UK Based Firings for Surface Attack Complex Weapons: A

© Copyright QinetiQ Limited 2012

1

UK Based Firings for Surface Attack Complex Weapons: A Discussion Paper

Dr Adrian Britton , Technical Manager, Weapons Division, QinetiQ

[email protected] / [email protected]

15th November 2012

QINETIQ/MS/WD/CP1203122


Introduction

It is very common for UK Complex Weapons to undergo a significant proportion of their trials in support of development, acceptance and through-life support overseas

A high level question has been asked : ‘how can we undertake more development and testing of land attack weapons in the UK?’

This paper will discuss

• Why do more UK based Evaluation and Testing (E&T)

• The needs of both the User and Developer for weapon firing trials

• Pose a hybrid approach to allow more UK based firing trials

• Enabling such a capability if desired

The key aims of the presentation are to open debate on

• Whether a UK based approach could meet the needs of the User and developer

• Are there any real benefits of more UK based E&T

2


Problem boundary

Considering primarily future medium/long range stand-off weapons for land targets

• Weapon control via pre-planning and/or datalink

• GPS based navigation solution

• Semi-autonomous target acquisition and guidance

UK Capability already exists for air-air and maritime weapons

3


Capability Acceptance – A reminder

Acceptance of the Military Capability

• Verification of each of the DLODs contributing to a Military Capability (SRD).

• Integration across the DLODs and Through Life into Military Capability and the Validation of that Military Capability (URD)

• Acceptance of contract is only a part

‘Identifying and managing technical and operational risks – and hence time and cost – through the programme’*

Purpose is to gain sufficient confidence

• That MoD have receives what it has paid for

• That it is safe to use

• That it is ‘fit for purpose’ in the military context across all DLODS and through life

Optimally combine the needs of the weapon developer and the User within an integrated E&T programme (Combined test team)

* Defence T&E Strategy 2008

Safe

to use

What we

asked for

Fit for

purpose

System Acceptance Appro

ved Safe

ty C

ase

User

Accepta

nce

Safe

to use

What we

asked for

Fit for

purpose

System Acceptance Appro

ved Safe

ty C

ase

User

Accepta

nce


Why do we do firings?

During Demonstration and Manufacture (D&M)

• Contract Acceptance

− Elements of SRD addressed by the equipment are verified (range, lethality)

• System Acceptance

− Equipment integrates to other systems to achieve required installed performance (full SRD)

− Full end-end functional test (including loading etc.)

• In Service Date/IOC/FOC

− Development of Training, Tactics, Concepts and Doctrine

During In-service

• Operational training

• Continuing development of tactics

• Check end-end functionality following system changes (e.g. A/C OFP)

Firing trials are relatively expensive, but historically they do reveal emergent behaviours under conditions that can not be replicated (easily) on the ground

Integrated as

far as

practical

Needs

considered

early

unsafeseparation short wmv.wmv


Why do more within the UK?

Why are firings frequently done over-seas?

• Ability to fire weapons in a realistic environment and realistic targets

• Large well-instrumented range with a wide range of data products (Vidsel, NAWC)

• Safety case can be easier because of size of land mass

• Reduced risk of inclement weather

• Workshare on multi-national programmes

Benefits of UK based testing

• Do what is right for the programme - not linked to pre-defined deployments

• Development and training are more easily integrated into increasingly busy flying programme

• Flexibility to unexpected events both for tester and developer

• All the necessary people can be made available at short notice/no time zone issues

• Cheaper

• Reduced foreign exposure of emerging UK Capability (Security and UK PLC)

6


Long range surface attack : A typical mission profile

7

Mission Planning and

Tasking

Potential re-tasking, Engage and Assess


System proving : Weapon developer perspective

8

Safe release

and jettison

Weapon safe control,

data-link performance

Navigation integrity

and robustness Seeker

Performance

Seeker and

guidance

performance

Warhead

performance

Mission

planner


Evaluation & Test to support development

9

Demonstrate safe

launch and jettison

Demonstrate weapon

navigation and control Demonstrate closed loop

guidance

Warhead

performance on

current UK ranges

Use of sea ranges Small land range with

simple vignettes?

If these can be integrated within a wider system model, would it provide a capability to satisfy the needs of the weapon

developer?

Demonstrate target

acquisition across range of

vignettes

Large land range with

complex vignettes

Requires weapon drop

No weapon drop

Demonstrate

mission planner


E&T Needs- Weapon development

• Safe Airspace/Land space w/o need for weapon engagement

• Data to validate sub-system design and system models

• Data to understand performance in complex vignettes

• Proof of sub-system functionality

• Safe Airspace/Land space with need for weapon engagement

• End-end non-warshot firings to support system functionality and Certificate of Design

• Synthetic environment/simulation and modelling

• Development of training solutions

• Support joint requirements exploration/trading

• Development of mission planner/weapon controller

• Full end-end system performance assessment

10

Large land range to

allow complex

vignette, low infra-

structure

requirements

Sea range and

adjacent small land

range to allow simple

vignettes, high safety

infra-structure

requirements

Integrated wrapper


System acceptance – User perspective

11

Mission planning

training Release

envelope

Installed Performance Tactics & Training Front-line support

Targeting,

establishing

and

maintaining

Positive ID

Cooperative

engagements

Weapon monitoring and

control

Weapon Effects

Effects of

countermeasures


E&T Needs – User

12

From a user perspective, where are the gaps in this construct?

Collaborative targeting,

maintaining positive ID

against vignettes on

SPTA/Spade Adam etc

Relative simple end-end

engagements as per weapon

development to support weapon

control training and weapon

effects

SE/Simulation

Wrapper via the

training solution

Requires weapon drop

No weapon drop


Installed performance and emerging requirements

Previous slide outlines approach to training for targeting, firing and weapon control but does not cover adequately

• Demonstrating and understanding installed performance

• Establishing that all parts of the system interact as expected

• Confidence in targeting and weapon sensor integration

• Establishing performance in new scenarios through weapon life

• How to provide knowledge, tactics and advice to front-line for firing against new targets/scenarios/countermeasures

Currently difficult to model these within an SE due to difficulty of modelling targets and scene as perceived jointly by targeting infra-structure and weapon sensors

• A key challenge is target acquisition

• Guidance can be assessed in suitable weapon models if basic capability is proven

13


A through-life test-bed

• Demonstration programme will include development of representative test bed weapon/sensor

• Needed for seeker development and to establish performance

• Should be integrated onto fast-jet platform

• Should contain ability to network to targeting infra-structure if necessary

• Maintaining this through life would provide a vehicle for exploring performance in new scenarios

• Could be integrated and used at short notice

• Does not need live weapon-drop to establish key performance information and advice

14

Photo courtesy of MBDA


E&T Needs – User

Wider DLOD and Through-life

• Safe airspace and land mass w/o need for weapon engagement

• Training for establishing and maintaining a positive target ID over complex vignettes

• Training for cooperation between multiple platforms

• Tactics and performance in new scenarios

• Captive carry weapons/test-bed to understand performance

• Safe airspace and land mass with need for weapon engagement

• Real world training for weapon control

• Experience with end-end engagements

• Training for Battle Damage Assessment

• Synthetic environment

• Development of Concepts and Doctrine, tactics and training

15

Large land range to

allow complex

vignette, low infra-

structure

requirements

Sea range and

adjacent small land

range to allow simple

vignettes, high safety

infra-structure

requirements

Integrated wrapper


UK Based Firings

• Where?

• West Freugh/Cape Wrath/others/re-allocation of current land range/training area

• Location driven by debate on needs of User and developer

• How?

• Layered Safety systems to allow reduction of danger area

• Via Weapon design

• Weapon data-link

• Navigation and safe corridors/keep out zones

• Via range

• Inherent safety/trials control infra-structure

• Flight termination system

• Telemetry and range instrumentation to maximise the value of each firing

• Representative targets, probably mobile

16


Timeliness

Different build standards for operational and training requirements are undesirable for cost and complexity reasons

• Weapon based safety systems need to be part of inherent design and captured early

• Exploitation of weapon data-link rather than need for TOMs/be-spoke FTS for example (additional IERs?)

• Needs wide stakeholder buy-in

• Requires early and close dialogue between User, weapon prime and range operator

• Essential that any design drivers are captured early in weapon design cycle or in-service upgrade cycle

• Needs to be captured though URD/SRD

• Embodied before design freeze

17


Summary

Have suggested that majority of the development and training needs of both weapon developer and User could be met through an integrated approach to E&T in the UK that includes constrained end-end firings

Objective of the presentation is to prompt discussion

• What has been missed in terms of needs?

• Will staying within the UK enable real benefits?

• Do we believe that a viable acceptance case be developed in this way?

• Can the through-life needs be met?

• Can the overarching model validation be done?

• Is there real case for the investment?

If it is believed viable and beneficial

• Requirement needs to captured early

• Dialogue between user/sponsor, weapon developer and ranges initiated early

18


Abbreviations

19

A/C Aircraft D&M Development & Manufacture DLOD Defence Line of Development E&T Evaluation and Testing FOC Final Operating Capability IER Information Exchange Requirements IOC Initial Operating Capability OFP Operational Flight Programme SRD System Requirement Document TOM Telemetered Operational Missile URD User Requirement Document w/o without

Documents

UK Based Firings for Surface Attack Complex Weapons: A