Ew Test and Evaluation - Assuring Survivability and Operational Effectiveness

EW TEST AND EVALUATION - ASSURING SURVIVABILITY AND OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

Dr. Mike Pywell - EW Technologist & Project/Engineering Manager – Typhoon EW Rig Support Equipment Mitch Midgley-Davies – Technical Lead - Typhoon Avionics Sensors Future Capability (Radar/EW)

Electromagnetic Engineering Department BAE SYSTEMS, Military Air & Information

Contents • Survival – man-made and unintentional threats • EW importance to survivability, mission success and affordability • Description of EW systems • Challenges facing the EW Test and Evaluation community • EW T&E process and capabilities • Description of significant developments to date • Moving EW T&E from flight towards modelling and simulation

Security statement: Unclassified

• Lightning Strike • High intensity radiated fields (HiRF) • Electro-static discharge

Bruce Fisher’s F-106B Typhoon undergoing full-threat Delta Dart was struck 714 lightning strike testing in BAE times during lightning Lightning strikes near taxying C-130 SYSTEMS EW Test Facility Hercules in Iraq research missions

USAF Photo: Senior Airman James Croxon NASA Report SP-2003-4529

SA-21

SA-20

SA-10 SA-12 • Patriot

SA-11, SA-17 SA-6 SA-3 SA-15 SA-19 SA-8 SA-16 SA-13 Roland SA-9 •SA-18 SA-14 • Rapier • Javelin SA-7 (USAF Photo by Airman 1st Class Jonathan Snyder)

• EW is a vital element of survivability • Key capability of military aircraft • Assists survival to fulfil primary goal – mission success • Importance of ‘zero’ or ‘near zero’ attrition

Photo: LCpl. Andrew Williams, US Marine Corps

• Complex relationship between individual components • Applicable to land, sea and air platforms • Optimal survivability require balanced approach • Objective is best survivability needed to affordably achieve mission success

/ DEFENCE

Source: Pywell, M., 2013. Development and management of high-fidelity test technology for comprehensive performance evaluation of electronic warfare systems in multi-threat environments. PhD. University of Central Lancashire, UK.

DEFINITION: ‘Military action that exploits electromagnetic energy to provide situational awareness and achieve offensive and defensive effects.’*

*North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Glossary of Terms and Definitions (English and French). AAP-06(2013) Available at http://nsa.nato.int/nsa/nsdd/listpromulg.html

1 2 4 1 3 1

3 1) Laser Warner 2) Avionics bay 3) Missile Warner 1 4 4) Flare dispenser 5) Chaff dispenser 6) ESM/ECM port pod 7) ESM/ECM starboard pod 5 8 8) RF towed decoy 7

(Photos © SELEX-ES 2008-2013)

From ‘Improved Test Capabilities for Cost-effective Performance Evaluation of Airborne Electronic Warfare Systems’ (J. Royal Aeronautical Society, Sep-10), by these authors Challenge A S I E U Affordability Survivability Optimisation, Development and Sustainment of EW T&E Facilities Industrial Environmental Bolster chamber and laboratory test capability robustness UAS (UAV/UCAV) • To trap more problems prior to flight, saving T&E cost/time by reducing number of fly-fix-fly iterations required • To better support R&D, evaluation of prototype technical solutions and EW Technology Demonstrator Programmes • By generating more operationally realistic and measurable RF/IR/EO threat environments in laboratory/chambers Network EW T&E, Synthetic Environment (SE) and Modelling & Simulation (M&S) facilities – Benefits: • System requirements capture and optimisation, system development risk minimisation, training, tactics development Ensure long lead capabilities available in time. Anticipate: • Urgent Operational Requirements, upgrades and future EW fits • Upcoming ‘digital from back of sensor’ systems Rapid Development, Insertion & Acceptance of EW Systems Improvements

Support increased EW acceptance process use of SE and M&S – provide facilities for robust validation of EW models EW Sensor placement optimisation via modelling and sub-/full-scale testing in anechoic chamber, to prevent, reduce, resolve problems with EW sensors/effectors, data links, communication systems and other RF sensors Laboratory/chamber R&D to understand mismatches between flight and ground test results Generate capability to perform mission rehearsal/optimisation in anechoic chamber’s secure RF environment

Reduced Cost and Environmental Impact of EW T&E and Facilities Less flight testing and ground engine running = reduced fuel cost and carbon footprint

More energy-efficient ground test facilities e.g. RF threat simulators Reduced RF environmental pollution: Radio/Radar/EW, EM Compatibility (EMC), lightning strike tests in chamber Codes Strong Contributor Medium Contributor Minor Contributor or Not Applicable

From: Welch & Pywell NATO RTO AGARDograph 300 Vol.28, EW Test and Evaluation (Dec 2012). http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFullText/RTO/AG/RTO-AG-300-V28///$$AG-300-V28-ALL.pdf

• Required to support system design, development and customer acceptance

• Modelling and Simulation (M&S)

• Sub-System and Avionics Integration Laboratories (SIL)

• Hardware In The Loop (HITL)

• Installed System Test Facilities (ISTF)

• Open Air Ranges (OAR)

M&S is: • Representation of reality via use of models and simulations • Used throughout the platform systems’ life cycle

Testing EW systems can be considered a ‘simulation’ of their operational use

Synthetic Environments – rising importance to EW T&E process

Scenarios Emitter Library

From ‘Testing Tomorrow’s EW System Today’: P.W. Richard, BAE SYSTEMS North America

Various Types of MF’s used for T&E of EW Systems: • Cover testing of: • Un-installed EW components, e.g. antennas • Platform-installed EW systems • Main types shown on this and next slides: • Radar Cross Section • Infra-Red Signatures EMC Tests on Open Air Test Site • Antenna performance

RCS Range: • 2–18 GHz ground plane range • Full polarisation – H, V and Cross • Absolute RCS data, 1D and 2D imagery • Component and full scale targets up to 35 tonnes and 15m • On 7m tall, 12 tonne Az/El low-RCS positioner

Mobile RCS Measurements: • 2–40 GHz instrumentation radar system • Test articles from component to whole body targets of up to 12 m • Measure target in early and mid-life cycle, production stage and in service

Key measurement capabilities: • Engine/plume measurements • Hotspot investigations and black body calibration • Thermal Imaging Cameras: • Medium Wave IR (3-5 μm) • Long Wave IR (8-12 μm) • Spectro-radiometer (1.25 – 14.8 μm) • Temperature range -20ºC to +1500ºC • Ground-to-Ground/-Air and Air-to-Air & -Ground

• Essential to know antenna pattern and gain

• Data gathered from facilities shown

Antenna Pattern Measurement

• Data used to: • Support design verification • Validate Modelling & Simulation • Programme RF threat simulators

Installed Systems Test Facilities

• Large anechoic chambers

• Limited examples world-wide, this is UK example

• Recently upgraded: • 11 Channel CEESIM • Signal Measurement System • Infrastructure & Amplifiers

RFEG

ECM RMS

Open Air Ranges

www.raf.mod.uk/rafspadeadam/gallery.htm

Significant Threat Simulator Developments to Date (1)

Emitter modelling - • Fully Complex Emitters and Environment Realism • RF source improvements • RF pulse shaping • Optimal Use of RF Resources • Modelling of jammers and newer radar features • Pulse Modulator Components • Emitter antenna pattern modelling © Northrop Grumman Amherst Systems 2011

Pywell, M. ‘Developments in RF Simulator Technology – Approaching the Affordable Fidelity Limit’. The Aeronautical Journal (2007) © Northrop Grumman Amherst Systems 2011

Significant Threat Simulator Developments to Date (2)

Propagation & atmospheric effects models • Atmospheric effects • Multipath • Gaming volume, surface types, terrain modelling/masking • Platform and Emitter geometry modelling and dynamics

© Northrop Grumman Amherst Systems 2011 Platform and System Under Test (SUT) antenna/aperture/receiver models • Receiver antenna pattern modelling • Digitally controlled attenuators • Phase Comparison & TDOA SUT techniques • Polarisation modelling

• Wider bandwidth

• Improved Dynamic Range: >50 dB

• Improved Low Signal Detection

Laboratory & Chamber Testing Benefits vs. Flight Trials

How much EW T&E can ACTUALLY be done by M&S and SE?

• Move from Physical to ‘Virtual’ testing using M&S and SE

• Clear more can be done this way

• Will never totally supplant ground & flight test

Key Questions: • Boundaries between physical and virtual testing • Overall cost-effectiveness of those types of testing • Sufficient confidence in M&S and SE to fully trust results

HLA RTI: High Level Architecture Real Time Implementation

Conclusions

• EW remains crucial to survivability and so to mission success

• Significant military affordability challenges exist

• EW T&E community continues to help meet these challenges

• Further worthwhile improvements have been identified under three headings.

• Improved RF threat scenario simulation fidelity • Reduced overall T&E cost • Reduced flight testing

• For further information see: • Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering (2010) Ch.375- Ch.380 • ‘De-Risking Platform Clearance of EW Systems’ G. Slater & M. Pywell (2012)

Co-authors’ contact details:

Mitch Midgley-Davies, BEng, CEng, MIET Email: [email protected] Phone: +44 (0) 1772 857173

Dr. Mike Pywell, BSc, MPhil, PhD, CEng, FIET Email: [email protected] Phone: +44 (0) 1772 852801

www.baesystems.com