s:

- Objectives- ORBAT- CONOPS- Doctrine

1. Define the problem1. Define the problem

2. 2. Develop analysis planDevelop analysis plan

3. Define Measures3. Define Measures

4. Produce results4. Produce results

5. Analyse results5. Analyse results

6. Prove the results6. Prove the results

7. Document results7. Document results

Evaluation Process

Define alternative options for analysis that will discriminate the issues under consideration:

- effectiveness of ADGE systems- GBESM technologies

Develop vignettes appropriate for studying each alternative in the context of the scenario

1. Define the problem1. Define the problem

2. Develop analysis plan2. Develop analysis plan

3. 3. Define MeasuresDefine Measures

4. Produce results4. Produce results

5. Analyse results5. Analyse results

6. Prove the results6. Prove the results

7. Document results7. Document results

Evaluation Process

Sensor Measures:Detection/ID rangeTime to detect/IDNumber of entities detectedLocation error at first detectLocation error at

engagementSensor settings

Engagement Measures:Number of threats destroyedNumber of RAAF units

destroyedLoss Exchange Ratio

1. Define the problem1. Define the problem

2. Develop analysis plan2. Develop analysis plan

3. Define Measures3. Define Measures

4. 4. Produce resultsProduce results

5. Analyse results5. Analyse results

6. Prove the results6. Prove the results

7. Document results7. Document results

Evaluation Process

Use FLEWSE to run through each alternative of the scenario a large number of times and log measures to file

1. Define the problem1. Define the problem

2. Develop analysis plan2. Develop analysis plan

3. Define Measures3. Define Measures

4. Produce results4. Produce results

5. 5. Analyse resultsAnalyse results

6. Prove the results6. Prove the results

7. Document results7. Document results

Evaluation Process

Compare the results for each alternative and evaluate effectiveness of AGDE systems

Develop confidence measure over range of runs

1. Define the problem1. Define the problem

2. Develop analysis plan2. Develop analysis plan

3. Define Measures3. Define Measures

4. Produce results4. Produce results

5. Analyse results5. Analyse results

6. 6. Prove the resultsProve the results

7. Document results7. Document results

Evaluation Process

Undertake sensitivity analysis and prove statistical significance

1. Define the problem1. Define the problem

2. Develop analysis plan2. Develop analysis plan

3. Define Measures3. Define Measures

4. Produce results4. Produce results

5. Analyse results5. Analyse results

6. Prove the results6. Prove the results

7. 7. Document resultsDocument results

Evaluation Process

Brief client, write report

The focus of ADF EW procurements for many years has been on EW self protection as a last resort in missile defence.

The 2009 Defence White Paper has put increased emphasis on networked operations, including EW operations.

For example, the sharing of EW sensed information across force elements for situational awareness

Evaluating the capability benefit of EW for networked operations is a very different activity to that of EW for platform self protection.

DSTO has developed a methodology to evaluate the benefit of EW systems to support force level ADF operations.

This methodology ant tool provides a means of comparing EW technologies, force-mix options, and CONOPS to measure mission success.

Summary

QUESTIONS??