AIAA Tactical Interceptor Design Symposium Enhanced Counter Air Projectile (ECAP) System Engineering January 16, 2004

1. AIAA Tactical Interceptor Design SymposiumEnhanced Counter Air Projectile (ECAP)System EngineeringJanuary 16, 2004 Dr. James Baumann US Army Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center Email: James.Baumann1@us.army.mil Phone: 256-842-6151 Session 2 - Technology Summaries

2. Outline • The System Engineering Process • Operational Requirement • Threat Characteristics (physical characteristics of the threat weapon) • Threat Scenarios (how the enemy would employ a weapon) • Operational Requirement • System Performance Specification • Key Performance Parameters • Performance Verification • Functional Analysis • Key Performance Parameters • Performance Verification • Design Synthesis • Key Performance Parameters • Performance Verification • Design Trades • Key Performance Parameters • Performance Verification • Performance Assessment • Key Performance Parameters • Performance Verification • Program Plan • Key Performance Parameters • Performance Verification Session 2 - Technology Summaries

3. What is System Engineering? Three commonly used definitions of systems engineering are provided by the best known technical standards that apply to this subject. They all have a common theme: • A logical sequence of activities and decisions that transforms an operational need into a description of system performance parameters and a preferred system configuration. (MIL-STD-499A, Engineering Management, 1 May 1974. Now cancelled.) • An interdisciplinary approach that encompasses the entire technical effort, and evolves into and verifies an integrated and life cycle balanced set of system people, products, and process solutions that satisfy customer needs. (EIA Standard IS-632, Systems Engineering, December 1994.) • An interdisciplinary, collaborative approach that derives, evolves, and verifies a life-cycle balanced system solution which satisfies customer expectations and meets public acceptability. (IEEE P1220, Standard for Application and Management of the Systems Engineering Process, [Final Draft], 26 September 1994.) In summary, systems engineering is an interdisciplinary engineering management process that evolves and verifies an integrated, life-cycle balanced set of system solutions that satisfy customer needs. References: • Systems Engineering Fundamentals. Fort Belvoir, VA: Defense Acquisition University Press. • Defense Acquisition University Server: http://www.dau.mil • Blanchard, Benjamin and Fabrycky, W, System Engineeing and Analysis, 2nd Edition, Prentice Hall, 1990 Session 2 - Technology Summaries

4. System Engineering Management Integrates Activities • Development Phasing that controls the design process and provides baselines that coordinate design efforts • Systems Engineering Process that provides a structure for solving design problems and tracking requirements flow through the design effort • Life cycle integration that involves customers in the design process and and ensures that the system developed is viable throughout its life. Configuration Baselines Concept Level: Produces a System Concept Description System Level: Produces a System Description (Performance Requirement) Subsystem Level: Produces Subsystem Performance Descriptions The systems engineering process is applied to each level, one level at a time, to produce descriptions called configuration baselines. These baselines become more detailed with each level. Session 2 - Technology Summaries

5. Customer Needs and Mission Specifications and Configuration Baseline Why Use A System Engineering Process? A structured but flexible process that transforms requirements into specifications, architectures, and configuration baselines.(“architecture” is a description of how the subsystems join together to form the system) The Functional Architecture identifies and structures the allocated functional and performance requirements The Physical Architecture depicts the system product by showing how it is broken down into subsystems and components The System Architecture identifies all products necessary to support the system and the processes necessary for the “Life-cycle” Attributes • Top-down, comprehensive, iterative and recursive applied sequentially through all stages of development • Transform needs and requirements into a set of system product and process descriptions • Generate information for decision makers • Provides input for the next level of development. • Provides control and traceability to develop solutions that meet customer needs • The Systems Engineering Process is applied to each level of development, one level at a time • May be repeated one or more times during any phase of the development process Systems Engineering activities are Requirements Analysis, Functional Analysis and Allocation, and Design Synthesis Session 2 - Technology Summaries

6. Requirements Analysis Requirements Loop Functional Analysis and Allocation Requirements Analysis,Functional Analysis and Allocationand the Requirements Loop • Requirements Analysis(Define functional and performance requirements) - Begin by analyzing the Customer Needs and Mission Requirements - Develop Functional Requirements that qualitatively define what functions are required - Develop Performance Requirements to quantify performance associated with the functions (translate customer needs into testable specifications that define system performance) • Functional Analysis and Allocation(Decompose functions and allocate performance) - Decomposing higher-level functions into lower-level functions - Performance Requirements associated with the higher level are allocated to lower functions (Item description in terms of what it does and the performance required - Functional Architecture) (tools are Functional Flow Block Diagrams, Time Line Analysis, and the Requirements Allocation Sheet) • Requirements Loop - Functional Analysis produces understanding and reconsideration of Requirements Analysis - Each function identified should be traceable back to a requirement The iterative process of revisiting requirements analysis as a result of functional analysis and allocation is referred to as the Requirements Loop Session 2 - Technology Summaries

7. Functional Analysis and Allocation Design Loop Design Synthesis Requirements Analysis,Design Synthesisand the Design Loop • Functional Analysis and Allocation(Decompose functions and allocate performance) - Decomposing higher-level functions into lower-level functions - Performance requirements associated with the higher level are allocated to lower functions (item description in terms of what it does and the performance required-functional architecture) (tools are Functional Flow Block Diagrams, Time Line Analysis, and the Requirements Allocation Sheet) • Design Synthesis - Each part must meet at least one functional requirement, and any part may support many functions - Basic structure for generating the specifications and baselines (Item description in terms of the physical and software elements – Physical Architecture) • Design Loop - Similar to the requirements loop, the design loop permits reconsideration of how the system will perform its mission, and this helps optimize the synthesized design. The iterative process of revisiting the functional architecture to verify that the physical design synthesized can perform the required functions at required levels of performance is referred to as the Design Loop Session 2 - Technology Summaries

8. System Analysis & Balancing Requirements Analysis Requirements Loop Functional Analysis and Allocation Design Loop Design Synthesis System Analysis • System analysis includes trade-off studies, system effectiveness analyses, and design analyses to evaluate alternative approaches to satisfy technical requirements and program objectives • Provides a quantitative basis for selecting performance, functional, and design requirements (analysis tools include modeling, simulation, experimentation, and test) • System engineering process is the engine that drives the balanced development of system products and processes applied to each level of development, one level at a time. • The process provides an increasing level of descriptive detail of products and processes with each system engineering process application • The output of each application is the input to the next process application. Session 2 - Technology Summaries

9. ECAP Customer’s Need to Negate Rockets, Artillery, and Mortars (RAM) R o c k e t s Iranian 107 mm Single-Tube Rocket Launcher  Russian Smerch MLRS 300 mm 9M55K Rocket A r t i l l e r y Mobile 105mm Gun System from Canada Type-66 152-mm Gun from China D-30 120-mm Gun from Russia M o r t a r s Session 2 - Technology Summaries Iranian 60 mm Mortar Russian 82 mm Vasilyek 2B9 Chinese 82 mm W99 Automatic Mortar Sources: Open Literature and Judy Liaw’s research, UAH Student

10. ECAP Required Operational Capability • General Description of Operational Capability:The ECAP will provide protection against threat saturation attacks, denying threat attack options and minimizing the threat impact. • Threat:The ECAP will provide protection against attacks by RAM, UAVs, CMs, and RW. • Shortcomings of Existing System:No existing or programmed system with a capability to negate rockets, artillery and mortar (RAM) with mechanical fuzes after they are launched. No existing capability against saturation attack. No known current or planned weapon approaches the requirement. • ECAP Capabilities: - 90% probability of killing an incoming target with 10 rounds (objective) to 15 rounds (threshold) - effective range from 0.5 km to a maximum effective range of 2 km (threshold) or 4 km. (objective) - ability to kill RAM threats in flight between 2km and 4 from the ECAP shooter - ability to engage multiple incoming projectiles from same launch platform – “Saturation Attack” - must operate day or night in all weather conditions - munitions is to work interchangeably with other 40mm, gun launched munitions - have similar transportability, reliability, maintainability, and availability as conventional 40mm ammunition Session 2 - Technology Summaries

11. ECAP Requirements Analysis (Step 1:Analyzing Customer Needs and Mission Requirements) Baseline threat for ECAP Study Purposes => “Design Point” Sources: Open Literature and Judy Liaw’s research, UAH Student Class RAM (Primary Threat) AIRCRAFT (Secondary Threat) Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) Cruises Missiles (CM) Rotary Wing (RW) Mortars (M) Artillery (A) Rockets (R) Category Type Light/Medium/Heavy Light/Medium/Heavy Small/Medium/Large ECAP Threat Characteristics Size (mm) 600 3000 500 x 2000 82 – 120 - 160 105 / 122 / 152 122 / 240 / 300 Radar Cross Section - - - 15 Dbsm ? Thermal Signature - - - Range (km) 0.8 - 4 / 1 – 6 / 2 - 8 3-18 / 5-20 / 10–30 8-20 / 8 – 45 / 20 - 70 Velocity (m/sec) 500 500 500 Time of Flight (sec) 10 - 50 16-40 / 16-90 / 40-140 10 - 50 Flight Altitude (m) 100-1000 (ballistic) 100-1000 (ballistic) 100-1000 (ballistic) ECAP Threat Scenarios Volley (#/minute) 16 - 40 30 - 60 2 - 35 Duration (sec) 60 – 120 15 - 60 120 Threat Location # of Launchers Session 2 - Technology Summaries

12. ECAP Requirements Loop (Step 2: Developing Functional and Performance Requirements) ECAP Threat Set From ECAP Requirements Analysis RAM AIRCRAFT Artillery Mortars Rockets CM UAV RW Size (mm) 82 – 120 - 160 105 / 122 / 152 122 / 240 / 300 Radar Cross Section Range (km) 0.8 - 8 3 - 30 8 - 70 Velocity (m/sec) 500 500 500 Flight Altitude (m) 100-1000 (ballistic) Performance Requirements Functions Required to Defeat the Threat Explode the rocket (required) Function the warhead (desired) Shell Wall Thickness Lethality Guidance Projectile Fire Control BMC4I Guide projectile to lethal region (Hit-to-kill or Blast Fragmentation) Small Signature Shooter Use existing gun system Miniaturization and Control Provide target acquisition and engagement Small Response Time Coordinate with command and control and other fire units Network Latency System Integration (ECAP description in terms of what it does and the performance required - Functional Architecture) Session 2 - Technology Summaries

13. Fire Control Projectile BMC4I Guidance Lethality ECAPFunctional Analysis and Allocation Time Line Analysis 4 km Kill Launch Projectiles 2 km Kill 100m to 1000m Detection 0.5km-2km Kill (threshold) 0.5km-4km Kill (objective) t=16 t=0 t=2 t=8 t=12 8km Launch Range Functional Flow Block Diagram Hit-to-kill or initiate proximity fuze for blast fragmentation warhead Rocket radar signature above horizon Detection by acquisition sensor Track target and compute trajectory for intercept Guide interceptors to intercept point Perform terminal guidance Launch Projectiles Fire Control Sensor Datalink Network Control Power Miniature Computer Aero & Structures Propulsion FC Illuminator Seeker Guidance Navigation Analysis Warhead/Fuze Session 2 - Technology Summaries

14. ECAP Weapon System ECAP Gun Platform Acquisition Sensor Hardware/Software Breakdown ECAP Projectile ECAP Shell Guidance Illuminator Guidance Sensor Guidance Algorithms Actuators & Controls Computer & Electronics Power Structures & Packaging Warhead & Fuze BMC4I ECAP Design Loop (Item description in terms of the physical and software elements – Physical Architecture ) ECAP Hardware/Software Trade-Space DESIGN OPTIONS (Single barrel - Multiple barrels - Multiple Platforms) Radar (band) - Infrared (wavelength) - Multiple Sensors - Other < 40mm - = 40mm - > 40mm Shell casing - Caseless Shell None - Command Guidance - Beam Rider - Homing - Combination Passive - Semi-Active - Active - Combination - Other Radar - LADAR - Infrared - Visible - Multi-Mode - Other Spoilers - Thrusters - Bent Nose - Lifting Surface - Split Petal Flare - Body Flap - Flow Control Computer & Electronics Power Structures & Packaging Penetrator - Fragmentation - Unitary - Shaped Charge DESIGN REQUIREMENTS Utilize smallest existing gun Maximize detection range Utilize existing projectile Utilize existing projectile Accuracy for lethality, Cost Accuracy for lethality, Cost Accuracy for lethality ?? Kj energy, type, dimensions STEPS DESIGN ELEMENT Gun Platform Acquisition Sensor Projectile Shell Guidance Concepts Homing Configurations Homing Sensors Actuators & Controls Computer & Electronics Power Structures & Packaging Warhead & Fuze 2 3 Session 2 - Technology Summaries 1

15. ECAP Guidance Trades Projectile Launch Range (greater than Kill Range) GUIDANCE APPROACH 1 km 2 km 3 km 4 km 5 km None Command Beam Rider Homing Passive Visible IR Semi-active RF Laser Active RF LADAR Multi-Mode RF/IR RF/IR/Laser Other Session 2 - Technology Summaries

16. ECAP Critical Technologies ECAP Threat Set From ECAP Requirements Analysis RAM AIRCRAFT Artillery Mortars Rockets CM UAV RW Size (mm) 82 – 120 - 160 105 / 122 / 152 122 / 240 / 300 Radar Cross Section Range (km) 0.8 - 8 3 - 30 8 - 70 Velocity (m/sec) 500 500 500 Flight Altitude (m) 100-1000 (ballistic) Functions Required to Defeat the Threat Technology Demonstrated: Red = none, Yellow = Demonstrated/Not Integrated, Green = Off-the-Shelf Shell Wall Thickness Lethality Guidance Projectile Fire Control BMC4I Small Signature Shooter Miniaturization and Control Small Response Time Network Latency System Integration Session 2 - Technology Summaries

17. System Analysis Operational Studies System/ Technology Studies #4: System Performance Parameters • #2: Operational Scenarios • By Intensity of Conflict • - Peace Keeping • - Small-Scale Contingency • - • - Major Theater War • #1: Threat • Characteristics • Rockets • - Larger Caliber • - Meduim Caliber • - Small Caliber • Artillery • - Larger Caliber • - Small Caliber • Mortars • - Larger Caliber • - Small Caliber • UAVs • Cruise Missiles • Rotary Wing • Fixed Wing • Tactical Ballistic Msl • Others (TASM, SAM) Functional Decomposition #5: System Breakdown Structure Eliminate Non-Feasible Solutions #6: Preliminary Trades Identify “Show Stoppers” • #3: Operational • Requirements • Protect the: • - maneuver force, • and • - critical assets: • Typical assets defended • - Close Combat Forces • - Counter-fire Forces • - BMC3 Nodes • - Aviation • - Forward Area Log • - Other #7: System Concepts – Critical Technologies In-Depth Analysis supported by M&S verified by demonstrations #8: Detail Tradeoff Analyses Most Cost Effective Approach(s) defined by In-Depth Analysis supported by M&S verified by demonstrations #9: Best Technical Approach(s) Session 2 - Technology Summaries

18. Simulation Roadmap – Tools to Relate Component Performance to System MOPs • Threat Kinematics • Sensor Capabilities Missile Mapping Tool Battlespace Performance Maps Footprint Generator • Missile Design Variables • Propulsion • Aerodynamics • Guidance threat azimuth • Defensive Capability • Trades • Requirements • Interceptor characteristics • Sensor acquisition range • Time-of-flight • Acceleration • Velocity • Lethality Technology Drivers Defended Area Footprint REQUIREMENTS DEFINITION CONCEPT DEFINITION Mini-Rocket Trajectories AMCODE (Digital Glue) MissileDesign Code Suite Common Simulation Framework (Hi-Fi 6DOF Simulation) Genetic Algorithm Component & Flight Test Weapon System Buildup Concept Designs DESIGN COMPONENT & ELEMENT TEST • Optimize Measures-of-Performance • Interceptor • Interceptor mix • Sensor capability/interceptor performance Simulation Calibration USER FEEDBACK KEY: System Integration & Development MADS PROGRAM PATH System IOC SIMULATION SUPPORT PATH SYSTEM TEST USER FEEDBACK Constructive Simulation Session 2 - Technology Summaries