DOCSLIB.ORG

Application of Airborne Laser Scanner - Aerial Navigation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Application of Airborne Laser Scanner - Aerial Navigation APPLICATION OF AIRBORNE LASER SCANNER - AERIAL NAVIGATION A dissertation presented to the faculty of the Russ College of Engineering and Technology of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy Jacob L. Campbell June 2006 This dissertation entitled APPLICATION OF AIRBORNE LASER SCANNER- AERIAL NAVIGATION by JACOB L. CAMPBELL has been approved for the School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science and the Russ College of Engineering and Technology by Maarten Uijt de Haag Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Frank van Graas Fritz J. and Dolores H. Russ Professor of Electrical Engineering Dennis Irwin Dean, College of Engineering Abstract CAMPBELL, JACOB L., Ph.D., June 2006. Electrical Engineering APPLICATION OF AIRBORNE LASER SCANNER- AERIAL NAVIGATION (134 pp.) Directors of Dissertation: Maarten Uijt de Haag and Frank van Graas This dissertation explores the use of an Airborne Laser Scanner (ALS) for use in aircraft Terrain- Referenced Navigation (TRN). Position estimation techniques developed in this dissertation enable the use of large sets of high accuracy ALS measurements to solve for position in real-time. The explored techniques were then used to design, implement, and - for the first time ever - fly a real-time ALS-based TERRain Aided Inertial Navigator (TERRAIN) precision approach system. During the flight tests, the system provided meter-level horizontal and vertical positioning accuracies in real-time. The ALS-based TRN techniques discussed in the dissertation are constrained to the information found in the terrain shape domain. The data acquisition, pre-processing, and position estimation techniques of ALS TRN vary significantly from traditional radar altimeter-based TRN primarily due to differences in the measurement mechanism used in both TRN systems. First, traditional radar altimeter-based TRN senses the terrain contours traversed in the along-track direction, whereas ALS-based TRN makes measurements in the along-track and in the cross-track directions. The second difference is that the ALS laser’s milli-radian beamwidth has sufficient resolution to identify not only the ground, but also objects on the ground such as buildings. A radar altimeter with a beamwidth of several degrees can not observe the same level of detail. These differences increase the spectral content of the ground measurement data in the ALS-based system thus permitting high-accuracy position estimates. The described ALS TRN navigation techniques include methods to estimate the position based on the best match between ALS data and a high resolution/accuracy terrain database. Finally, the dissertation explores the certification path for an ALS-based landing system. Approved by: Maarten Uijt de Haag Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Frank van Graas Fritz J. and Dolores H. Russ Professor of Electrical Engineering To my parents - for their examples of integrity and a positive outlook. Acknowledgements This dissertation would not have been possible without the help of many fellow co- workers/students (which I prefer to call friends given all the good times we have had together performing this research). I can honestly say that the experiences I have been part of and the people I have met in the course of this research will be close to me for the rest of my life. First, I thank my fellow office mates, Jeff Dickman, Lukas Marti, Andrey Soloviev, and Ananth Vadlamani, for providing an excellent source of ideas during the countless discussions on the research. I also thank them for helping with the development of equipment and flight tests. For research support from NASA Langley I thank Steve Young, Rob Kudlinski, and Dan Baize who made the LIDAR data collection effort in Reno, NV possible. For the Reno, NV DC-8 flight test I thank the US Army for use of their LIDAR equipment, as well as the support staff from Optech for their expertise on the installation and help in the LIDAR data processing. I also thank the NASA DC-8 flying laboratory crew and support staff for their flexibility and help collecting the data and NOAA for the use of a LIDAR generated terrain map of the Reno area. With respect to the successful creation and testing of a proof-of-concept real-time laser scanner based approach system I thank Dr. van Graas and Dr. Uijt de Haag for help with the development and funding. I thank Jay Clark and his team at the Ohio University Airport for the customized installation of the equipment in the DC-3 aircraft, and thank the DC-3 pilots, Dr. McFarland and Bryan Branham, for their part in the successful flight tests at Braxton County Airport (K48I). I thank Delft University of Technology for the use of their Synthetic Vision / Flight Director display, and I thank the Canaan Valley Institute, specifically Sandra Frank, for providing the LIDAR data for K48I. I also thank my Dad, Steve Campbell, for help with the survey of K48I. I thank my Ph.D. committee members, Dr. Chris Bartone, Dr. Martin Molenkamp, and Dr. Jim Rankin, for their ideas and guidance from the topic proposal through their reviewing of this dissertation. And, I thank Dr. Mikel Miller for his support in editing my dissertation. Also, and most importantly, I thank my Co-Advisors, Dr. Maarten Uijt de Haag and Dr. Frank van Graas for the countless hours spent discussing the research in this dissertation, reviewing papers, and for their examples not only as great advisors, but also as great people. Finally I thank my wife, Nikki, for her support and love throughout my work on this dissertation, and most importantly I thank God for giving me the strength to complete my Ph.D. 6 Table of Contents Abstract............................................................................................................................................3 Acknowledgements..........................................................................................................................5 Acronyms / Abbreviations .............................................................................................................11 1. Introduction............................................................................................................................15 2. Background............................................................................................................................18 2.1. Terrain-Referenced Navigation History .......................................................................19 2.1.1. The Early Years, Analog Systems............................................................................19 2.1.2. Digital Age of Terrain Navigation ...........................................................................21 2.1.3. Bayesian Approaches to Terrain-Referenced Navigation Research ........................23 2.1.4. Beyond ‘Traditional’ Radar Altimeter Terrain-Referenced Navigation ..................23 2.2. Survey of Terrain-Based Navigation Systems..............................................................26 2.2.1. ATRAN – Automatic Terrain Recognition And Navigation ...................................26 2.2.2. TERCOM – TERrain COntour Matching ................................................................27 2.2.3. SITAN – Sandia Inertial Terrain-Aided Navigation ................................................29 2.2.4. SPARTAN – StockPot Algorithm Robust Terrain-Aided Navigation.....................30 2.2.5. TERPROM® – TERrain PROfile Matching.............................................................31 2.2.6. APALS® - Autonomous Precision Approach and Landing System.........................32 2.2.7. PTAN® - Precision Terrain Aided Navigation.........................................................33 2.3. Summary of Survey of Terrain-Based Navigation Systems.........................................34 2.4. System Characteristics: GPS, WAAS, INS, GPS-Aided INS, Coasting INS...............35 2.4.1. GPS ..........................................................................................................................35 2.4.2. WAAS......................................................................................................................36 2.4.3. Inertial Navigation ...................................................................................................36 2.4.4. GPS-Aided Inertial Calibration................................................................................37 3. Airborne Laser Scanner & LIght Detection And Ranging (LIDAR) Mapping Systems .......41 3.1. ALS Characteristics and Operation ..............................................................................41 3.1.1. ALS Laser Rangers ..................................................................................................41 3.1.2. ALS Scanning Mechanisms .....................................................................................43 3.1.3. ALS Pointing Accuracy Characteristics...................................................................47 3.2. ALS in a LIDAR Mapping System ..............................................................................49 3.2.1. Laser Scanner Sensor Errors ....................................................................................49 3.2.2. Kinematic GPS Sensor Errors..................................................................................50 3.2.3. GPS/IMU Orientation Sensor Errors........................................................................51 3.2.4. Total LIDAR
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Radars for the Detection and Tracking of Cruise Missiles Radars for the Detection and Tracking of Cruise Missiles
    • UPTON AND THURMAN Radars for the Detection and Tracking of Cruise Missiles Radars for the Detection and Tracking of Cruise Missiles Lee O. Upton and Lewis A. Thurman I The advent of the modern cruise missile, with reduced radar observables and the capability to fly at low altitudes with accurate navigation, placed an enormous burden on all defense weapon systems. Every element of the engagement process, referred to as the kill chain, from detection to target kill assessment, was affected. While the United States held the low-observable- technology advantage in the late 1970s, that early lead was quickly challenged by advancements in foreign technology and proliferation of cruise missiles to unfriendly nations. Lincoln Laboratory’s response to the various offense/defense trade-offs has taken the form of two programs, the Air Vehicle Survivability Evaluation program and the Radar Surveillance Technology program. The radar developments produced by these two programs, which became national assets with many notable firsts, is the subject of this article. , Defense Advance Research Projects Systems Command and the Office of Naval Research) Agency (DARPA) requested that Lincoln Labo- began sponsorship of a Lincoln Laboratory program, I ratory develop and lead a new program in air de- complementary to the AVSE program, which was fense against cruise missiles. The initial focus of the originally focused on the U.S. ship-based defense work at Lincoln Laboratory was to quantitatively as- against foreign antiship cruise missiles. The major de- sess and verify the capability of U.S. cruise missiles to velopment of this program, called Radar Surveillance penetrate Soviet air defenses.
    [Show full text]
  • Defense Number 14
    Defense Number 14 A publication of the Center for Technology and National HorizonsSecurity Policy JUNE 2002 National Defense University Toward Missile Defenses from the Sea by Hans Binnendijk and George Stewart Overview researchers made significant progress toward developing naval-based theater missile defenses during the Clinton administration, the basic Developments of the past 18 months have created new possibili- NMD architecture had no naval component because that administra- ties for the sea basing of national defenses against interconti- tion sought actual deployments by 2005–2006. nental ballistic missiles. Some conceivable designs would Once in office, the Bush administration was determined to enhance U.S. prospects for defeating a rogue state missile attack accelerate progress on missile defenses, expand research and devel- on the United States and its allies, but other deployments could opment efforts, accept a greater degree of technological risk, and undermine the Nation’s strategic stability with Russia and redesign NMD architecture. However, no new missile defense archi- China. The most efficacious architecture from both a technical tecture has been proposed. The clear line established in 1997 that and strategic perspective would include a U.S. Navy boost-phase delineated theater missile defenses and national missile defenses intercept program and some sea-based radar. Given the compli- became blurred. The strategy opened the door to a greater seaborne cations of using existing Aegis ships for the missile defense mis- contribution to defense against ICBMs, and the Navy began to ana- sion, the Navy should consider constructing a separate ship lyze the possibility of this new potential. The Federal Government designed solely for this purpose.
    [Show full text]
  • Program Acquisition Cost by Weapon System Major Weapon Systems OVERVIEW
    The estimated cost of this report or study for the Department of Defense is approximately $32,000 for the 2017 Fiscal Year. This includes $13,000 in expenses and $19,000 in DoD labor. Generated on 2017May03 RefID: E-7DE12B0 FY 2018 Program Acquisition Cost by Weapon System Major Weapon Systems OVERVIEW The combined capabilities and performance of United States (U.S.) weapon systems are unmatched throughout the world, ensuring that U.S. military forces have the advantage over any adversary. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 acquisition funding request for the Department of Defense (DoD) budget totals $208.6 billion, which includes base funding and Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding; $125.2 billion for Procurement funded programs and $83.3 billion for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) funded programs. Of the $208.6 billion, $94.9 billion is for programs that have been designated as Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs). This book focuses on all funding for the key MDAP programs. To simplify the display of the various weapon systems, this book is organized by the following mission area categories: Mission Area Categories • Aircraft & Related Systems • Missiles and Munitions • Command, Control, Communications, • Mission Support Activities Computers, and Intelligence (C4I) Systems • RDT&E Science & Technology • Ground Systems • Shipbuilding and Maritime Systems • Missile Defense Programs • Space Based Systems FY 2018 Modernization – Total: $208.6 Billion ($ in Billions) Space Based Aircraft & Systems Related $9.8
    [Show full text]
  • Advances in Active Radar Seeker Technology
    Defence Science Journal, Vol. 55, No. 3, July 2005, pp. 329-336 O 2005, DESIDOC RE VIEW PAPER Advances in Active Radar Seeker Technology Rajatendu Das Research Centre Imarat, Hyderabad-500 069. ABSTRACT Active radar seekers have gained wide applications in the terminal phase of missile guidance to provide hit-to-kill capability. Till recently, coherent monopulse tracker configurations were being used extensively for air-to-air missile seekers as well as surface-to-air missile seekers, while special real-beam technique-based seekers have been employed in antiship and land-attack systems. In this paper, features of active radar seekers have been described against different targets and background conditions to bring out the fact that the seeker design is highly application- specific in nature. The emerging trends in radar seeker technology have been identified wrt ever-changing threat scenario coupled with newer electronic countermeasure techniques, including the latest developments in components, subsystems, as well as implementation aspects. Keywords: Active radar seekers, active electronically scanned array, antenna, missile guidance, seeker technology, coherent monopulse, tracker configuration, target tracking, target identification, target detection 1. INTRODUCTION monopulse tracker with a gimbaled antenna structure. In this paper, an attempt has been made to highlight The superiority of radar seekers in missile guidance the features of conventional active radar seekers at the terminal phase has been well established and the associated current technologies, followed since 1960s. Three basic configurations, viz., semi- by the requirements of futuristic seekers, which active, active, and passive have been implemented have set the trend of radar seeker technology based in various types of seekers, including the track- on active electronically scanned array (AESA) antenna via-missile concept used in Patriot missiles during configuration.
    [Show full text]
  • Long-Range Nuclear Cruise Missiles and Stability
    &ience & Global Security, 1992, Volume 3, pp.49-99 Photocopying permitWd by license only Reprints available directly from the publisher C) 1992 Gordon and Breach Science Publishers S.A PrinWd in the UniWd States of America Long-range Nuclear Cruise Missiles and Stability George N. Lewisa and Theodore A. PoStolb Long-range nuclear-armed cruise missiles are highly accurate and are capable of reaching most targets within the United States and the Commonwealthof Indepen- dent States (CIS) from launch points beyond their borders. Neither the United States nor the CIS has air surveillance systemscapable of providing reliable warning against cruise missiles. Thus it is possible that a small-scale cruise missile attack could go entirely undetected until the nuclear weapons arrived over their targets. Such an attack could destroy the other country's entire strategic bomber force on the ground and severelydamage its strategic commandand control system,perhaps to the point of endangering the ability of its ICBM force to be launched on warning. This capability makes long-range nuclear cruise missiles potentially one of the most destabilizing of all nuclear weapons. INTRODUCTION Long-range nuclear-armed cruise missiles. are widely perceived as stabilizing additions to the US and CIS nuclear arsenals, This perception arises prima- rily from their relatively low speed, which is viewed as making them unsuit- able for use in a first-strike nuclear attack. However, this simple characterization neglects more troubling aspects of these weapons. Cruise missiles are already the most accurate of all strategic nuclear missiles. More a, Defense and Arms Control Studies Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge MA 02139 b.
    [Show full text]
  • Fighter Aircraft
    MODERN FIGHTER AIRCRAFT TECHNOLOGY AND TACTICS As part of our ongoing market research, we are always pleased to receive comments about our books, suggestions for new titles, or requests for catalogues. Please write to: The Editorial Director, Patrick Stephens Limited, Sparkford, Near Yeovil, Somerset, BA22 7JJ. MODERN FIGHTER AIRCRAFT TECHNOLOGY AND TACTICS Into combat with today's fighter pilots Anthony Thornborough Patrick Stephens Limited © Anthony M. Thornborough 1995 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission in writing from Patrick Stephens Limited. First published in 1995 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data: A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 1 85260 426 3 Library of Congress catalog card No. 95-78112 Patrick Stephens Limited is an imprint of Haynes Publishing, Sparkford, Nr Yeovil, Somerset BA22 7JJ Typeset by J. H. Haynes & Co. Ltd. Printed in Great Britain by Butler & Tanner Ltd, Frame and London CONTENTS Introduction 7 Chapter 1 Modern Technology & Tactics: An Overview 9 Chapter 2 Launch 29 Chapter 3 Air Superiority 53 Chapter 4 Target Ingress 101 Chapter 5 Recovery 169 Chapter 6 Future Technologies 179 Glossary 195 Index 201 INTRODUCTION esigning, building, maintaining and flying lost in the quagmire of technical and professional Dmodern fighters has become an incredibly terminology. Much of this book, therefore, is written complex and expensive business, and one which is in layman's terms for fellow enthusiasts or those becoming increasingly mind-boggling in its breadth.
    [Show full text]
  • Line of Sight Guidance
    Line of Sight Guidance Introduction Most first generation missiles employed command guidance of some form or other. Using the sensors of the time it was not possible to observe the three dimensional position errors between missile and target accurately enough to achieve small miss distances. The line of sight geometry required just the two lateral position errors to be known, which was feasible with the trackers of the time, notably the human eyeball. Also, the line of sight geometry was a natural development of the gun systems which were prevalent at the time. Furthermore, the early infra red seekers could only detect the hot jet pipe of the aircraft, and so could only engage after the enemy has over flown the target and done its mischief. Line of sight guidance has been used in air to surface and surface to surface (anti-tank), but predominantly it is used in surface to air weapon systems. With improvements in seeker technology, it is likely to be abandoned in this role as well. It has the advantage of a relatively low cost round, as most of the expense is concentrated in the platform sensors and launcher/magazine systems. In the surface to air role, the object of the exercise is to defend a region about the launch point. Figure 1 : Coverage Characterisation We define the performance of a surface to air system in terms of the volume of space it denies to the enemy. To begin with, at least, we treat the target as a constant velocity point. Once we have gained understanding of the constraints under these simple conditions, we may proceed to more complex target behaviour.
    [Show full text]
  • Ministry of Defence Acronyms and Abbreviations
    Acronym Long Title 1ACC No. 1 Air Control Centre 1SL First Sea Lord 200D Second OOD 200W Second 00W 2C Second Customer 2C (CL) Second Customer (Core Leadership) 2C (PM) Second Customer (Pivotal Management) 2CMG Customer 2 Management Group 2IC Second in Command 2Lt Second Lieutenant 2nd PUS Second Permanent Under Secretary of State 2SL Second Sea Lord 2SL/CNH Second Sea Lord Commander in Chief Naval Home Command 3GL Third Generation Language 3IC Third in Command 3PL Third Party Logistics 3PN Third Party Nationals 4C Co‐operation Co‐ordination Communication Control 4GL Fourth Generation Language A&A Alteration & Addition A&A Approval and Authorisation A&AEW Avionics And Air Electronic Warfare A&E Assurance and Evaluations A&ER Ammunition and Explosives Regulations A&F Assessment and Feedback A&RP Activity & Resource Planning A&SD Arms and Service Director A/AS Advanced/Advanced Supplementary A/D conv Analogue/ Digital Conversion A/G Air‐to‐Ground A/G/A Air Ground Air A/R As Required A/S Anti‐Submarine A/S or AS Anti Submarine A/WST Avionic/Weapons, Systems Trainer A3*G Acquisition 3‐Star Group A3I Accelerated Architecture Acquisition Initiative A3P Advanced Avionics Architectures and Packaging AA Acceptance Authority AA Active Adjunct AA Administering Authority AA Administrative Assistant AA Air Adviser AA Air Attache AA Air‐to‐Air AA Alternative Assumption AA Anti‐Aircraft AA Application Administrator AA Area Administrator AA Australian Army AAA Anti‐Aircraft Artillery AAA Automatic Anti‐Aircraft AAAD Airborne Anti‐Armour Defence Acronym
    [Show full text]
  • Conventional Cruise-Missile and Ballistic-Missile Attacks Technology, Scenarios, and U.S
    Airbase Vulnerability to Conventional Cruise-Missile and Ballistic-Missile AttackS Technology, Scenarios, and U.S. Air Force Responses John Stillion David T. Orletsky Prepared for the United States Air Force Project AIR FORCE R Approved for public release; distribution unlimited The research reported here was sponsored by the United States Air Force under Contract F49642-96-C-0001. Further information may be obtained from the Strategic Planning Division, Directorate of Plans, Hq USAF. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Stillion, John. Airbase vulnerability to conventional cruise-missile and ballistic- missile attacks : technology, scenarios, and U.S. Air Force responses / John Stillion and David T. Orletsky. p. cm. “Prepared for the U.S. Air Force by RAND’s Project AIR FORCE.” “MR-1028-AF.” ISBN 0-8330-2700-X 1. Air bases—Security measures—United States. 2. Cruise missile defenses—United States. 3. Ballistic missile defenses— United States. 4. United States. Air Force—Security measures. I. Orletsky, David T., 1963 - . II. United States. Air Force. III. Project AIR FORCE (U.S.). UG634.49.S75 1999 358.4 ' 17 ' 0973—dc21 99-12338 CIP RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND® is a registered trademark.RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of its research sponsors. © Copyright 1999 RAND All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from RAND. The photo of the M-9 missile is from p.
    [Show full text]
  • Modern Combat Aircraft (1945 – 2010)
    I MODERN COMBAT AIRCRAFT (1945 – 2010) Modern Combat Aircraft (1945-2010) is a brief overview of the most famous military aircraft developed by the end of World War II until now. Fixed-wing airplanes and helicopters are presented by the role fulfilled, by the nation of origin (manufacturer), and year of first flight. For each aircraft is available a photo, a brief introduction, and information about its development, design and operational life. The work is made using English Wikipedia, but also other Web sites. FIGHTER-MULTIROLE UNITED STATES UNITED STATES No. Aircraft 1° fly Pg. No. Aircraft 1° fly Pg. Lockheed General Dynamics 001 1944 3 011 1964 27 P-80 Shooting Star F-111 Aardvark Republic Grumman 002 1946 5 012 1970 29 F-84 Thunderjet F-14 Tomcat North American Northrop 003 1947 7 013 1972 33 F-86 Sabre F-5E/F Tiger II North American McDonnell Douglas 004 1953 9 014 1972 35 F-100 Super Sabre F-15 Eagle Convair General Dynamics 005 1953 11 015 1974 39 F-102 Delta Dagger F-16 Fighting Falcon Lockheed McDonnell Douglas 006 1954 13 016 1978 43 F-104 Starfighter F/A-18 Hornet Republic Boeing 007 1955 17 017 1995 45 F-105 Thunderchief F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Vought Lockheed Martin 008 1955 19 018 1997 47 F-8 Crusader F-22 Raptor Convair Lockheed Martin 009 1956 21 019 2006 51 F-106 Delta Dart F-35 Lightning II McDonnell Douglas 010 1958 23 F-4 Phantom II SOVIET UNION SOVIET UNION No.
    [Show full text]
  • Computer Simulated Development of a Command to Line-Of-Sight Missile Using On-Off Control
    Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive Theses and Dissertations Thesis Collection 1983 Computer simulated development of a command to line-of-sight missile using on-off control. Yeun, Je Young. http://hdl.handle.net/10945/19694 NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL Monterey, California THESIS COMPUTER SIMULATED DEVELOPMENT Ur A COMMAND TO LINE-OF-SIGHT MISSILE USING ON-OFF CONTROL by Je Young, Yeun December 1983 Th asis Adv:Lsor: H. A. Titus Co--adv Lsor : Alex Gerba, Jr. Approved for public release; distribution un limit ted T2 15720 unclassified SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PACE (*hen Data Snfrtd) READ INSTRUCTIONS REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFORE COMPLETING FORM I. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER 4. TITLE (and Subtitle) 5. TYPE OF REPORT a PERIOD COVERED Computer Simulated Development Master's Thesis of a Command to Line-of-Sight Missile December 1983 Using ON-OFF Control 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER 7. AUTHOR<«> 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER^*,) Je Young, Yeun 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANO AOORESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT, PROJECT, TASK AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, CA 93943 II. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME ANO AOORESS 12. REPORT DATE Naval Postgraduate School December 1983 Monterey, CA 93943 13. NUMBER OF PAGES 14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME 4 AOORESSfJ/ different Irom Controlling Office) IS. SECURITY CLASS, (ol thte report) Naval Postgraduate School Unclassified Monterey, CA 93943 15a. DECLASSIFICATION/ DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE 14. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of ihle Report) Approved for public release; distribution unlimitted 17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the aoetrect entered In Block 20, It different Iron Report) IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 19. KEY WORDS (Continue on rovorao old* II nocoooery Identity by block number) Line-of-Sight Guidance ON-OFF Control Two-Level Relay Saturating Linear Control 20.
    [Show full text]
  • Cruise Missile Integrated Air Defense System Penetration: Modeling the S-400 System
    International Journal of Aviation, Aeronautics, and Aerospace Volume 4 Issue 3 Article 2 6-24-2017 Cruise Missile Integrated Air Defense System Penetration: Modeling the S-400 System Michael Pelosi East Central University, Ada OK, [email protected] Amie K. Honeycutt East Central University, Ada OK, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.erau.edu/ijaaa Part of the Navigation, Guidance, Control and Dynamics Commons, and the Systems Engineering and Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Commons Scholarly Commons Citation Pelosi, M., & Honeycutt, A. K. (2017). Cruise Missile Integrated Air Defense System Penetration: Modeling the S-400 System. International Journal of Aviation, Aeronautics, and Aerospace, 4(3). https://doi.org/ 10.15394/ijaaa.2017.1104 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in International Journal of Aviation, Aeronautics, and Aerospace by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Pelosi and Honeycutt: Cruise Missile IADS Penetration The use of terrain masking techniques to deny detection by surface based sensors, especially radar, has a long and arguably very colorful history. First practiced systematically during the Second World War period, terrain masking relies mostly upon the denial of direct line of sight between the aircraft and the surface based observer, or sensor. The technique was exploited intensively during the Cold War period, with a number of combat aircraft designs optimized for this penetration regime, with specific design optimizations in aerodynamics, propulsion and avionics. Specific types include the F-105 and F-111, and the later Panavia MRCA/Tornado and B-1 (Flight Manual, 1970; 1972).
    [Show full text]