electronic warfare self-protection of battlefield helicopters - Aaltodoc

More documents

Recommendations

Info

36 of their usability (Table 1). However, the freedom to choose has limits due to requirements on academic theses. Alternative Reason for being considered Comment Textual information Traditional and retains a strong position in communication. Used in all areas of life. Tabulated information Concise way of communicating Commonly in combination with information whenever applicable. written and/or oral information. Graphical information Attracts human cognition better than Usually in combination with writing. written and/or oral information. Flow and block Allow graphical presentation of the Common tool in systems and diagrams structure of control and processes. computer engineering. Word-and-arrow Allow graphical presentation of Used chiefly in social sciences, but diagrams causal processes. little known in engineering. Checkland’s soft system Allows analysis of unstructured Applied to social problems, but not methodology problems. to engineering problems. Forrester system Allows modeling and simulation of Applied mostly to management dynamics causal processes. problems, rare in engineering. Tools for mathematical Allow computation of physical Used mostly in engineering and computation processes. mathematical sciences, but not to study unstructured problems. Table 1: Alternative methods considered for generating the holistic view on EWSP of battlefield helicopters. Table 1 includes methods which, inserted into the continuum of OR methods (Figure 5), would represent anything from the “softest” (no quantification) to the “hardest” (quantitative only). The important message of Figure 5 is that available methods do not form a dichotomy of soft and hard—or black and white—alternatives, but come in all shades of gray. The difference between hard and soft OR methods is often seen as one between quantitative and qualitative approaches. Another view is that hard methods are concerned with reaching a predefined end, or “How should we do it?” whereas soft methods accept the notion of plurality of possible viewpoints, or “What should be done?” (original emphasis) [Flo91 p.169]. HARD OR METHODS Design of experiments Regression Linear programming Queuing theory Heuristics Simulation System dynamics Decision trees Project management Clustering techniques Data mining Probability assessment Problem formulation Influence diagrams Audio/ visual tapes Cognitive mapping Case study analysis Surveys Watching an experiment Soft systems methodology Questionnaires Figure 5: Continuum of selected OR methods, located along the scale ranging from "soft" to "hard". Adapted from Glasow [Gla00]; influence diagrams and project management are deemed “softer” than in Glasow’s presentation. SOFT OR METHODS
2.3.4 Traditional methods 37 The expression “traditional methods” refers to the four first methods in Table 1. Together they are the backbone of analyses and communication in most areas of science and engineering. It has been claimed that qualitative methodologies generally produce narrative outputs that are open to a wide array of interpretations by readers and are difficult to represent graphically. The insights produced by qualitative means are therefore often difficult to communicate. [Sau02] This view is extreme but not altogether incorrect, since precise textual information is often long and demanding on the reader. However, completed with tables and graphs the written text becomes more attractive to an audience. One of the strengths of block and flow diagrams is the easy way of presenting interrelated data and processes. The only block and flow diagram that has been considered for this study is the modified data flow diagram (DFD); modified according to the notations in Figure 6. An example was shown already in Figure 3. The attractiveness of this approach is explained by the fact that data flow diagrams are well known in the engineering community, they can be used outside their original field of software systems engineering, and although the philosophy behind them requires some effort the diagrams can be understood without training. Processing delay Comment: Templates are used to highlight entities within the diagram. D TEMPLATE Processing task External interactor or resource Flow Triggering flow Delayed flow D Flow with special attributes Store Miscellaneous objects Figure 6: Notations of the modified data flow diagram considered for use in the present work. Whereas the original DFD concentrates on data processes, the modified diagram allows other factors be modeled as well, and uses annotations for clarity. 2.3.5 Word-and-arrow diagrams There exists a wealth of modeling tools that can be grouped under the heading “word-and-arrow diagrams”. Word-and-arrow diagrams can be subdivided into influence diagrams and cognitive maps, although the division is somewhat artificial. Examples of acyclic influence diagrams are the “laundry list” diagram (cf. [Hit92 p.173]) shown in Figure 1, tree diagrams, Ishikawa’s “fish-bone” diagram, and Bayesian belief networks. The best known cyclic influence diagram is the causal loop diagram (CLD). A common trait with acyclic influence diagrams is that they qualitatively depict the influence that various factors (variables, issues, parts, etc.) have on each other. Cognitive maps show outwardly great similarity with CLDs, and they have been applied to similar types of unstructured problems. Two categories of cognitive maps are the Kelly type and the Axelrod type [Axe76, Ede88]. Cognitive
Page 1 and 2: Helsinki University of Technology,
Page 3 and 4: 3 HELSINKI UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
Page 5: 5 PREFACE Illis quorum meruere labo
Page 8 and 9: 8 3 THE OPERATIONAL SETTING .......
Page 10 and 11: 10 6.4 The top-down view on EWSP ..
Page 12 and 13: ABBREVIATION DESCRIPTION CCM Counte
Page 14 and 15: ABBREVIATION DESCRIPTION 14 MMI Man
Page 17 and 18: 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Incentive for th
Page 19 and 20: 19 According to Regev [Reg01] a fun
Page 21 and 22: 21 alternatives and their possible
Page 23 and 24: 23 The second cornerstone for the p
Page 25 and 26: 25 uninteresting to the layman. It
Page 27 and 28: 27 and application of the whole as
Page 29 and 30: 29 relevance to the holistic view.
Page 31: 1.4.4 Organization of the present w
Page 34 and 35: 34 The last objective, to “resolv
Page 38 and 39: 38 maps of the Axelrod type are use
Page 40 and 41: 2.3.7 Forrester system dynamics 40
Page 42 and 43: 42 its usefulness to the present wo
Page 44 and 45: 44 When judging the models and simu
Page 46 and 47: 46 reconnaissance role rotorcraft h
Page 48 and 49: 48 popularity over Clausewitz’, g
Page 50 and 51: 3.2.2 Helicopter operations and tac
Page 52 and 53: 52 Weapon Take-off and landing Tran
Page 54 and 55: 54 identification. Also, as a conse
Page 56 and 57: 56 Traditional survivability thinki
Page 58 and 59: 58 3.3.3 Additional considerations
Page 60 and 61: 60 As a conclusion on the discussio
Page 62 and 63: 3.4.2 Helicopter signatures 62 Tabl
Page 64 and 65: 3.4.3 Background signatures 64 NATU
Page 66 and 67: 3.4.5 Summary of phenomenology 66 T
Page 68 and 69: 4.1.2 Non-terminal threat systems 6
Page 70 and 71: 70 MBT to be the prominent killer o
Page 72 and 73: Missile system Spectral wavelength
Page 74 and 75: 74 Aircraft rockets and guns Fixed-
Page 76 and 77: 76 Weapons technology relies ever m
Page 78 and 79: 78 alternatives is presented in App
Page 80 and 81: 80 Laser technology and guidance La
Page 82 and 83: 82 the attention had been on the S-
Page 84 and 85: 84 4.2.5 Threat technology developm
Page 86 and 87:
86 4.2.7 Conclusions and implicatio
Page 88 and 89:
88 RWR issue Contemplation Threat s
Page 90 and 91:
90 Laser warning receivers The chan
Page 92 and 93:
92 guidance methods and classic ECM
Page 94 and 95:
94 EO countermeasures Some ideas ha
Page 96 and 97:
Examples: - AN/ALQ-144A (US) - L-16
Page 98 and 99:
98 Development of countermeasures f
Page 100 and 101:
100 countermeasures develop in para
Page 102 and 103:
5.2 Support factors 5.2.1 Support f
Page 104 and 105:
104 Figures 42 and 43 make it clear
Page 106 and 107:
Strategic/operational intelligence
Page 108 and 109:
108 fratricide, with one example be
Page 110 and 111:
110 continues throughout the missio
Page 112 and 113:
112 Platform installation is an eng
Page 114 and 115:
114 requires that the helicopter wi
Page 116 and 117:
116 M&S Ground tests OAR flight tes
Page 118 and 119:
118 Platform installation requires
Page 120 and 121:
120
Page 122 and 123:
122 Figure 58 reviews earlier discu
Page 124 and 125:
124 One approach to susceptibility
Page 126 and 127:
126 Based on Figure 59, events last
Page 128 and 129:
HIERARCHY LEVELS Level 7: Strategic
Page 130 and 131:
130 6.5 Modeling the EWSP capabilit
Page 132 and 133:
THREAT DEVELOPMENT DELAY threat dev
Page 134 and 135:
6,000 3,000 0 Threats with CMs 134
Page 136 and 137:
136 3. The model becomes generic wh
Page 138 and 139:
138 6.6.2 Discussion on the Campaig
Page 140 and 141:
140 The influence of EWSP is twofol
Page 142 and 143:
142 Simulation Dynamic behavior Bas
Page 144 and 145:
144 6.7 Modeling the EWSP mission l
Page 146 and 147:
146 Figure 74: Text in figure. Figu
Page 148 and 149:
148 3. Cost-benefit considerations
Page 150 and 151:
150 In the next two simulations—S
Page 152 and 153:
152 for simulations, but better dat
Page 154 and 155:
154 By Definition 2 the survivabili
Page 156 and 157:
156 and 58), without which EWSP can
Page 158 and 159:
158 Chapters 3 through 5 are a syst
Page 160 and 161:
160 In conclusion, the insight gain
Page 162 and 163:
162 paradigm is the most viable alt
Page 164 and 165:
164 when modeling different EWSP sy
Page 166 and 167:
166 16. Ormondroyd, Richard, Profes
Page 168 and 169:
168 Anon95a Anonymous: Additional P
Page 170 and 171:
170 Bil02 Billingsley, D.: Choppers
Page 172 and 173:
172 Col99 Colucci, F.: Smart Surviv
Page 174 and 175:
174 Erw04 Erwin, S.: Army Rushes to
Page 176 and 177:
176 Gol87 Golden, A. jr.: Radar Ele
Page 178 and 179:
178 How90b Howell, G.T., McCord, J.
Page 180 and 181:
180 Kra92 Krabbendam, A.J.: System
Page 182 and 183:
182 Mil74 Miller, W.E. et al.: Beam
Page 184 and 185:
184 Pol97 Polmar, N., Allen, T.B.:
Page 186 and 187:
186 Ros03 Rosander, A.: Statusberä
Page 188 and 189:
188 Ste98 Stevens, R. et al.: Syste
Page 190 and 191:
190 Wil93b Wiley, R.G.: Electronic
Page 192 and 193:
192 APPENDIX 1: AUXILIARY FIGURES A
Page 194 and 195:
Details in Figure 1-1 Wavelength 10
Page 196 and 197:
Sun: Strong emitter with approx. 60
Page 198 and 199:
Target IR detector 1 2 198 Prism 1
Page 200 and 201:
Separation from the aircraft Chaff
Page 202 and 203:
202 Type Table 1-1: IR DETECTORS De
Page 204 and 205:
204 Type Table 1-2b: SCANNING RF RE
Page 206 and 207:
CVR IFM Superheterodyne Channelized
Page 208 and 209:
208 Table 1-3: RADAR SELECTIVITY Se
Page 210 and 211:
Appendix 1, References 210 Ald02 Al
Page 212 and 213:
212 Sch86 Schleher, D.C.: Introduct
Page 214 and 215:
214 Parameters used in the Capabili
Page 216 and 217:
216 Parameter Value Motivation MAXI
show all

electronic warfare self-protection of battlefield helicopters - Aaltodoc

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?