Technology Commonality for Cirrus Real Time Processing Systems Simulation Training of Air Combat Officers Peter Freed and Naval Helicopter Control Officers Introduction to Cirrus capabilities & We have significant levels of proven, COTS IP for military, tactical and communications domains. Cirrus designs advanced software for real time applications requiring deterministic performance and high reliability. Systems deployed with the ADF since Played significant roles in, and developed a strong track record from, 9 Defence major programmes. Patented and award-winning technologies. Cirrus winner of DMO/Industry award for Best Minor Acquisition Project Completed approx 70 contracts; to CoA, and PSIs. credentials Technologies Over our history, we have successfully developed such systems in many different application areas : Cirrus expertise is the development of complex real time software intensive systems breadth of capability Acoustic processing,sensor data acquisition, system integration glueware, data recording, track analysis,remote sensing and simulation of complex systems. 1. Context A comparison of two roles ACO Role Organisation : Air Force Tempo : Very Fast Kit : Radar, EO/IR sensors, navigation, comms. 1. Context A comparison of two roles HCO Role Organisation : Naval Tempo : Medium Kit : Radar, Comms, ATC/ASW tasks. 1. Context ACO and HCO are very different roles Training needs very different Yet similarities exist common simulation technology infrastructure used to train both. 1. Context Equivalence of operational paradigms. 1. The real world 2. Viewed by a sensor 3. Controlled by an operator 4. To develop a tactical picture 5. To inform command decision. 2. Framework Technologies Simulation Training Network (STN) Sensor Simulation Engine (SSE). 2. Framework Technologies Simulation Training Network Simulation Training Network (STN) is the base suite of adaptable software applications and the associated interconnecting messaging system. 2. Framework Technologies Simulation Training Network 2. Framework Technologies Sensor Simulation Engine - Configurable sensor emulation - sensor resolution - fields of view, ranges, earth curvature - image signal and noise characteristics - refractive effects, shadowing etc. 3. Case Study and Comparison Air Combat Officer Training System (ACOTS) Helicopter Control Officer Training System (HCOTS). 3.1 Topology Adaptation ACOTS requirements affecting STN Topology - 2 students trained by 2 instructors - Students share common scenario - Students control their own sensors - Students develop their own tactical picture STN topology becomes 3.1 Topology Adaptation Comparison with HCOTS: - 2 instructors training a single student HCO - Instructors manage different aspects of real world scenario including air assets being controlled by the HCO STN topology becomes 3.1 Topology Adaptation 3.2 Instructor Controls Adaptation ACOTS requirements affecting instructor controls : - Map based view of world - Fast access to entities due to air combat tempo. 3.2 Instructor Controls Adaptation Comparison with HCOTS: - VSL based view of world - Need for aircraft controls to close loop HCO issues directive to controlled aircraft Instructor controls aircraft per directive Environment (wind etc.) impacts aircraft HCOs sensor paints aircraft 3.2 Instructor Controls Adaptation 3.3 Entity Behaviours Adaptation ACOTS requirements affecting entity behaviours: - Air domain fast moving entities - pre-programmed paths and dynamic control - Controls over entity emissions, signatures etc. - Own ship platform motion not simulated by scenario; taken from actual King-Air nav data. 3.3 Entity Behaviours Adaptation HCOTS entity behaviours: - Air domain mixed fixed wing (fast) and rotary wing - pre-programmed paths and dynamic control, including instructor fly per order control - control over signatures, IFF/ident modes. - own ships motion generated by simulation. 3.4 Trainee View of Sensor ACOTS requirements affecting trainee interface to sensor : - Representative of multi-function display (MFD) - Generic radar, soft button controls - Representation of controls outside MFD; RWR, link, text chat, own ships instruments. 3.4 Trainee View of Sensor (v2.2) 3.4 Trainee View of Sensor Comparison with HCOTS: - Representation of specific naval combat system - integrated radar video overlaid onto tactical plot - integrated comms system with internal/external voice circuits. 3.4 Trainee View of Sensor 3.5 Tactical Picture Compilation ACOTS requirements affecting trainee interface to tactical picture compilation : - Representation of generic chart based TPC tool - Sensors tracks plotted on moving map - NCW contact interchange - Contact classification management - Own mission management. 3.5 Tactical Picture Compilation Comparison with HCOTS: - Integrated with radar video - Emulation of combat systems tools specific to the HCO role (SCA, ELVA, zones etc.). 3.5 Tactical Picture Compilation 3.6 SSE Adaptation ACOTS requirements affecting SSE : - Represent imaging radars - Sector (wedge) and omni (donut) radars - Multiple radar modes (RBM, SSR, WR, ASR) - range scales, range/azimuthal resolutions - DTEDS L2 terrain database - VMAP database for cultural features. 3.6 SSE Adaptation Comparison with HCOTS: - Represent a naval (i.e. mast mount) radar - Omni SSR / ASR - range scales, range/azimuthal resolutions to reasonably represent target device - DTEDS terrain database. 4.1 Outcomes - ACOTS development : May-Dec 2010, with next (d3.0) release imminent - Now in service with RAAF School of Air Warfare (SAW) at E-Sale - DMO/Industry award for Minor Acquisitions - HCOTS development : June-Oct Now in service with regional navy. 4.2 Conclusions -Development of ACOTS and HCOTS covers complex software and science issues - High risk - or at least, they should be ! - Developments completed successfully in very short schedules (7 months, 5 months). - Testament to the capability, robustness and flexibility of STN and SSE technologies. more on the Web :or contact Peter Freed