DOCSLIB.ORG

Setting the Context: Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses and Joint War Fighting in an Uncertain World Explains Why SEAD Has Changed the Basic Fabric of Air Warfare

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Disclaimer This publication was produced in the Department of Defense school environment in the interest of academic freedom and the advancement of national defense-related concepts. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not reflectthe official policyor position of the Department of Defense or the United States government. This publication has been reviewed by security and policy review authorities and is cleared for public release. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Brungess, James R. Setting the context : suppression ofenemy air defenses and joint war fighting in an uncertain world / James R. Brungess . p. 242 . Includes index. 1. Air interdiction-United States. 2. Unified operations (Military science)- United States. 3 . World politics-1989- I. Mile. UG703.1378 1994 94-19404 355 .4'22-dc20 CIP For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents US Government Printing Office Washington, DC 20402 1.1. Contents Chapter Page DISCLAIMER . ii FOREWORD . vii ABOUT THE AUTHOR . ix PREFACE . xi INTRODUCTION . xiii 1 HISTORY AND DOCTRINE . 1 The Evolutionary Construct .. 1 Vietnam . 4 Bekaa Valley . 16 Libya . 25 Persian Gulf . 35 The Larger Context . 45 Notes . 47 2 CRITERIA FORASSESSING SEAD EFFECTIVENESS . 51 Methods of Analysis . 53 The Historical Approach . 55 The Engineering Approach . 58 The Commonsense Approach . 65 The Objective-based Approach . 69 Setting the Context: Continuums as Assessment Tools . 80 Challenges for Objective-based Criteria . 89 Notes . 91 3 SERVICE APPROACHES TO SEAD . 93 Navy SEAD . 94 Air Force SEAR . 98 Army SEAD . 111 Marine SEAD . 119 Notes . 125 4 THE MERITS OF JSEAD: THE QUESTTO ACHIEVE EFFECTIVENESS . 129 The Personality of JSEAD and the Threat . 129 The World of "Joint" and JSEAD . 135 iii Chapter Page Brave NewWorld: "True" Joint SEAD . 141 The Four Continuums: How to Use Them . 143 The Need-/Resource-based Continuum . 144 The Threat-/Capability-based Continuum . 147 The Piecemeal/Integrated Tactics Continuum . 149 The Defensive/Offensive Continuum . 150 The General Context: A New Way of Looking at JSEAD . 150 Notes . 157 5 JSEAD: STRATEGY, TACTICS, AND THE CHANGED THREAT . 159 The Essence of the Threat . .. 163 Requirements of the Information-based IADS . 170 Detecting . 170 Locating and Identifying . 171 Tracking . 175 Weapons Allocation and Employment . 176 Defeating the LADS: Information Denial . 180 Detection as Information . 181 Locating and Identifying as Information . 183 Information Denial in the "Endgame. 184 Adjusting to Fiscal Reality . 187 SEAD Tactics: Variations, Combinations, and Innovations . 190 Variations : The "IADS Sweep. 192 Combining Old Tactics: SEAD and the Modern Long-Range SAM . 196 Innovations: Information Denial via Computer Warfare . 199 Joint SEAD Strategy: Dividing the Turf . 200 JSEAD Tactics: So What? . 204 Notes . 205 6 WHERE TO NEXT: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 207 Conclusions . 207 SEAD as an Evolutionary Concept . 208 Requirement for a Paradigm Shift . 208 The Lead/Lag Issue: Joint Doctrine and JSEAD . 210 iv Chapter Page Shifting the Focus of Criteria: Overall Objectives . 210 Recommendations . 211 Education . 211 Training . 212 Equipment . 213 Full Circle: The Strategy-Doctrine-Tactics Continuum . 219 INDEX . 221 Illustrations Figure r 1 Real versus Perceived SEAR Threat . xiv 2 Historical Benchmark/Variable Matrix . 4 3 Doctrine/Strategy/Tactics Relationships . 10 4 Evolution of Air Force SEAR Relationships . 12 5 Hierarchical/Linear Decision-making Model . 64 6 Evolution of Criteria/MOE Approaches . 71 7 Traditional Vertical Model . 74 8 Cybernetic Model . 76 9 The Cybernetic Process and the Four Continuums . 81 10 Piecemeal/Integrated Continuum . 82 11 Need-based/Resource-based Continuum . 84 12 Threat-based/Capability-based Continuum . 86 13 Defensive/Offensive Continuum and Clausewitzian Model . 88 14 Structural Differences . 102 15 Effects of Rapid Change on SEAD . 103 16 Linear versus Nonlinear SEAD Tactics Evolution . 133 17 Differences between Vertical and Cybernetic Models . 138 18 The Tension between Joint and Single-Service SEAD . 140 V Figure Page 19 Need-/Resource-based Continuum . 145 20 Threat-/Capability-based Continuum . 148 21 Piecemeal/Integrated Continuum . 149 22 Defensive/Offensive Continuum . 151 23 JSEAD Planning Matrix . 154 24 Evolution of Information-based LADS . 166 25 The Integrated Air Defense System Sweep . 193 26 Attacking the Modern Long-Range SAM . 197 27 Evolution of Army/Air Force SEAD Turf . 201 28 The JFACC's JSEAD Organization . 218 Table 1 Vietnam War Matrix . 13 2 Bekaa Valley Matrix . 24 3 Libya Matrix . 33 4 Gulf War Matrix . 43 5 Evolutionary Trends in SEAD : ABrief Summary . 45 6 Comparison of Cold War to Post-Cold War SEAR Environment . 72 7 Comparison of Critical MOE Approaches . 73 8 Airlnand Battle-Future Key Systems . 116 9 Differences between Airlnand Battle and Airland Operations . 119 10 Traits of Modern LADS Weapons . 177 11 Comparison of Old to New SEAD Paradigm . 209 Vi Foreword Suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAR) has long been a critical concern to advocates of air power. It is especially critical to Pacific Air Forces because air power offers a primary means of responding rapidly and effectively to areas of conflict within the Pacific arena. Lt Col James R. Brungess was selected in February 1991 to conduct research into developing joint SEAD tactics that would be useful in the Pacific Command area of operations-specifically for the Far Eastern Military District of the Soviet Union. We deemed it an important subject, and Colonel Brungess had the necessary credentials to conduct the study. The world, however, changed dramatically while he was conducting his study. This altered both the character and direction of his research effort. In a few short months from March to December 1991, the United States entered a new era heralded by Desert Storm and the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the span of less than a year, the United States Air Force vindicated the time-honored doctrine and strategies of air power in Desert Storm and lost its most powerful adversary with the demise of the Soviet Union in December 1991 . While the same weapons continue to exist, these events have irreversibly changed the context in which they will be used. Both events have not only changed the shape of the world; they have forever altered the way we look at air power and, more importantly, the way we must use air power. Setting the Context: Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses and Joint War Fighting in an Uncertain World explains why SEAD has changed the basic fabric of air warfare. In discussing the familiar themes of the past and the emerging paradigms of the future, Colonel Brungess weaves a web of changing inter- relationships among services, politico-military structures, and research and development strategies, as well as developing a novel methodology for assessing events critical to air power's future. It places SEAD within the context of a changed world by defining relationships, explaining evolutionary patterns, and establishing a criterion to measure success, as well as pointing the way for future acquisitions, research, and joint Vii tactics development . It is a tour de force in acquiring the big picture of where we have been, where we are, and where we need to go . This is an important book. It not only provides scholarly research on historical and pragmatic issues, it grapples with key issues affecting real warfighters fighting real wars-the kind of information that tacticians and strategists can use to save lives and win wars. You will find the book intellectually challenging and exhilarating; Colonel Brungess has provided new ways of looking at new phenomena as well as an iterative, logical way of relating SEAR to the past. Without a doubt, the most important feature of the book is its emphasis on the continued importance of SEAD to air power. Colonel Brungess provides a compelling argument that the technological cat-and-mouse game between air attacker and ground defender will accelerate over the next several decades. This will occur, paradoxically, during times of peace, and not because of national policy but because of international market forces. The evolution of air defense technology is only beginning to share in the same technology that has made air power preeminent, and, in times of dwindling fiscal resources, this is something for the air warrior to worry about. We need to make the most of what we have . Setting the Context gives us some good ideas to get the most from our air power defense dollar in terms of electronic combat and SEAD. I urge you to read this book carefully. It provides a unique and original view into the world of electronic combat and SEAD that will enrich as well as inform. To use the author's words, "For the brief while that the world may give us, now is the time to reflect on our purposes and the time to create visions of the future-a future we have a golden opportunity to influence, to build, and to protect." Lt Col James R. Brungess holds a master of arts degree in international relations from the University of Southern California, United Kingdom Program. He is a career electronic warfare officer (EWO) with extensive experience in tactical aviation. He has flown in all three tactical air forces-Tactical Air Command (TAC), United States Air Force Europe (USAFE), and Pacific Air Forces (PACAF)-and served on the staffs of two of them. Colonel Brungess began his EWO career as an AC-130A/H gunship "black crow" in Thailand . He was responsible for the defense of the AC-130 from radar-guided weapons. Colonel Brungess served from 1975 to 1986 as a squadron EWO for four separate F-111 and EF-111 squadrons, among numerous other responsibilities . In 1981 he was selected for the EF-111 initial cadre where he helped to develop EF-111 tactics and spearheaded major initiatives to integrate EF-111 aircraft into the general tactics schemes of other fighter aircraft.
Recommended publications
  • Electronic Warfare in the Fifth Dimension: Human Factors Automation Policies and Strategies for Enhanced Situational Awareness and SEAD Performance

    Electronic Warfare in the Fifth Dimension: Human Factors Automation Policies and Strategies for Enhanced Situational Awareness and SEAD Performance

    Electronic Warfare in the Fifth Dimension: Human Factors Automation Policies and Strategies for Enhanced Situational Awareness and SEAD Performance Malcolm James Cook, Charles Cranmer, Corinne Adams and Carol Angus Centre for Usability, Test and Evaluation University of Abertay Dundee Dundee DD1 1HG, Scotland UNITED KINGDOM Tel. +(44) 1382 308178 Fx. +(44) 1382 223121 Ans. +(44) 1382 308184 e-mail: [email protected] “The offense created a radically new vehicle to delivers its message of shock and fire, the aerial bomber. As a response to this new means of communicating destruction, the fortified walls mutated again, in effect dematerialising to become the electronic curtain of radar.” De La Macha (1998: p. 77) SUMMARY The process of supporting human operators in the very difficult task of electronic warfare is considered because it is representative of the need to flexibly operate systems and equipment from one conflict to another. It is argued that the weak element of the partnership is often the system and not the human, as it is normally portrayed. It is proposed that the design of future systems enable effective representations of operation to create transparent operation of the equipment. It is argued that the functional capability of the EW system should be universal or as close to universal in operation, to facilitate learning, operation and error recovery. Transparency and universality of operation are required to aid the development of an effective user mental- model of system operation, to enhance trust, increase authority and facilitate collaborative process management. Finally, the pace and demands of the system must create synergy between the operator and the task demands, balancing workload across time in a multi-tasking environment.
  • Air Defence in Northern Europe

    Air Defence in Northern Europe

    FINNISH DEFENCE STUDIES AIR DEFENCE IN NORTHERN EUROPE Heikki Nikunen National Defence College Helsinki 1997 Finnish Defence Studies is published under the auspices of the National Defence College, and the contributions reflect the fields of research and teaching of the College. Finnish Defence Studies will occasionally feature documentation on Finnish Security Policy. Views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily imply endorsement by the National Defence College. Editor: Kalevi Ruhala Editorial Assistant: Matti Hongisto Editorial Board: Chairman Prof. Pekka Sivonen, National Defence College Dr. Pauli Järvenpää, Ministry of Defence Col. Erkki Nordberg, Defence Staff Dr., Lt.Col. (ret.) Pekka Visuri, Finnish Institute of International Affairs Dr. Matti Vuorio, Scientific Committee for National Defence Published by NATIONAL DEFENCE COLLEGE P.O. Box 266 FIN - 00171 Helsinki FINLAND FINNISH DEFENCE STUDIES 10 AIR DEFENCE IN NORTHERN EUROPE Heikki Nikunen National Defence College Helsinki 1997 ISBN 951-25-0873-7 ISSN 0788-5571 © Copyright 1997: National Defence College All rights reserved Oy Edita Ab Pasilan pikapaino Helsinki 1997 INTRODUCTION The historical progress of air power has shown a continuous rising trend. Military applications emerged fairly early in the infancy of aviation, in the form of first trials to establish the superiority of the third dimension over the battlefield. Well- known examples include the balloon reconnaissance efforts made in France even before the birth of the aircraft, and it was not long before the first generation of flimsy, underpowered aircraft were being tested in a military environment. The Italians used aircraft for reconnaissance missions at Tripoli in 1910-1912, and the Americans made their first attempts at taking air power to sea as early as 1910-1911.
  • Cruise Missiles Post World War II

    Cruise Missiles Post World War II

    Cruise missiles milestones MILE post STONES World War II Dr Carlo Kopp THE BASIC TECHNOLOGY AND OPERATIONAL CONCEPT OF MODERN CRUISE MISSILES EMERGED DURING THE LATE 1960S, at the peak of the Cold War era. This type of weapon was exemplified by the RGM-109 Tomahawk series, the AGM-86C/D CALCM, the AGM-158 JASSM, and the Russian Kh-55SM Granat. Much less known is the generation of cruise missile technology that supplanted the 1940s era FZG-76/V-1 and its Russian and American clone variants. A good number of the former Soviet weapons of this generation remain in use, some still in production. The aim of all cruise missile designs is to provide a weapon that can strike at a target while not exposing the launch platform to attack by enemy defences, whether the launch platform is an aircraft, surface warship, submarine or ground vehicle. Key parameters in the design of any cruise missile are its standoff range, its accuracy and its survivability against target defences. Increasing standoff range reduces risk to the launch platform while increasing accuracy and survivability reduces the number of launches required to achieve desired effect. The economics of bombardment are simple: the more expensive the weapon employed, the smaller the war stock available for combat at any time, and the longer it takes to replenish this war stock once expended. Northrop SM-62 Snark strategic cruise missile. This enormous 50,000 lb plus GLCM was built to directly attack the Soviet Union from US basing. It introduced the fi rst stellar-inertial guidance system in a cruise missile.
  • GAO WEAPONS ACQUISITION Precision Guided Munitions In

    GAO WEAPONS ACQUISITION Precision Guided Munitions In

    United States General Accounting Office GAO Report to Congressional Committees June 1995 WEAPONS ACQUISITION Precision Guided Munitions in Inventory, Production, and Development GAO/NSIAD-95-95 United States General Accounting Office GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 National Security and International Affairs Division B-260458 June 23, 1995 Congressional Committees The military services are spending billions of dollars to acquire new and improved munitions whose technical sophistication allows guidance corrections during their flight to the target. These weapons are referred to as precision guided munitions (PGM). We reviewed Air Force, Navy, and Army munitions programs in inventory, production, and development that could be defined as using precision guidance to attack surface targets.1 Our objectives were to determine (1) the costs and quantities planned for the PGMs, (2) the services rationale for initiating PGM development programs, (3) options available to the services to attack surface targets with PGMs, and (4) the extent to which the services are jointly developing and procuring PGMs. We conducted this work under our basic legislative responsibilities and plan to use this baseline report in planning future work on Defense-wide issues affecting the acquisition and effectiveness of PGMs. We are addressing the report to you because we believe it will be of interest to your committees. PGMs employ various guidance methods to enhance the probability of Background hitting the target. These include target location information from a human designator, global positioning system (GPS) satellites, an inertial navigation system, a terminal seeker on the munition, or a combination of these sources. Since PGMs can correct errors in flight, the services expect to need fewer rounds to achieve the same or higher probabilities of kill as unguided weapons.
  • Turkey's S-400 Dilemma

    Turkey's S-400 Dilemma

    EDAM Foreign Policy and Security Paper Series 2017/5 Turkey’s S-400 Dilemma July, 2017 Dr. Can Kasapoglu Defense Analyst, EDAM 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • This report’s core military assessment of a possible • In fact, modern air defense concepts vary between S-400 deal concludes that Ankara’s immediate aim is fighter aircraft-dominant postures, SAM-dominant to procure the system primarily for air defense missi- postures, and balanced force structures. However, if ons as a surface-to-air missile (SAM) asset, rather than Ankara is to replace its fighter aircraft-dominant con- performing ballistic missile defense (BMD) functions. cept with a SAM and aircraft mixed understanding, This priority largely stems from the Turkish Air Force’s which could be an effective alternative indeed, then currently low pilot-to-cockpit ratio (0.8:1 by open- it has to maintain utmost interoperability within its source 2016 estimates). Thus, even if the procurement principal arsenal. Key importance of interoperability is to be realized, Turkey will first and foremost operate between aircraft and integrated air and missile defense the S-400s as a stopgap measure to augment its air systems can be better understood by examining the superiority calculus over geo-strategically crucial areas. Israeli Air Force’s (IAF) recent encounter in the Syrian This is why the delivery time remains a key condition. airspace. On March 17, 2017, a Syrian S-200 (SA-5) battery fired an anti-aircraft missile to hunt down an • Although it is not a combat-tested system, not only IAF fixed-wing aircraft (probably an F-15 or F-16 Russian sources but also many Western military variant).
  • Downloaded April 22, 2006

    Downloaded April 22, 2006

    SIX DECADES OF GUIDED MUNITIONS AND BATTLE NETWORKS: PROGRESS AND PROSPECTS Barry D. Watts Thinking Center for Strategic Smarter and Budgetary Assessments About Defense www.csbaonline.org Six Decades of Guided Munitions and Battle Networks: Progress and Prospects by Barry D. Watts Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments March 2007 ABOUT THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) is an independent, nonprofit, public policy research institute established to make clear the inextricable link between near-term and long- range military planning and defense investment strategies. CSBA is directed by Dr. Andrew F. Krepinevich and funded by foundations, corporations, government, and individual grants and contributions. This report is one in a series of CSBA analyses on the emerging military revolution. Previous reports in this series include The Military-Technical Revolution: A Preliminary Assessment (2002), Meeting the Anti-Access and Area-Denial Challenge (2003), and The Revolution in War (2004). The first of these, on the military-technical revolution, reproduces the 1992 Pentagon assessment that precipitated the 1990s debate in the United States and abroad over revolutions in military affairs. Many friends and professional colleagues, both within CSBA and outside the Center, have contributed to this report. Those who made the most substantial improvements to the final manuscript are acknowledged below. However, the analysis and findings are solely the responsibility of the author and CSBA. 1667 K Street, NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 331-7990 CONTENTS ACKNOWLEGEMENTS .................................................. v SUMMARY ............................................................... ix GLOSSARY ………………………………………………………xix I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1 Guided Munitions: Origins in the 1940s............. 3 Cold War Developments and Prospects ............
  • Jackie R. Youngblood F-105 History 27-Feb-64 5225 in the 4520 CCTW, at Nellis AFB NV, Class 64-H of F-105D Operational Training Course 111506E Graduated 25 Pilots

    Jackie R. Youngblood F-105 History 27-Feb-64 5225 in the 4520 CCTW, at Nellis AFB NV, Class 64-H of F-105D Operational Training Course 111506E Graduated 25 Pilots

    Jackie R. Youngblood F-105 History 27-Feb-64 5225 In the 4520 CCTW, at Nellis AFB NV, Class 64-H of F-105D Operational Training Course 111506E graduated 25 pilots. The course started on 10 December 1963 and was assigned to the 4523 CCTS commanded by Lt Col Claude D. Phillips. The student pilots and their stations of assignment were: Lt Col Milton S. Jones - McConnell Capt Robert E. Matthew - 23 TFW McConnell Capt John B. Abernathy - George Capt William Thomas May - 355 TFW George Capt John H. Axley - McConnell Capt Charles W. McConnell - 560 TFS, McConnell Capt Ronald E. Byrne, Jr. - Norton Capt Phillip E. Payne - 4 TFW Seymour Johnson Capt John E. Cozine, Jr. - George Capt Leonard D. Reed - McConnell Capt Floyd Dadisman, Jr. - McConnell Capt Leonard F. Reynolds - George Capt Peter J. Demarco, Jr. - McConnell Capt Jackie D. Stokes - McConnell Capt William V. Frederick - McConnell Capt Jackie R. Youngblood - McConnell Capt Gobel D. James - McConnell 1Lt David C. Carter - George Capt Ralph L. Kuster, Jr. - McConnell 1Lt David L. Ferguson - George Capt Robert H. Laney - George 1Lt Robert W. Spielman - Seymour Johnson Capt Robert G. Lanning - Langley 1Lt Burton C. Spurlock, Jr. - McConnell Capt John F. Manning - George Capt May and his wife Betty had arrived at George AFB after they had left Bentwaters AB, England in October 1963. "Maridel Ely [wife of Capt Richard K. Ely] said not to buy a house because we would not be there that long --- she was right --- by July ('64) we were on our way to McConnell in Kansas.
  • NSIAD-95-95 Weapons Acquisition: Precision Guided Munitions

    NSIAD-95-95 Weapons Acquisition: Precision Guided Munitions

    United States General Accounting Offhe -GAO Report to Congressional Committees June 1996 GAO/NSL4D-95-96 .-- _.-- United States General Accounting Office GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 National Security and International Affairs Division B-260458 June 23,1995 Congressional Committees The military services are spending billions of dollars to acquire new and improved munitions whose technical sophistication allows guidance corrections during their flight to the target. These weapons are referred to as precision guided munitions (PGM). We reviewed Air Force, Navy, and Army munitions programs in inventory, production, and development that could be defined as using precision guidance to attack surface targets.’ Our objectives were to determine (1) the costs and quantities planned for the PGMS, (2) the services rationale for initiating PGM development programs, (3) options available to the services to attack surface targets with PGMs, and (4) the extent to which the services are jointly developing and procuring PGMS. We conducted this work under our basic legislative responsibilities and plan to use this baseline report in planning future work on Defense-wide issues affecting the acquisition and effectiveness of PGMS. We are addressing the report to you because we believe it will be of interest to your committees. -ll.._-~ PGMS employ various guidance methods to enhance the probability of Background hitting the target. These include target location information from a human designator, global positioning system (GPS) satellites, an inertial navigation system, a terminal seeker on the munition, or a combination of these sources. Since PGMs can correct errors in flight, the services expect to need fewer rounds to achieve the same or higher probabilities of kill as unguided weapons, Additionally, the services expect PGM accuracy and lethality to reduce the number of launch platforms and soldiers required to counter specific targets.
  • Optimizing Selection of Tomahawk Cruise Missiles

    Optimizing Selection of Tomahawk Cruise Missiles

    Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive Theses and Dissertations Thesis Collection 1998-03 Optimizing selection of Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Kuykendall, Scott D. Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School http://hdl.handle.net/10945/32721 NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL Monterey, California THESIS OPTIMIZING SELECTION OF TOMAHAWK CRmSE MISSILES by Scott D. Kuykendall March, 1998 Thesis Advisor: Richard E. Rosenthal Second Reader: George W. Conner r • Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. DTIC QUALITY INSPECTED--- a REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED March 1998 Master's Thesis 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS OPTIMIZING SELECTION OF TOMAHAWK CRUISE MISSILES 6. AUTHOR(S) Kuykendall, Scott D. 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) ANDADDRESS(ES) REPORT NUMBER Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, CA 93943-5000 9. SPONSORING I MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING I MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S.
  • Test and Evaluation Trends and Costs for Aircraft and Guided Weapons

    Test and Evaluation Trends and Costs for Aircraft and Guided Weapons

    CHILD POLICY This PDF document was made available CIVIL JUSTICE from www.rand.org as a public service of EDUCATION the RAND Corporation. ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE Jump down to document6 INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS NATIONAL SECURITY The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit POPULATION AND AGING research organization providing PUBLIC SAFETY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY objective analysis and effective SUBSTANCE ABUSE solutions that address the challenges TERRORISM AND facing the public and private sectors HOMELAND SECURITY TRANSPORTATION AND around the world. INFRASTRUCTURE Support RAND Purchase this document Browse Books & Publications Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore RAND Project AIR FORCE View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non- commercial use only. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents. This product is part of the RAND Corporation monograph series. RAND monographs present major research findings that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND mono- graphs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity. Test and Evaluation Trends and Costs for Aircraft and Guided Weapons Bernard Fox, Michael Boito, John C.Graser, Obaid Younossi Prepared for the United States Air Force Approved for public release, distribution unlimited The research reported here was sponsored by the United States Air Force under Contract F49642-01-C-0003.
  • Tomahawk Deconfliction: an Exercise in System Engineering

    Tomahawk Deconfliction: an Exercise in System Engineering

    TOMAHAWK DECONFLICTION Tomahawk Deconfliction: An Exercise in System Engineering Ann F. Pollack, Robert C. Ferguson, and Andreas K. Chrysostomou I mprovements to the navigational and timing accuracy of the Tomahawk Block III missile resulted in the need to deconflict missiles, that is, to prevent missile-to-missile interference during flight. The Applied Physics Laboratory identified the potential risks resulting from the missile’s increased accuracy, quantified the resulting probability of collision, and identified a deconfliction solution. This effort required a broad system knowledge of Tomahawk and its supporting systems. Because so many different factors influence deconfliction—from Global Positioning System accuracy to overall engine performance—the solution must continue to be evaluated as the weapon system evolves. The Laboratory continues to educate users about deconfliction, to monitor its effective use, and to analyze the potential effects on deconfliction of weapon system developments. This ongoing system engineering effort assures the continued effective- ness of the Tomahawk deconfliction solution. (Keywords: Deconfliction, Fratricide, Tomahawk.) INTRODUCTION The Tomahawk Block III missile was first used op- understanding of all Tomahawk system components, erationally in Bosnia on 10 September 1995. The from mission planning to the weapon control system to onboard software automatically determined a small the missile itself. As the Tomahawk system evolves, route offset for each missile. These offsets deconflicted APL continues to evaluate the deconfliction solution the missiles, preventing missile-to-missile interference against new developments to assure that it continues during flight. Without automatic deconfliction, some of to protect against missile interference. these missiles probably would not have reached their The question of missile deconfliction was raised targets.
  • ASROC with Systems

    ASROC with Systems

    Naval Nuclear Weapons Chapter Eight Naval Nuclear Weapons The current program to modernize and expand U.S. deployed within the Navy (see Table 8.1) include anti- Naval forces includes a wide variety of nuclear weapons submarine warfare rockets (both surface (ASROC with systems. The build-up, according to the Department of W44) and subsurface launched (SUBROC with W55)), Defense, seeks "increased and more diversified offensive anti-air missiles (TERRIER with W45), and bombs and striking power.. increased attention to air defense . depth charges (B43, B57, and B61) used by a variety of [and] improvements in anti-submarine warfare."' The aircraft and helicopters, both carrier and land based (see plan is to build-up to a "600-ship Navy" concentrating Chapters Four and Se~en).~ on "deployable battle forces." Numerous new ships will The various nuclear weapons systems that are under be built, centered around aircraft carrier battle groups, development or are being considered for tactical naval surface groups, and attack submarines. New, more capa- nuclear warfare include: ble anti-air warfare ships, such as the TICONDEROGA (CG-47) class cruiser and BURKE (DDG-51) class  A new surface-to-air missile nuclear war- destroyers, will be deployed. New nuclear weapons and head (W81) for the STANDARD-2 missile, launching systems, as well as nuclear capable aircraft soon to enter production, carrier based forces, form a major part of the program. A long-range, land-attack nuclear armed As of March 1983, the nuclear armed ships of the U.S. Sea-Launched