Aircraft Survivability Newsletter List
Editor:
LTC John N. Lawless, Jr.Phone:
Naval Air Systems Command
Code AIR-4.1.8 (JTCG/AS)
1421 Jefferson Davis Highway
Arlington, VA 22243-5120
(703) 325-0165Email:
DSN 221-0165
jtcgas@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.milMailing List:
Views and comments addressed to the Editor at the above address are welcome.
Mailing list additions/deletions/changes may be directed to:
WL/FIVS/SURVIAC
Building 45
2130 Eighth Street, Suite 1
Wright-Patterson AFB, OH
45433-7542
Attention: Linda Ryan
(937) 255-4840, DSN 785-4840
lryan@surviac.flight.wpafb.af.mil
Top of Document
SURVIAC Satellite Office
8283 Greensboro Drive, Suite 626
McLean, VA 22102-3838
Attention: Greg McClellan
(703) 902-4664
mcclellan_greg@bah.com
In this issue, we focus on the educational and training resources through which individuals in the field learn the technical aspects of aircraft survivability. Whether they are working in theoretical research or practical applications, a strong technical background is an essential component of a knowledgeable and credible survivability workforce. The dedicated survivability professionals who populate our training institutions are key to maintaining an emphasis on making our aircraft harder to hit and, if hit, harder to kill. We appreciate their enthusiasm and hard work.
In October, the Combat Survivability Division of the American Defense Preparedness Association (ADPA), in cooperation with the JTCG/AS, AIAA, and Association of Old Crows, presented an outstanding conference on "The Impact of Low Observable Technology on Aircraft Survivability." In his opening remarks, Rear Admiral Robert H. Gormley, USN (Ret), offered some timely and thought-provoking observations on the current state of the aircraft survivability discipline. In his words, "Survivability has been on a roll," receiving high priority in aircraft design, and "survivability" has become a general officer watchword. "There`s much to take pride in," he said, "but there are now signs of erosion." Among the concerns he enumerated are decreased emphasis on survivability in recent DoD instructions, a "hyper-focus" on testing rather than a more balanced approach to RDT&E, and the increasingly political nature of both the survivability discipline and the community. He challenged us to reestablish and strengthen survivability focal points in the Services and OSD, to work to ease tensions among the various test and R&D agencies, and to restore survivability to its proper place in DoDI 5000.2.
I share Admiral Gormley`s concerns. Budgets are tight, downsizing has taken a toll, and aircraft R&D programs are continuously at risk. The perception among some that the end of the Cold War meant the end of the threat is naive with the proliferation of advanced technologies and record sales of sophisticated weapons worldwide, today`s aviators face a greater array of threats than ever before. As the leaders of the aircraft survivability movement, we must redouble our efforts to ensure that the aircraft we help design and build are as safe and effective as they can be. The pilots we support expect, and deserve, nothing less.
As a result of my upcoming reassignment, this will be my last issue as Editor of Aircraft Survivability. As I depart, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to all those individuals who have helped to make this assignment both personally and professionally rewarding for me. While I could never list all of the people who have contributed to the JTCG/AS during my three years here, several individuals have been instrumental in helping to keep this organization alive and vibrant. My deepest gratitude to our Principal Members, Mr. Dave Hornick, Mr. Ralph Lauzze, and Colonel Pat Oler, and to our OSD sponsors, Mr. Dick Ledesma and Dr. Al Rainis. I have appreciated your guidance, support, and patience. Thanks also to our subgroup and committee chairmen for their leadership and cooperation, and to the members of the Central Office for keeping this enterprise operating through some rather turbulent times. The staff at SURVIAC has continued to provide the survivability community with exceptional service, including the publication of this newsletter.
Finally, my very special thanks to Mr. Dale Atkinson, Admiral Bob Gormley, Mr. Jerry Wallick, and Distinguished Professor Bob Ball, the true icons of the aircraft survivability world. Your vision and dedication have brought us a long way over the past 25 years. Our military services, and indeed our nation, are indebted to you.
Mr. David P. Hornick, Chairman of the JTCG/AS Principal Members Steering Group (PMSG), will retire from Government service in January. The PMSG chairmanship will pass to the Air Force Principal Member, Mr. Ralph W. Lauzze II, Joint Test Director of the Joint Live Fire (Aircraft) Program at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Mr. Hornick will be replaced as Navy Principal Member by Mr. R. A. "Tim" Horton, Head of the Survivability Division at the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, China Lake, California.
LTC John N. Lawless, Jr., JTCG/AS Central Office Director and Army military representative, will be reassigned in January to the Defense Systems Management College at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, where he will be a Professor of Acquisition Management in the Contract and Logistic Operations Branch. Replacing LTC Lawless as Director is Mr. Raymond R. Flores, the Central Office's Air Force civilian representative. LTC Paul M. McQuain will be the new Army military representative to the Central Office, arriving from his most recent assignment with the Defense Contract Management Command in Tucson, Arizona.
Central Office Move Scheduled
The JTCG/AS Central Office is scheduled to move from its current location in Alexandria, Virginia to Crystal City, Virginia sometime during the first half of 1997. Further details were not yet available at press time. As a result of this move, our mailing address and telephone and fax numbers will change. Please watch future issues of this publication for further information.
Vulnerability Reduction Subgroup Receives New Army Co-Chairman
Mr. Robert M. Buckanin, Team Chief, Pilotage Systems in the Mission Equipment and Integration Division of the U.S. Army Aviation Applied Technology Directorate, Ft. Eustis, Virginia, was recently named Army Co-Chairman of the JTCG/AS Vulnerability Reduction Subgroup. Mr. Buckanin replaces Drew Orlino, who has taken a one-year assignment to the Pentagon.
Mr. Buckanin has been active in the JTCG/AS during the past two years as Army Co-Chairman of the Vulnerability Reduction Subgroup's Flight Systems Committee. He has been instrumental in developing and supporting the Rotorcraft Fluidic Flight Control System (FCS) Flight Demonstration project currently being sponsored by the JTCG/AS. We welcome Mr. Buckanin, and we look forward to his leadership and continued active participation in the Vulnerability Reduction Subgroup.
JTCG/AS Team Members Honored
The following members of the JTCG/AS community have been recognized for their contributions to the Aircraft Survivability discipline:
Hugh E. Griffis of the US Air Force Aeronautical Systems Center received the 1996 American Defense Preparedness Association (ADPA) Combat Survivability Technical Award for outstanding achievements in affecting the design of the F-22 aircraft. John M. Vice, a former Director of SURVIAC, was named recipient of the 1996 ADPA Combat Survivability Leadership Award for his superior performance, leadership attributes, and years of service to the aircraft survivability community. Mr. Griffis and Mr. Vice were presented with these honors October 8, 1996 at the ADPA Symposium, "The Impact of Low Observable Technology on Aircraft Survivability," in Monterey, California.
Richard R. Ledesma, Deputy Director for Test and Evaluation in the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Acquisition and Technology), received the International Test and Evaluation Association (ITEA) 1996 Allen R. Matthews Award for his lasting, significant lifetime achievements and contributions to the field of Test and Evaluation. Mr. Ledesma, who is the JTCG/AS's OSD sponsor, received his award on October 16, 1996 during ITEA's International Symposium in Seattle, Washington.
The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) selected Distinguished Professor Robert E. Ball as the 1996 recipient of the AIAA Survivability Award, presented at the AIAA and SAE World Aviation Congress and Exposition in Los Angeles, California on October 24, 1996. Dr. Ball, of the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School's Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, was recognized for his pioneering efforts in establishing survivability as a design discipline through development of his aircraft survivability textbook and educational courses.
For the past fifteen
years, Mr. Lizza has served with the U.S. Air Force Wright Laboratory's
Flight Dynamics Directorate in the area of aircraft survivability and safety
related research. He currently serves as Wright Laboratory's liaison to
the Aeronautical System Center's Aerospace Control and Strike Mission Area
Support Office. He has also served as Chairman of the JTCG/AS Fuels Committee
and been involved with a number of survivability efforts including the
F-15 Joint Live Fire Program and the Halon Replacement Program. Mr. Lizza
holds a BS in Engineering from Purdue University and a Master of Science
degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Dayton. Following
his recent appointment as Chairman of the Vulnerability Reduction Subgroup,
we had the opportunity to speak with him in regard to vulnerability reduction.
Mr. Lizza can be reached at (937) 255-0935, DSN 785-0935.
Q: As the new Chairman of the Vulnerability Reduction Subgroup, what
are your aspirations for the group?
A: As we near the 21st century, maintaining our technological supremacy
in a period of reorganization, downsizing, and broadening military roles
is becoming the significant challenge for the DoD and the Vulnerability
Reduction Subgroup. The subgroup's primary goal remains that we provide
the warfighter with demonstrated, low penalty, and affordable vulnerability
reduction technology options. To provide these options, we are focusing
our technology projects on meeting identified vulnerability reduction requirements
concentrating on a balanced approach for ensuring that there is transition
potential for both retrofit and planned aircraft. Over the years, we have
made significant progress in establishing combat survivability to what
we know today as a high-priority design requirement for all our military
aircraft. Our investments in advanced materials, design practices, damage
tolerant components and stealth technology have overwhelmingly demonstrated
their value in saving lives. Our focus will remain in continuing this life-saving
trend, in which vulnerability reduction technology can successfully compete
upfront among the numerous but often contradictory requirements associated
with cost and performance.
Q: Describe your subgroup's area of responsibility?
A: As a Tri-Service organization, we look for ways to increase aircraft
survivability and safety by reducing vulnerability for current and future
aircraft (fixed and rotor-wing) in the non-nuclear combat environment.
The Vulnerability Reduction Subgroup is organized into five functional
areas: (1) fuels, (2) structures and materials, (3) propulsion, (4) armor
and crew protection, and (5) flight systems. Committee members provide
a wide variety of talent and experience. It is essential that each committee
continue to provide Tri-Service expertise in related areas, while aggressively
pursuing new and better ways to improve aircraft survivability (in terms
of design practices and technology integration). For the Vulnerability
Reduction Subgroup, risk reduction is a key element. With new major weapon
systems, designers will rely on proven technologies whenever possible.
Unfortunately, this environment encourages program offices and airframers
to shy away from promising technologies that have even the slightest bit
of risk. The JTCG's role is to help demonstrate such technologies long
before they are incorporated into new design Ð thus greatly reducing
risk to our warfighters.
Q: The Vulnerability Reduction Subgroup has a wide area of responsibility.
Due to a limited budget, what areas do you believe should have the highest
priority?
A: The aircraft vulnerability discipline touches nearly every type
of subsystem on an aircraft. Likewise, this discipline provides the opportunity
for a variety of different options to influence and reduce an aircraft's
vulnerability. One of our more important areas is the ability to accurately
determine or predict a weapon system's vulnerability. This requires a full
understanding of an aircraft's components, its kill modes, and the effects
of those kill modes on the ability to function. A clear understanding of
subsystem and component capability (or vulnerability) is critical for designers
and decision makers and helps them make informed trade-offs among the many
competing factors of cost, performance, susceptibility reduction, etc.
In addition, weapon platforms and their accompanying damage mechanisms
are growing increasingly complex. With the increasing use of new materials
and configurations (such as smart structures and thrust vectoring), we
must examine how these designs affect weapon system vulnerability. How
do the new advanced materials stand up to ballistic threats, fire, or future
threats? Or how does carrying munitions internally affect overall vulnerability?
We can no longer view our systems and components as independent. We must
look at synergistic effects.
With cost playing such an important part in our decisions, leveraging has become critical. Technologies that cut across multiple systems, services, and have multiple sponsors are given higher priority than technologies that are system specific and not backed by sponsors other than the JTCG. Further, since there will be few new large-scale production contracts to demonstrate these advances, we are also focusing our transition opportunities on insertions of new technology into existing as well as future weapon systems to meet new requirements and missions.
Q: The vulnerability assessment area is receiving a lot of attention
from OSD, and approaches are being discussed on how to best address this
critical area. How do you see your subgroup interfacing with potential
initiatives in the area and with the aircraft Joint Live Fire (JLF) Test
Program and the Vulnerability Assessment Committee?
A: Over the years, the JTCG has been at the forefront of the aircraft
survivability discipline. Our subgroup in particular is composed of dozens
of engineers who represent numerous organizations (throughout the Government
and industry) many of whom perfor m these roles and contribute solely as
an extra duty. The aircraft vulnerability reduction community is, for the
most part, a well-connected group of team players who see the value in
technologies and design practices geared to save lives. Subgroup member
expertise represents nearly every subsystem and discipline associated with
an aircraft. The focus now is to integrate our subgroup activities with
other related vulnerability assessment activities. In today's environment,
we cannot afford to go it alone.
You may recall that many of the JLF Aircraft Team members were drawn from the Vulnerability Reduction Subgroup when the JLF Program was established nearly 12 years ago. Coordination is essential, and the JTCG must continue to take the lead involving members throughout DoD and industry, while strengthening our ties with research universities.
An example of such coordination is the current development of a weapons bay vulnerability data base, which we are performing with the OSD sponsored JLF Program. The data collected during this effort directly feeds the analytical improvement efforts that are under way. In addition, we have been working with the methodology community in the area of fire and explosion prediction. By linking activities, we have been able to identify and collect needed data to fill critical voids while avoiding costly duplication. Additionally, I strongly encourage individuals and organizations interested in learning more about our subgroup's ongoing and planned activities to attend our annual meeting with industry (our last meeting was the week of August 20, 1996, in West Lebanon, NH).
Q: Hydraulic Ram analysis has been an almost intractable problem
in the past. Your subgroup has been working with hydrocodes and finite
element analysis techniques. Would you discuss these ongoing activities
for our readers?
A: The explosion of computational power and its effect on modeling
and simulation (M&S) advancements is one of the most exciting and promising
areas in the foreseeable future. DoD's use of models is continuing to grow,
especially as we downsize, because models offer the ability to rapidly
examine countless scenarios. M&S is providing data that previously
could only be obtained from costly and time-consuming testing. Until recently,
we have been unsuccessful in predicting the complex and dynamic interactions
among threat, structure, and adjacent fuel tanks. However, today's "hydrocodes"
enable us to model both solids and fluids and allow the simulation of highly
transient behaviors and large nonlinear effects. Hydrocodes offer a promising
means of gaining physical insight into the overall behavior of a structure/fluid
interface. The problem with prior models was an uncertainty surrounding
their approximation of reality. Vulnerability models have been traditionally
based on empirical data, and as more experimental data was added, the model
had to be reevaluated. There was also a lack of understanding of ram-related
phenomenology and damage mechanisms. The HRAM project takes advantage of
physics-based hydrocode technology (Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian and Smooth
Particle Hydrodynamics), advancing modeling accuracy by considering dynamic
material properties, using improved failure criteria, and incorporating
the best features of several codes into one routine. Although we are still
years away from technology maturity, projects such as this provide effective
techniques to accurately model the hydrodynamic ram problem for aircraft
design and analysis applications.
Q: What efforts does your subgroup have under way that will help
new advanced fighter aircraft?
A: Prior JTCG/AS vulnerability reduction programs have resulted in
substantial technological breakthroughs that have served as the standard
for today's aircraft as well as tomorrow's. Numerous past JTCG/AS sponsored
techniques and technologies have been successfully developed and installed
aboard military aircraft. As the awareness and importance of aircraft vulnerability
reduction has increased (largely due to the Live Fire Test law), our community's
opportunity to design and incorporate vulnerability reduction features
at the start of a program has also increased.
A wide range of proven technologies exists for the detection and extinguishment of fires and the elimination or mitigation of explosions induced by ballistic threats. Although effective, many current technologies are not optimized in terms of response time, false alarm rate, weight and space requirements, and supportability, and until the recent ban on halon, there was really no need (Halon was light enough that we could be conservative and not worry about being optimized). New alternative chemicals are proving to require more agent (increasing weight and size requirements), therefore a faster response time is needed. The current Machine Vision project is demonstrating reliable, false alarm-proof fire detection for aircraft dry bays and engine nacelles. This technology is expected to reduce the costs associated with unnecessary activation of suppression agents while preventing aircraft losses resulting from fire. In concert with this, we are funding the Advance Gas Generation project, which offers an extremely effective alternative to banned ozone-depleting chemicals for dry bay and engine nacelle protection.
With structural demands being frozen early in the acquisition cycle, innovative structural design configurations must be available long before many other technologies. One of the greatest challenges to tactical aircraft structural designers involve designs with mid-fuselage regions containing both fuel tanks and weapon bays. Our subgroup, in cooperation with the JLF Program, recently completed multi-year testing to determine what happens when internally carried stores are ballistically impacted. We now have a better understanding of the threat this poses to an aircraft and significant insight into potential reduction techniques. In addition, advancements in lighter, cost-efficient composites are persuading aircraft makers to move away from the traditional use metals. Advances in composites allow designs that were not possible with metals. We are sponsoring efforts that focus on damage tolerance, elimination of mechanical fasteners, and demonstrated design methods to decouple the fluid/structure interface to attenuate the effects of hydrodynamic ram for wing structures. Furthermore, JTCG projects are focusing on technologies that will have a great impact on the aircraft of the 21st century, including a move toward "power-by-wire," the use of fiber optics, and a reduced dependency on hydraulics. With cost driving many program decisions, the vulnerability of the propulsion system is critical because of the trend toward single engine aircraft. To date, significant progress has been made in the ability to specify fuel ingestion tolerance levels for modern engines with advancements in digital control. Understanding the effects of ballistic threats on modern engine design/construction, as well as determining critical characteristics of fan blade release, control logic and thrust vectoring (which have been incorporated as an additional "control surface") places new requirements on integration with the flight control system.
Q: How is your subgroup addressing affordability?
A: Technology advances are continually being developed to further the
state-of-the-art. Although all types of new concepts and applications of
technology are feasible, they are not all affordable. In today's environment,
it is very important that the technologies we pursue target our user needs.
Requirements are shifting away from performance as the sole consideration
with costs becoming a larger factor in the decision making process. It
is clear that we can no longer afford technologies that offer only marginal
gains over existing systems. Instead, we are exploring projects that offer
the potential for significant increases in performance (i.e., reduced vulnerability,
added peace-time safety benefits, and reduced weight penalties) and reductions
in cost of ownership (less maintenance, increased reliability, etc.).
Further, we are actively exploring ways to leverage commercial technology in order to maintain the pace of innovation despite decreasing budgets. Defense no longer paces technological change in many areas; and instead, the pathway is being paved by the commercial sector. By targeting high-payoff commercial technology through selected application-specific projects, we can avoid making the costly root investments ourselves. A prime example is the application of gas generation for extinguishing on-board fires, a technology spin-off from the automotive air bag. By making our technology parallel commercial technology, the JTCG can tailor its investment for aircraft specific application of this proven basic technology.
Q: What do you see as the future for vulnerability reduction technology?
A: We have witnessed a trend toward increased worldwide deployments
of U.S. forces and a larger variety of roles that they must assume. In
future missions, our aircraft and crews may face everything from conventional
threats to previously unencountered advanced anti-aircraft systems. Threats
facing the United States are no longer from a single enemy. As highlighted
in Bosnia last June, many smaller nations have gained access to the newest
threat weapon systems.
Simultaneously, the world is on the verge of a technological revolution that offers the opportunity for extraordinary payoff in our nation's fighting capability. Advancements in computer technology provide for the realistic application of the sensors and processors needed for a "self-monitoring" aircraft. With major breakthroughs expected in everything from "smart structures" to "virtual prototyping," the methods we use to design, validate and apply vulnerability reduction techniques will be drastically altered.
Vulnerability reduction has become extremely important as military planners formulate new missions and adapt strategies and tactics to face ever-changing world conditions. In today's uncertain military environment, developing weapon systems to counter vague threats (current and future) is more important than ever. Experience shows that weapon systems will most likely be required to perform missions other than those for which they were originally designed. As defense budgets are scaled back, there is increasing pressure to develop all-purpose, multi-role capabilities rather than mission specific capabilities. Therefore, it is critical that vulnerability reduction technology be included at every decision milestone.
And finally, during this downsizing period, the JTCG/AS has an important role in documenting, communicating, and ensuring that corporate knowledge is retained as experienced engineers retire and leave the Government. Vulnerability reduction is a discipline like few others, in that a vast amount of knowledge is irreplaceable as it is gained through years of experience, one-of-a-kind ballistics testing, and actual combat events.
What is CAIV?
CAIV is a departmental acquisition strategy that will meet the future
needs of our forces with highly capable systems at affordable costs and
possibly shorter schedules. This strategy entails setting aggressive,
realistic cost objectives for acquiring defense systems and managing risks
to obtain those objectives. Cost objectives must balance mission needs
with projected out-year resources, taking into account existing technology
and confidence in the maturation of new technologies. Once the system performance
and objective cost are decided (based on cost-performance tradeoffs), the
acquisition process will make cost more a constraint than a variable, while
the military capability of the system must still be obtained.
A key tenet of the CAIV approach is a far stronger user role in the process through participation in setting and adjusting program goals throughout the program, particularly in the cost-performance tradeoff process. Working within that context, the policy outlines a process toward achieving the objectives of cost as an independent variable, which include the following:
Aggressive cost objectives are defined as cost objectives that are the DoD equivalent of sound commercial business practices. These objectives will be set as early as possible (e.g., Milestone I or before for most systems). It is expected that these objectives will be much lower than would be projected for a system using past ways of conducting business. Figure 1 illustrates the reason for this emphasis on cost.
Figure 1. DOD Procurement Budget (FY97 $B) [2]
In reality, we have less to spend on equipment to support our troops. If the needs are still there, but the money is not, then some equipment will not be procured. The DoD says that costs must be cut, if we are going to accomplish our mission.
Sounds like something for the "green eye-shade" crowd!
In part, this sentiment is correct. Cost is an important component.
The total cost of a system, given a constant or declining budget, will
be a strong factor in whether we buy or develop the system. For example,
assume that a user knows he needs a widget that is highly effective for
a given task. Also assume that the user can specify a set of technical
characteristics that this widget should have and that those technical characteristics
would result in a very expensive widget. With a limited budget, our alternatives
would be either to forgo procurement of the widget, or to cancel another
program so as to procure that expensive widget. However, if the user can
see that a less expensive widget with a different set of technical characteristics
can perform the required task, then a third alternative may exist.
The survivability community should focus on developing this third alternative. This task can be accomplished by improving our prediction of (survivability) performance in a way that is comparable across a variety of systems. Such a system would help in the management of the risks associated with this new method of conducting business and would assist with performing a job in a less costly manner.
Is this our job? How do we do that?
Yes, this type of cost containment is clearly our job as far as aircraft
survivability is concerned. The function of the JTCG/AS is to improve our
understanding of how to make aircraft more survivable and to disseminate
that data. Although some folks occasionally try to put on a mantle of a
higher purpose; "knowledge for knowledge's sake," the acquisition community
is a primary customer in DoD of research and testing and provides the JTCG/AS
funding. We want to buy equipment that works and will support our troops.
Research (into survivability) provides the technology for the equipment,
whereas (survivability) testing is conducted to reduce the risk associated
with developed or purchased equipment. Now, the USD(A&T) has added
the CAIV policy which says that, in addition to the above, we want to lower
the costs of producing our products.
If survivability is to remain an important "-ility" during the period of reduced budgets and downsizing, the JTCG/AS must become an active participant in the CAIV process. Budget pressures will continue to mount. The "old hands" will retire. If survivability is not fully represented in the new decision process, it may get short shrift in the race to affordability. Inspecting survivability during high-level reviews of major systems is simply not efficient. The community must better integrate with the acquisition process at the program level.
The JTCG/AS can make an impact in three areas: 1) Ensure that the survivability models used in the cost-performance trades are properly verified and validated. 2) Help in the standardization of these models and reduce costly duplication. 3) Aggregate and maintain data from system testing to avoid duplicating tests and to validate models. All three of these areas can contribute to better informed decisions by the user on where to spend scarce resources. We can also provide this information to the decision maker at a lower cost.
So what's new? We do these things already.
True, but we often fail to let folks know that we do them, and we do
not always do them in a satisfactory manner. The Susceptibility Model Assessment
and Range Test (SMART) project demonstrated that a coordinated effort to
gather model validation data from diverse sources was useful to acquisition
programs. The reason that it worked was two-fold. First, a plan (call it
strategic planning) was developed to determine what data was needed and
how it was to be gathered from existing testing. Second, after a track
record was established, some entrepreneurial type marketing informed acquisition
programs of what was available and what was not. The programs avoided the
cost of reworking existing data, and funded some of the data voids, which
in turn, increased the overall database available to the next program.
The timely use of SMART and other tools, methods, and databases in the
design of aeronautical systems has often resulted in increased survival
and enhanced system performance. However, because of the technical complexity
of current and future survivability analysis problems, enhancement must
begin early in a system's development cycle to achieve optimum trade-offs.
Another process on which the JTCG/AS should focus is strategic planning, the planning process by which an organization manages change and develops the best fit between its operations and changing user opportunities. This strategy must be based on requirements identified by the users, as needed to support analysis of emerging technologies and weapon systems, both in-service and under development. The tightening fiscal environment will place increasingly heavy burdens on the user community during the foreseeable future. Refinement of analytical tools and techniques is an essential cost effective approach to satisfying the need for the development of survivable systems in such an environment and must be considered in strategic planning. The results of the planning must be coordinated across the Services and with OSD, used as a decision aid for OSD managers, and treated as an audit trail/roadmap for JTCG/AS budget and investment decisions.
Finally, we need to actively market our products, not in the sense of "selling" them to the acquisition programs, but to let them know what is already available. We should work with program managers to ensure that the data that they develop for their program is made available to the remainder of the community.
Dr. Albert Rainis is a staff specialist for survivability in the
Office of the Secretary of Defense, Office of the Director, Strategic &
Tactical Systems/Air Warfare. Earlier, he was on the staff of the Office
of the Director of Developmental Test & Evaluation and was a fellow
in the Executive Office of the President with responsibility for space
nuclear power and propulsion. Before joining the Office of the Secretary
of Defense, Dr. Rainis was employed by the U.S. Army Ballistic Research
Laboratory as a scientist and a project manager. He has taught physics
at both West Virginia University and Tri-State University and is the author
of more than 30 technical publications. He can be reached at (703) 695-3359.
Participation in the survivability community occurs both within and outside the AIAA. Subcommittee and other STC members participate in AIAA symposia; cooperate with the American Defense Preparedness Association (ADPA), the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and the JTCG/AS on sponsorship of symposia and conferences; and manage programs to design military aircraft to be survivable. Two recent events were the AIAA/SAE World Aviation Congress (October 22 to 24, 1996, Los Angeles, CA) and the ADPA/AIAA/JTCG/AS symposium on the Impact of Low Observable Technology on Aircraft Survivability (October 8 to 10, 1996, Monterey, CA). Additionally, the ADPA and AIAA have scheduled a symposium "Live Fire Test & Evaluation, 10 Years and Counting" for January 13 to 17, 1997, in Livermore, CA.
Second, the Education Subcommittee makes annual contact with all AIAA student chapters at colleges and universities to offer speakers for their meetings. The subcommittee has developed a presentation, Aircraft Combat Survivability - A System Design Discipline, that serves as a baseline for all STC members to enable them to participate as student chapter speakers. The subcommittee coordinates requests from student chapters and recruits STC members in the vicinity of the chapter to speak. University chapters for which speakers have been provided include, the University of Michigan, Notre Dame, Purdue University, the University of Illinois, the University of Tennessee, Tennessee Tech, Vanderbilt University, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, San Jose State, and Virginia Tech. Experience has shown that these presentations are often the only exposure that undergraduate students receive related to the concept of combat survivability and the implications of designing military aircraft versus civilian commercial aircraft.
Third, the Education Subcommittee cooperates with the STC Publications Subcommittee to develop and publish educational materials on survivability. Through its education series, the AIAA has published and made available the textbook, The Fundamentals of Aircraft Combat Survivability Analysis and Design, by Dr. Robert Ball. This book, developed under the auspices of the JTCG/AS, is the only complete textbook available on aircraft combat survivability. A monograph, "Designing Survivable Spacecraft," by Dante M. Taska, a former member of STC, is in the publication process. This monograph addresses the survivability of spacecraft electronics subject to radiation effects.
For further information on the AIAA survivability education program or to request a speaker, please contact Dr. Robert Ball, Education Subcommittee Chairman, (408) 656-2885 or e-mail: ball@aa.nps.navy.mil. For further information or an application to join the AIAA Survivability Technical Committee, please contact Mr. Jerry Wallick, STC Chairman, (703) 917-7225 or e-mail: jwallick@lmi.org.
Prior to DESERT STORM, ABDR engineers were able travel to the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) and spend two weeks learning the fundamentals of aircraft design. Although the class was technically sound, the course was not designed to address all pertinent ABDR issues and was subsequently dropped in 1991 due to instructor cutbacks. With no replacement ABDR engineering training readily available, the lead engineer at the ABDR program office began work in 1992 to create an appropriate replacement course. The genesis behind having the ABDR program office lead ABDR training was to ensure that technical questions, as well as the real world flight line questions, could be answered from an instructor who is familiar with the unique issues related to combat maintenance.
The one week ABDR Engineering Course was first offered in March of 1995. Since then, over 70 engineers from all five air logistics centers have been trained in the basic skills of ABDR engineering. The course has three main objectives. The first objective is to give the engineer a working knowledge of how they fit into the combat maintenance scenario. Second, the course instructs the student on the mathematical relationships which govern structural behavior. The final objective is to teach the theory behind basic structural repair design. The students are graded on the following areas: performance on a series of in-class problems, a class project, and a final exam. The class project requires the student to design a repair on "simulated" damage on the aircraft to which the engineer is assigned. The student must receive a passing grade in each area to successfully complete the course.
Determining the member design load is the most difficult decision the ABDR engineer must make. The engineer does not have access to comprehensive flight load data, airframe stress data, or finite element stress analysis software. During peacetime, the airframe repair process can take weeks, if not months. The engineer can shorten that process by making some conservative assumptions and using one of three repair design options. For each option, structural modeling is limited to static residual strength analysis. Fatigue, creep, and crack growth are only qualitatively addressed. The first option is to use material properties to calculate the material ultimate load (MUL) of the repair. The engineer assumes that the load carried through that member equals the MUL and designs a repair accordingly. If the load path is well-defined and the damaged member transfers its load to other members via fasteners, the second option is to use fastener design ultimate load data to calculate member design loads. The last option, which is available only for the F-16, F-117, A-10, and the C-5, is a field deployable stress analysis report. Each of the reports lists the maximum design stress for each structural member. The engineer can then defer repair or repair structural members based on the residual strength calculated from the reports. Each of these options have their merits and drawbacks. Repair designs consider material tensile, compressive, and shear strength. Failure modes in buckling, crippling, and material failure are all evaluated. Once the engineer has mastered these concepts, aircraft will be repaired more quickly and thus increase the aircraft readiness rates for the warfighters.
In all, the ABDR engineering program should be greatly enhanced by the information provided during the engineering course. The ABDR program office is continuing to support the ABDR engineering community by creating an ABDR engineer's handbook. The second edition will be sent out in February 1997. The handbook will be an invaluable resource for the engineer to reference during training exercises and actual combat. With the classroom training, the ABDR engineer's handbook, and several other references, the engineer is equipped to deploy anywhere world-wide and insure that Air Force sortie generation rates are minimally impacted by combat maintenance.
Captain Miller is the lead ABDR engineer and ABDR technology manager in Air Force Battle Damage Repair Program Office. Captain Miller holds a B.S. in Aerospace Engineering from the University of Missouri-Rolla, and a M.S. in Aeronautical Engineering from the Air Force Institute for Technology. He can be reached at DSN 633-3851 or (916) 643-3851.
Survivability and Lethality Assessment Center (SLAC)
The survivability and lethality modeling communities have developed
a large number of computer programs for assessing the survivability of
US platforms and the lethality of US weapons. Several of these programs
have been adopted by the three services as "approved models" and are stored
in the Model Repository of the Survivability/Vulnerability
Information Analysis Center (SURVIAC). NPS is tasked by the Combat
Survivability Branch of the Naval Air Systems Command (AIR-4.1.8) to collect
the SURVIAC programs, as well as other major computer programs used in
the survivability and lethality studies, and to install and maintain them
in the NPS/NAVAIR Survivability and Lethality Assessment Center (SLAC).
The center, located in the secure Warlab on the NPS campus, is directed
by Distinguished Professor Robert E. Ball, Department of Aeronautics and
Astronautics.
The SURVIAC programs currently in the SLAC are listed below. Most of these programs are either classified or are limited to US citizens only. A SURVIAC Model Guide that provides more information on the programs is available in the SLAC, or a copy can be obtained from Dr. Ball. These models include the Air-to Air System Performance Model (AASPEM), the Advanced Low Altitude Radar Model (ALARM), the variable Airspeed Flight Path Generator (BLUEMAX), the Computation of Vulnerability Area and Repair Time (COVART), the Enhanced Surface-to-Air Missile Simulation (ESAMS), the Fast Shotline Generator (FASTGEN), the Helicopter Piloted Air Combat Model (HELIPAC), the Integrated Missile and Radar Simulation (IMARS), the Piloted Air Combat Analysis Model (PACAM), the Radar-Directed Gun Simulation (RADGUNS), the Target Vulnerability Model (SCAN replaced by JSEM), and the Trajectory Analysis Program (TRAP). The four additional SLAC programs that are not in SURVIAC are the Digital Integrated Modeling Equipment (DIME), formally known as ACES/PHEONIX, the Extended Air Defense Simulation (EADSIM), the Ballistic Research Laboratory Computer Aided Design (BRLCAD), and the Modeling System for Advanced Investigation of Counter Measures (MOSAIC).
NPS Aircraft Combat Survivability 4/5 Day Short Course.
This short course provides engineers, managers, and those interested
in the field, the opportunity to learn about the fundamentals of survivability
engineering and the application of these fundamentals to actual aircraft.
The material presented is also directly applicable to missile survivability.
The first four days of the course contain the essential ingredients for
a study of the combat survivability of fixed-wing, rotary-wing aircraft,
and guided missiles in a man-made, non-nuclear hostile environment. Major
topics to be covered in the first four days include the Tri-Service survivability
organizations, programs and requirements, the Live Fire Test program, the
threats (conventional, BDR, DEW), combat data, an overview of the assessment
methodology, aircraft signatures, threat system detection and tracking
capabilities, vulnerability and susceptibility reduction technology and
testing, aircraft battle damage repair, and tactics. The fifth day, which
is optional, is devoted to a detailed presentation of the methodology and
the computer programs currently used for vulnerability, susceptibility,
and survivability assessments.
The course is oriented to the continuing education of design engineers, analysts, project managers, and members of the field activities associated with design, analysis, acquisition, logistic support, operations, or repair of aircraft weapons systems hardware. It is open only to U.S. civilian and military personnel who have a SECRET security clearance. There are no prerequisites for attending the course. A registration fee of $500.00 is required of all non-government students. An NPS certificate of completion with either 2.8 (four days) or 3.5 (five days) Continuing Education Units (CEU) will be awarded at the conclusion of the course. The course is under the direction of Distinguished Professor Robert E. Ball, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Naval Postgraduate School (NPS). Lectures will also be delivered by personnel from OSD, Tactical Warfare Programs, NAWC-WD, Wright Laboratory, Live Fire Test office, JTCG/AS, and representatives from the Air Force and Navy operations community. The course is offered periodically on an "as needed" basis, depending on demand. Currently, consideration is being given to offering the course once again in the Spring 1997. If you or members of your organization are interested in attending this course or require additional information regarding the course please contact Distinguished Professor Robert E. Ball, (408) 656-2885.
NPS Graduate Degree Courses
Survivability related courses offered at NPS are both introductory
and advanced and cover most aspects of the discipline. Many of these courses
have prerequisites and must be taken in series, unless prior instructor
approval is received. Not all courses are offered every quarter and depend
on enrollment. Additionally, some courses are classified as SECRET and
available on a need to know basis only. Direct inquiries to: Director of
Admissions Code 01B3, Naval Postgraduate School, 589 Dyer Rd. RM 103c,
Monterey CA, 93943-5100 (408-656-3093 or DSN 878-3093). A short description
of the quarter long courses follows:
| Department/Course | Course Description |
| Aeronautics & Astronautics | |
| Aircraft Combat Survivability | Survivability of fixed wing aircraft, rotary wing aircraft, and cruise missiles |
| Introduction to Systems Engineering | Design methodology of the acquisition life-cycle process |
| Air Defense Lethality | Design and effectiveness of anti-aircraft guns and missiles (both surface based and airborne) and the techniques for target detection, target tracking , and propagator flyout (both guided and ballistic) |
| Electrical & Computer Engineering | |
| Optimal Estimation: Sensor & Data | Basic properties of sensors, target tracking models, multihypothesis data association algorithms, reduced order probabilistic models and heuristic techniques (problems will be drawn from radar, EW, and ASW systems) |
| Principles of Radar Systems | Topics include microwave devices, microwave propagation, antenna fundamentals, electronically steerable arrays, pulse radar basics, detection of signals in noise, the radar equation, CW, pulse Doppler, & moving target indicators |
| Navigation, Missile, and Avionics | Topics include IR, radar laser, acoustic sensors, inertial platforms, gyros and accelerometers, Loran, Omega, GPS, Systems INS guidance, fire control and tracking systems |
| Image Processing & Recognition | Provides image processing background for understanding modern military applications such as long range target selection, medium range identification, and short range guidance of new weapons systems |
| Radar Systems | Techniques discussed include pulse compression frequency modulated radar, moving target indicator (MTI), and pulse Doppler systems |
| Radar Cross Section | Engineering aspects of stealth and its impact on the platform and sensor design |
| Radar Electronic Warfare Techniques | Radar electronic countermeasures and counter-countermeasures, digital RF memories, and directed energy weapons |
| Electromagnetic Radiation, Scattering, & Propagation (SECRET) | Electromagnetic radiation as it applies to antenna engineering, scattering and propagation and the use of sidelobesuppression, radar target scattering and stealth approaches, HF and satellite communications |
| Microwave Devices & Radar | Devices such as magnetrons, traveling-wave tubes, and solid state diodes and techniques including: Doppler systems, tracking radar, pulse compression, and electronically steerable array radars |
| Electronic Warfare Systems (SECRET) | Countermeasures against fuses, communications, and various radar detection and tracking systems, equations for jammer gain and power output, and the characteristics of passive countermeasures |
| Operations Research | |
| Test & Evaluation | Theory and techniques of operations research in regards to test and evaluation |
| Tactical Decision Aids | Modern naval tactical decision aids, particularly those used in searching and tracking procedures such as VPCAS, NODESTAR and ASWDTA |
| Airland Combat Models | Topics include: types of models, the modeling process, verification, target acquisition models, target selection, weapon accuracy, lethality models, terrain effects, tactical decision making, and integration of these models |
| Airland Combat Models II | Topics include: models used for large scale operations, firepower index and Lanchester equation approaches to attrition modeling, movement rate of advance models, air warfare models, and air allocation/logistics |
| Operations Research for EW | Quantitative models dealing with ESM, ECM, ECCM, strike warfare, ASMD, and cost-effectiveness tradeoffs |
| Human Factors Engineering | Topics include manpower costs, control & display design, human energy expenditure & physiological costs |
| Physics | |
| Sensors & Devices | Fundamentals of sensors for target detection and tracking, aperture radar systems, opti-electronic detectors, CCD imagers, infrared scanning devices, acoustic systems, sonar arrays, and chem/bio sensors |
| Advanced Concepts in Surveillance Target Acquisition, & Engagement | Techniques to cope with severe atmospheric and oceanic environmental constraints and the study of propagation, adaptive optics, phase conjugation, cluttered background phenomena, and ASW and mine detection techniques |
| Physics of Directed Energy Weapons (SECRET) | Topics covered include relativistic electron beams, giant power accelerator concepts, proton beams, neutral particle beams (production and limitations), high power microwave beams, and high energy laser beams |
| EO/IR Systems & Countermeasures | Analysis of optical modulation, non-linear optics, acousto-optics, atmospheric molecular absorption mechanisms of detectors, noise in detectors, cooling systems, image intensifiers, television and FLIR systems |
| Thermal Imaging & Surveillance | Analysis of infrared imaging systems and human operator characteristics associated with these systems |
| Weapons Lethality & Survivability | Analysis of penetrators, shaped charges, fragmentation warheads, directed energy weapons, and advanced armors |
| Science and Engineering Group | |
| Technical Assessment of Weapon (SECRET) | Analysis of nuclear weapons, strategic balance, satellite orbits, directed energy weapon (SDI), & future weapons |
| *Additional courses are available in the Departments of Command, Control, & Communications; Computer Science; and National Security Affairs. | |
The Naval Postgraduate School Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Distance Learning program.
The Distance Learning (DL) program offered by the Department of Aeronautics
and Astronautics is an off-campus educational opportunity for military
and civilian employees of the Department of Defense. Graduate level courses
are now available via Video Teleconferencing to the Naval Aviation Systems
Team, HDQ Washington DC, and NAWCS. The curriculum is specifically
tailored for career Naval Officers who will eventually be users and managers
of military aircraft and new weapons systems programs. Sequencing of courses
is coordinated, and the course content is designed to be relevant to military
applications. A student who enrolls in this program can earn a Master of
Science Degree in Aeronautics /Astronautics Engineering by taking a total
of 12 quarter-length courses, 9 of which are lecture courses taught at
NPS and in a distance learning mode with two-way video and two-way audio.
The student can take one 5 hour per week course each 11 week quarter. The
9 lecture courses are selected from among 7 educational tracks. Included
in the 9 courses are 2 courses outside the department.
The student will also take three quarters (nine months) to complete a thesis. The thesis topic will be selected from seven technical areas offered by the Department. Specific topics will be provided by the Department faculty. Defense relevant topics of special interest to the student can also be arranged. The DL courses can also be taken by those who are only interested in one or two areas. For further information concerning the DL degree program contact: Ms. Janet Sabo (703) 604-3130 ext. 8235, Professor Daniel J Collins (408) 656-231, Major Richard Lockwood (703) 325-0165, or Dr. Ball (408) 656-2885, DSN 878-2885.
Weapon systems include fixed and rotary-winged aircraft (both manned and unmanned), missiles, ground vehicles such as tanks, trucks, armored personnel carriers, artillery, radar vans, and ships. Data holdings for systems include physical and functional characteristics; design, performance and operational information; acoustics, infrared, optical, electro-optical and radar signatures; combat damage and repair; and system, subsystem, and component probability of kill given a hit (pk/h) functions.
SURVIAC is sponsored by the Joint Technical Coordination Groups on Aircraft Survivability (JTCG/AS) and Munitions Effectiveness (JTCG/ME). SURVIAC is operated under contract to the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) by Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc.
SURVIAC Databases/Major Holdings
The SURVIAC Information Resource consists of technical libraries, databases
on combat history and test data as well as other major data collections.
Databases maintained by SURVIAC include:
Product and Service Information
SURVIAC provides information resources and analytical services to support
the development and fielding of more survivable and effective combat systems.
We routinely perform bibliographic searches of our libraries for reports
or data that is related to a user's current need. We also can provide limited
technical analysis on our information assets to answer user's specific
questions. These services are typically free to users -- paid for by the
DTIC funding provided to the IAC.
To promote user awareness of SURVIAC and the resources available, SURVIAC publishes the SURVIAC Bulletin, a free, current awareness publication which is produced bimonthly. The computer models and their documentation, selected SURVIAC products, as well as nominal requests for information are provided free of charge to Government requesters. A SURVIAC subscription can benefit any Government or industry employee or organization involved in weapon systems research, development acquisition, and support by making available the full range of SURVIAC resources. The subscription plan, tailored to special needs, provides extra value to repeat users. Model Guides, Brochures, and descriptions of products and services are provided free of charge to all Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) registered users.
Survivability Analysis Workshop
The Survivability Analysis Workshop is sponsored by Wright Laboratory,
organized by SURVIAC, and conducted by selected government experts and
SURVIAC analysts. The five day workshop provides an in-depth perspective
of a comprehensive set of survivability analysis tools and is designed
for both the experienced and novice analyst. The last workshop was held
this past June on Wright-Patterson AFB and is generally scheduled every
other year. This course alternates yearly with the NPS Short Course (in
fact, the SURVIAC Course is designed to augment the NPS Course), but can
be scheduled on special request should interest dictate. The following
is the typical Workshop schedule.
Calendar of Events |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Information for inclusion in the Clanedar of Events may be sent to : SURVIAC. Washington Satelite Office, 8283 Greensboro Drive, Suite 626. McLean, VA 22102, Attn: Greg McClellan (703) 902-4664, FAX (703) 902-3137. | |||
| Event | Date | Location | POC |
| "Live Fire Test and Evaluation: 10 years and Counting" | 13-17 Jan 97 | Livermore, CA | Fred Raines, ADPA (703) 552-1820 |
| The Convergence of Commercial & Military Specs, NDI, & COTS & their Impact on T&E | 4-7 Mar 97 | New Orleans, LA | Fred Raines, ADPA (703) 552-1820 |
The American Defense Preparedness Association (ADPA), in conjunction with the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) is sponsoring a national conference entitled: "Live Fire Test and Evaluation: 10 Years and Counting."
Program - This conference, classified SECRET (open only to US citizens with valid clearances), will review the requirements for Live Fire Testing, discuss practices, procedures, cost and resources, and illustrate the value added by LFT&E in past programs. The program will apply for any system (Ground, Sea, Air, NDI, PIP, etc.). The technical program will include: a tutorial on Live Fire Testing and Evaluation, presentations by Government and industry executives, individual technical papers from Government and industry executives (presentation and posters), and panel discussions with audience interaction.
Activities - The local host, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, will offer unique opportunities to tour their premier RDT&E facilities. Several non-technical activities will also be offered throughout the week to provide an opportunity to appreciate the greater San Francisco Bay area. Spouses and guests are welcome.
Topics - Conference topics include:
Contact - ADPA, COL (Ret) Fred Raines (703) 522-1820 Fax
(703) 522-1885, Reference ADPA Event #792
