2005 aoc - evaluating airliner manpads protection

8/13/2019 2005 Aoc - Evaluating Airliner Manpads Protection

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2005-aoc-evaluating-airliner-manpads-protection 1/21

Tactical Technologies Inc., All Rights Reserved 19/15/2009

Evaluating Airliner MANPADS Protection

Dr. T.W. TuckerTactical Technologies Inc.

356 Woodroffe Ave.

Ottawa, Ontario, K2A 3V6

Tel: (613) 828-0775, e-mail: [email protected] URL: www.tti.on.ca

42nd Annual AOC International Symposium

Virginia Beach, October 26, 2005




Outline

l Engagement Characterization

l MANPADS Characteristics

l DIRCM Modulation For Success

l DIRCM vs MANPADS Simulations

l Flares vs MANPADS Simulations




Engagement Characterization

l Threat Weapon: Guidance and Dynamics

l Target Platform: Signature and Maneuver

l Countermeasures: Techniques and Tacticsl Propagation: Attenuation vs Wavelength

l Background Clutter

l Engagement Geometryl Simulation Involves About 250 Parameters




Engagement Scenarios

l Wide Body Aircraft– Four Engines

– In Take-off, Climbing at 100

– Speed 100 m/sec,– AC Altitude at Missile Launch: 400 m

l Missile Launch

– Launch Range 1.4 Km– Terminal Velocity 600 m/s




MANPADS Characteristics

Threat Wave Band

(microns)

Tracking

Technique

Reference

SA-7

Grail

1.9-2.8

(uncooled)

Spin Scan

(Amplitude)

Fiszer et al, JED, Jan 04

Zaloga, Janes Pub, 1988

SA-14Gremlin

1.9-4.1(cooled)

Con Scan(Frequency)

Fiszer et al, JED, Jan 04http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/SA-14

SA-16

Gimlet

2-3 & 3-5

(two colour

discrimination)

Con Scan?

(Frequency)

OPFOR Battle Book, Mar 98,

Ch 3

SA-18

Grouse

2-3 & 3-5

(ECCM - colourdiscrimination)

Rosette? Grossman et al, Rand Study,#1713




Spin Scan Tracker

Graphics: “Test And Evaluation Of The Tactical Missile” By E.J. Eichblatt

Counter-Phase ECM Amplitude Modulation Causes Angle Error

Sweeping ECM AM Frequency Can Ensure Counter-Phasing

Spinning Reticle

Target Detection and Tracking

Relative Phase Determines Target Angle


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2005-aoc-evaluating-airliner-manpads-protection 7/21Tactical Technologies Inc., All Rights Reserved 79/15/2009

Swept AM vs Spin Scan



Swept AM vs Spin Scan Effectiveness

Average Miss Distance (m)

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0



Swept AM vs Spin Scan Miss Distance Dependence on Missile Launch Range

(In The Tail Chase Geometry)

Miss Distance Depends Somewhat on Launch Range (ie Relative AM and Spin Scan Phase)

Swept AM vs Spin Scan

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

1200 1250 1300 1350 1400

Missile Launch Range (m)

M i s s i l e M i s s D i s t a n c e ( m )

Miss Distance:

Average = 57.9 m

Last Mode:100% In Search



Typical Rosette Scans: Multiple Spinning Optics

Graphic: “The Infra-Red Handbook” Edited By W.L Wolfe And G.J. Zessis

l Track While Scan

l Spatial Sampling

l

Quasi-Imagingl Digital Tracking

l Generation OfDeceptive AM vsDigital Track IsDifficult



Swept AM vs Rosette Engagement



Rosette AM Deception Analysis

Sample RosetteCharacteristics

l Two Counter-Rotating Mirrors

l Rotation Rates =15 & 27 Hz

l Petal Frequency = 42 Hz

l Rosette Frequency = 3 Hz

l Number of Petals = 14

l Sequence As Shown At Left

1

2

3

41

2

3

4

7

1013

5

8

11

14

6

9

12

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Sample AM ECM

Characteristicsl AM Center Frequency = 43.5 Hz



Angle Error vs AM Frequency

-1.000

-0.500

0.000

0.500

1.000

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

-1.000

-0.500

0.000

0.500

1.000

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

-1.000

-0.500

0.000

0.500

1.000

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

42.0 Hz

43.5 Hz

45.0 Hz

6.9% Sweep



Swept AM (6.9%) vs Rosette Miss Distance Dependence on Missile Launch Range

(In The Tail Chase Geometry)

Miss Distance Depends Substantially on Launch Range (ie Relative AM and Rosette Phase)

Swept AM vs Rosette

-20.0

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

1200 1250 1300 1350 1400

Missile Launch Range (m)

M i s s i l e M i s s D i s t a n c e ( m )

Miss Distance:

Average = 27.5 m

Last Mode:50% In Search

OutboardInboard




Swept AM (6.9%) vs Rosette Effectiveness

Average Missile Miss Distance (m)

0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0




Average Missile Miss Distance (m)

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

350.0

Swept AM (2.3%) vs Rosette Effectiveness




Flares vs Rosette Engagement




Flares vs Rosette Effectiveness




Flares vs Spin Scan Effectiveness




Airliner Self Protection

l On-Board (DIRCM)– Modulation’s Success

Depends on Threat’sTracking Technique

– Requires ThreatAnalysis Capabilities

l Defeat of AdvancedTrackers May Be

Difficult if DIRCMPower Is Not Sufficientto Cause Damage

l Off-Board (Flares)– Deployment Sequence

Relative to End Game(Timing) Is Important

For Success– Success Is Engagement

Geometry Dependent

l Success Is Relatively

Independent OfThreat’s TrackingTechnique

2005 aoc - evaluating airliner manpads protection

Documents