© 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
© Copyright QinetiQ Limited 2012
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
© Copyright QinetiQ Limited 2012
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
© Copyright QinetiQ Limited 2012
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
© Copyright QinetiQ Limited 2012
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
© Copyright QinetiQ Limited 2012
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
© Copyright QinetiQ Limited 2012
Long range surface attack : A typical mission profile
7
Mission Planning and
Tasking
Potential re-tasking, Engage and Assess
© Copyright QinetiQ Limited 2012
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
© Copyright QinetiQ Limited 2012
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
© Copyright QinetiQ Limited 2012
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
© Copyright QinetiQ Limited 2012
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
© Copyright QinetiQ Limited 2012
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
© Copyright QinetiQ Limited 2012
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
© Copyright QinetiQ Limited 2012
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
© Copyright QinetiQ Limited 2012
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
© Copyright QinetiQ Limited 2012
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
© Copyright QinetiQ Limited 2012
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
© Copyright QinetiQ Limited 2012
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
© Copyright QinetiQ Limited 2012
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