Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
5 October 2005
Lynda RutledgeDirector, Direct Attack Systems Group
AAC/DASG
Air Armament Center Directed Energy Activities
31st ANNUAL AIR ARMAMENT SYMPOSIUM
2
INTRODUCTION
DE Technology Changes the Battlespace
DE Technology is Transformational
– Revolutionary vs Evolutionary
– DE Warfare Rewrites the Rules
Required To Maintain Technological Edge
Requires Adjustment in Conventional Thinking
How Do We Get Directed Energy Systems Fielded?How Do We Get Directed Energy Systems Fielded?
3
BACKGROUND
2004 Air Armament Symposium Recommended Establishment of a Directed Energy IPT
AAC Hosted Directed Energy Workshop 8-10 Feb Focused On Armament Application Bring Labs, Warfighters, Industry, Acquisition Together To
Determine:
– How We Can Help Warfighters Use DE To Create Desired Effects On Battlefield Cheaper And/Or Better Than Conventional Systems
– How We Connect Warfighter, Industry, Acquisition and Lab Communities To Speed Transition
Desired Outcome: Establish “State Of The Union” Map Out Common Way Ahead For Armament Application Of DE
4
WORKSHOP RECOMMENDATIONS
Establish IPT to Provide Path Forward for Weaponization of DE Technology
Recommendations in 6 Months
Assess Through Three Working Groups
– Systems Integration & Demonstration WG
– Modeling Simulation & Effectiveness WG
– Military Worth Objectives WG
5
DIRECTED ENERGY IPT
Modeling & Simulation WG
System Integration & Demo WG
Leadership Group
Military Worth WG
Define the “So What?”
Prove the “So What?” Measure the “So What?”
RE
CO
MM
EN
DA
TIO
NS
6
LEADERSHIP WG
AAC/XRS Lynda Rutledge, Chair ACC/A8MS Col Lou Berrena AF/XORW Col John Croghan AF/XORE Col Richard Rankin AFCSO Col Michael Edwards ACC/A8MS Lt Col Glenn Panaro AFRL/DE Dr Simpson AFRL/DE Dr Hussey AAC/AGMSW Terrance May ASC/XRS Len Pohlar ATK Mark Fleenor Boeing Carl Avila Lockheed Martin Steve Kress/Ron Knight Northrop Grumman Dan Wildt Northrop Grumman Chris Wallace Raytheon Mike Booen Raytheon Myke Holt
7
DIRECTED ENERGY IPT
Modeling & Simulation WG
System Integration & Demo WG
Leadership Group
Military Worth WG
Evaluate DE Systems Technology/ Acquisition Maturity
Assess Feasibility Of Executing A Demo To Prove Desired Military Worth
Plan Systems Level Demonstration Program
MatureSystems
Candidates
MatureSystems
Candidates
8
SYSTEMS INTEGRATION / DEMO MEMBERSHIP
AAC/XRS Steve Whitten-Chair AFSOC/XPT Lt Col Mike Ward AAC/XRS Ron Rapp, Mike Bowen AAC/AGMSW Russ Klug AFRL/DET/DEH Cynthia Kaiser, Ken Yates,
Steve Langdon, Dave Crook 46th TW Bob Stovall AFRL/MN Jerry Provenza ATK Don Sullivan Boeing Steve Seto Lockheed-Martin Steve Kress Northrop-Grumman Steve Bos Raytheon Al Steichen
SYSTEMS INTEGRATION & DEMONSTRATION WORKING GROUP . . .
9
IDENTIFIED POTENTIAL SYSTEMS
Contacted Other Govt Agencies
– AFRL/DE, Army, Navy, OSD, DHS
Contacted Industry System Integrators
– ATK, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon
Requested Concepts Ready For:
– Milestone A or ACTD (TRL 4) Within 2 - 4 Yrs
– Milestone B (TRL 6) Within 5 - 7 Years
SYSTEMS INTEGRATION & DEMONSTRATION WORKING GROUP . . .
10
DE SYSTEMS EVALUATED
HIGH ENERGY LASERS (HEL)– Advanced Tactical Laser
– Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL)
– Laser with Relay Mirrors
– Laser Counter Man Portable Air Defense Systems (ManPADS)
HIGH POWER MICROWAVE (HPM)
– Active Denial
– Engine Stopper
– Counter IED
– HPM Counter ManPADS
– Airborne Counter Electronics
SYSTEMS INTEGRATION & DEMONSTRATION WORKING GROUP . . .
11
TECHNOLOGY READINESS LEVELS (TRL)
HEL Systems
– Tactical Lasers
Chemical
Solid State
– Laser w/Relay Mirrors
– Counter ManPADS
HPM Systems
– Active Denial
– Counter-IED
– Counter-ManPADS
– Engine Stopper
– Counter Electronics
TRL 7TRL 7
TRL 3
TRL 6TRL 6
TRL 4TRL 4
TRL 5TRL 5
TRL 3
TRL 4TRL 4
TRL 4TRL 4
SYSTEM TRL
TRL 4TRL 4
SYSTEMS INTEGRATION & DEMONSTRATION WORKING GROUP . . .
Several DE Systems Mature Enough to Proceed to System DemoSeveral DE Systems Mature Enough to Proceed to System Demo
12
DIRECTED ENERGY IPT
Modeling & Simulation WG
Leadership Group
Military Worth WG
Identify Baseline Analysis Capability
Identify Shortfalls In Analysis Capability For Selected Systems
Conduct Preliminary Mission/Campaign Level Analysis
System Integration & Demo WG
MatureSystems
Candidates
SystemEffects
13
MODELING, SIMULATION & EFFECTIVENESS MEMBERSHIP
AFRL/DETA Linda Lamberson, Chair ACC/A8YM Cam Shontz AFSAA/SAFC Bill Troy AAC/ENA Ian Talbot 46th TW Bob Stovall ATK Greg Skidmore Boeing Lynn Bonsail Boeing Jerry Bukley Boeing Steve Seto Boeing Jeremy Sato Lockheed-Martin Steve Calico Lockheed-Martin Mike Bright Lockheed-Martin Chris Murphy Northrop-Grumman Michelle Creedon Northrop-Grumman Bob Antinone Raytheon Sean Miller Raytheon Andy Paul
MODELING, SIMULATION AND EFFECTIVENESS WORKING GROUP . . .
14
Models & Data Sufficient To Support Mil Worth Assessment Chemical Laser
Solid State Laser
Laser w/Relay Mirrors
Counter-ManPADS - Laser
Active Denial
Counter-ManPADS - HPM
Counter Electronics Models & Data Not Yet Sufficient To Support Mil Worth Assessment
Counter-IED
Engine Stopper
ABILITY TO ASSESS SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Need To Continue Maturing DE Modeling and SimulationNeed To Continue Maturing DE Modeling and Simulation
MODELING, SIMULATION AND EFFECTIVENESS WORKING GROUP . . .
15
Significant Portion Of Target Set Held at Risk
Reduced Blue Attrition
Reduced Time to Complete Campaign
CAMPAIGN ANALYSIS
When Notional DE Concepts Were Inserted in Campaign Level Analysis:
DE Concepts Proved Promising in Preliminary AnalysisDE Concepts Proved Promising in Preliminary Analysis
MODELING, SIMULATION AND EFFECTIVENESS WORKING GROUP . . .
16
DIRECTED ENERGY IPT
Modeling & Simulation WG
Leadership Group
Military Worth WG
Quantify the Benefit of DE Applications and Assess Against Current and Projected Capability and Threat
Identify Highest Payoff DE Applications for Warfighter
Identify Any Shortfalls That Prevent Capturing The Military Worth
System Integration & Demo WG
SystemEffects
MatureSystems
Candidates
17
MILITARY WORTH MEMBERSHIP
ACC/A8MS Lt Col Glenn Panaro, Chair AF/XORW Dave Detore AF/XOR Dr. Howard Meyer ACC/A8YF Major Eric Carlson AFSOC/XPT Lt Col Mike Ward AFSAA/SAFC Bill Troy AFRL/DETA Larry Grimes AAC/XRC Joe Shearer AAC/ENA Darryl Thornton ATK Bob Blake Boeing Phil Dunlap Boeing Lee Gutheinz Boeing Rich Niksch Boeing Paul Korb Lockheed-Martin Tom Burris Northrop Grumman Steve Boss Northrop-Grumman Chris Wallace Northrop-Grumman Richard Dunn Raytheon Myke Holt
MILITARY WORTH WORKING GROUP . . .
18
MILITARY WORTH ASSESSMENT
Evaluated Against Three Scenarios
– Global War on Terrorism (GWOT)
– Urban Operations (UO)
– Anti-Access (AA)
Evaluated Against Three Master Capabilities Library (MCL) Functional Areas
– 1.0 Surveillance and Reconnaissance
– 5.0 Force Application
– 7.0 Force Protection
Evaluated Against I-CRRA Objectives
Compared With Current Conventional Systems
MILITARY WORTH WORKING GROUP . . .
19
MIL WORTH EVALUATION RESULTS
SYSTEM
MCL 7Force
Protect
MCL 1ISR
GWOTUOAA
DE Bettervs
Conventional
I-CRRA
9-Strong 3-Moderate 1-Weak 0-No
MCL 5Force
Application
MILITARY WORTH WORKING GROUP . . .
HEL Systems
– Tactical Lasers
– Laser w/Relay Mirrors
– Counter ManPADS
HPM Systems
– Active Denial
– Counter-IED
– Counter-ManPADS
– Engine Stopper
– Counter Electronics
Contribution
20
MILITARY WORTH ATTRIBUTES of DIRECTED ENERGY SYSTEMS
Rapid Response Engagement (Speed Of Light )
Surgical / Ultra-Precision Strike
Scalable Effects: Adjustable Dwell / Power
Low Collateral Damage Compared To Current Systems
MILITARY WORTH WORKING GROUP . . .
21
INTEGRATED EVALUATION RESULTS
MIL WORTHWG 40%
M&S WG20%
SYSTEM INTG & DEMO WG 40%
Strong Moderate Moderate Weak No
Contribution
HEL Systems
– Chemical Laser
– Solid State Laser
– Relay Mirrors w/SSL
– Relay Mirror w/Chemical
– Counter ManPADS
HPM Systems
– Active Denial
– Counter IED
– Counter ManPADS
– Engine Stopper
– Counter Electronics
INTEGRATEDASSESSMENT
22
RECOMMENDED DEMO CANDIDATES
Ground Based Counter- ManPAD System
– Real World Threat Identified
Tactical Laser System with Relay Mirror
– Solution for a Number of Missions
Enabling Demonstrations for Future Airborne System While Still Meeting Current Requirements
Enabling Demonstrations for Future Airborne System While Still Meeting Current Requirements
23
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE ?
Directed Energy IPT
– Continue and Expand Membership of Directed Energy IPT
– Maintain Momentum for Cooperative DE Systems
– Baseline / Develop Modeling and Simulation
Pursue System Demonstrations
– Counter ManPADs
– Tactical Laser System w/ Relay Mirror Spiral
24
COUNTER-MANPADSPATH FORWARD
Baseline Missile Detection Tracking (MDT) & Vulnerability Analysis–FY06
Exit Criteria: Baseline Counter-ManPADS MDT DE Effects Characterization Against ManPADS
Conduct Counter-ManPADS FY07 ACTD
Phase 1 Exit Criteria: Demonstrate Initial Target Acquisition and Track
Phase 2 Exit Criteria: Deliver System With Demonstrated Effective Kill Mechanism, C2, and a Mature MDT
25
LASER WITH RELAY MIRRORPATH FORWARD
AFRL/DE Continue Laser w/Relay Mirrors Risk Reduction Demo
Exit Criteria: Baseline MDT & DE Effects Characterization
Conduct FY08 Systems Level Demonstration
Exit Criteria: Demonstrate Relay Mirror System Functionality
Demonstrate Missile, Detect and Track
Demonstrate Effective Kill Against Airborne Target
AFRL/DE Continue Laser w/Relay Mirrors Risk Reduction Demo
Exit Criteria: Baseline MDT & DE Effects Characterization
Conduct FY08 Systems Level Demonstration
Exit Criteria: Demonstrate Relay Mirror System Functionality
Demonstrate Missile, Detect and Track
Demonstrate Effective Kill Against Airborne Target
26
FINAL THOUGHTS
It Took 100 years to Crawl, Walk, Run From Wright Flyer to F/A-22
P-40 P-40 F-86 F-86 F/A-22F/A-22 Wright Flyer Wright Flyer
DE Strike FighterUCAVWPN
DE Strike FighterUCAVWPN
To Develop DE Strike Fighter, DE UCAV and DE Gunship We’re Ready to Leave Crawling Phase and
Begin Walking Phase
To Develop DE Strike Fighter, DE UCAV and DE Gunship We’re Ready to Leave Crawling Phase and
Begin Walking Phase
DE Technology TodayDE Technology Today
1903 2003
1960s 2005 20??
Last Slide
