Transcript 3AF - 6th International Conference on Missile defence

3AF - 6th International
Conference on Missile defence
Lethality Assessment Process
By
Elie Levy Col. (Res.)
President of Linkcom-Telecom
May 2010 - Israel
unclassified
1
Feb. 2010
Unclassified
Lethality Assessment Process



The Problem!
Validating and assessing the SSPk of an
interceptor, with high confidence level, against
the various known and predicted TBM threats,
for various payload types and appropriate
trajectories
Backing on Flight test solution only requires a
very large number of tests (3-4 digits) –
unacceptable from cost and schedule
aspects
Solution – wait for the presentation
Unclassified
Lethality Assessment Process
Presentation topics









3
Objectives
Definitions and typing
Design Phase
Arena tests
Simulations (Hydro code, CFD, G&C)
Hypervelocity tests (Gun, Sled)
Flight Tests
Kill Assessment
Summary and Conclusion
Feb 2010
Unclassified
Killing the CW Threat - Definitions

Capability of decreasing the threat damage to defended
targets is achieved by the Lethality characteristic of the
interceptor WH = PK/h. (probability of kill given hit)

The capability of evaluating the residual Lethality of the
intercepted threat is the Kill Assessment characteristic
of the BMDS.

The Ability to Assess the threat and its payload resides in
the typing assessment capability of the BMDS In Near
real time

Final Typing is done via collected residuals’ analysis
Feb. 2010
Unclassified
Lethality Assessment Process
Design phase




Threat definition with “sweet spots” (SS) and
payloads characterization
Interceptor Kill mechanism definition – HTK,
fragmentation, enhancers
PK/hss allocation for various threat types and
trajectories – Based on operational research,
engineering design and simulations (G&C,
divert capabilities, MD…).
PK/hss = P(Launch), P(acquisition), P(hit),
P(hit sweet spot)
Feb 2010
Unclassified
Killing the Threat

Killing the HE threat = Initiating its payload (Bulk and/or
submunition) - HOD

Killing/neutralizing the Chemical threat = Decreasing the
damage incurred by decreasing its lethality (lethal effect)
below a threshold
-Hard Kill = Destroying the warhead by:
- Spilling the liquid high enough, rupturing its
envelope by collision/Hit
- Neutralizing fuze
- Activating dispersion mechanism
Feb. 2010
Unclassified
Killing the Threat
-Mission Kill = De-routing hit point of
payload/agent outside defended asset
Intercept Altitude depends on:
- Agent type – Persistent or volatile
- Meteorological conditions (mainly
wind)
- Defended assets lay out
- Passive defense
Unclassified
CW Interception process - SM
Sub-Munition
Acquisition and End Game
Break Up
Intercept
Dispersion
(Killed SM)
Ground Guided
Flight
Wind
Intact SM
Launch
Deposition
Hit Area
Chart 2 – Interceptor Flight Phases – Sub-munitions
Feb 2010
Unclassified
Lethality Assessment Process






Ground static tests
Done on Warhead kill vehicle prototypes armed
Environmental testing
Arena test – Characterize the Interceptor warhead
status after static initiation and hit (Dispersion,
penetration, Energy…)
Characterize enhancers performance
Validate fusing systems
Feb 2010
Unclassified
Lethality Assessment Process
Lethality Simulation – Hydrocodes
 Hydrocodes or wave propagation codes are
numerical tool simulating crash & impact by
calculating physical processes to a sufficient
degree of precision. Main aspects:
- Uses valid Mathematical basics
- Needs Qualified scientists to assess the
quality of approximate solutions
- Needs inputs from experiments to tune model
and material tests to characterize materials
behavior under fast shock pulses (Stress and
strain coefficients)
10
Feb. 2010
Unclassified
Lethality Assessment Process


Hydrocodes elements Characteristic:
- Mass, momentum and Energy conservation
equations
- Nonlinear equation of state accounting for
shock wave formation and propagation
- Hydrodynamic components decoupled
treatment (Euler, Lagrange)
DYTRAN/PISCES, AUTODYN, LS-DYNA,
OURANOS, HEMP, ABAQUS, SOFIA(EMI),
CTH, PAM-SHOCKS…
Unclassified
Hydrocodes elements Characteristic
12
Feb 2010
Unclassified
Lethality Assessment Process
Hypervelocity tests



Gun Tests – single and dual stages
Single stage powder gun –
- using adapted guns with powder
- Limited to low velocity
- Better for full scale Lethality tests
Single stage Electrical or Electrothermal
(Plasma) Guns for higher velocities
Feb 2010
Unclassified
Lethality Assessment Process
Hypervelocity ground test



Two stage light gas gun
- First stage with powder – compressing light gas (H, He)
- Second stage – compressed light gas shooting a sabot with kill
vehicle toward target
- Instrumentation (X-ray, Video, speed measuring devices)
Constrains
- Size and speed of Kill vehicle
- Target limitations (static, size, explosive weight..)
- Environmental conditions( Pressure, temperature)
Solution – Scaling laws
- Initiation formulae for HE (Energy, run to detonation, …)
- Dimensional scaling for others
Unclassified
Lethality Assessment Process
Two stages Light Gaz Gun
Feb 2010
Unclassified
Lethality Assessment Process
Hypervelocity ground test


Sled test
- Full scale kill vehicle accelerated toward
target/s, using multiple staged rocket motors,
on a sled
- Instrumentation documenting interception
Characteristics
- Long sled required to achieve required speed
(many miles)
- High cost and long schedule
- Environmental conditions (Altitude)
Unclassified
Lethality Assessment Process
Sled Test

4/30/2003 - HOLLOMAN AIR FORCE BASE, N.M.
(AFPN) -- A 192-pound, fully instrumented Missile
Defense Agency payload traveled a little more than three
miles in 6.04 seconds April 29, validating Holloman's
high-speed test track hypersonic upgrades and setting a
world land speed record.

Air Force Materiel Command experts conducted the test
in New Mexico's Tularosa Basin where Air Force officials
witnessed a four-stage, rail-bound rocket sled reach
Mach 8.5 or 6,416 mph. That equates to more than 31
football fields per second.
Feb 2010
Unclassified
Lethality Assessment Process
Flight Tests



Flight tests with emphasis on Lethality are
performed in Instrumented Missile test ranges
Appropriate Instrumented Targets (colors, Hit
Grid for example) with relevant payload and
Interceptors (Telemetry, Transponders, colors,
TRS…) participate in this Interception Test
An elaborated test plan with emphasis on
Lethality and kill assessment correlated with
ground tests results is needed including flight
and configuration parameters
Feb 2010
Unclassified
Lethality Assessment Process
Flight Tests




Number of flight test is derived from
configurations, operational research,
confidence level required for SSPk
assessment and ground test results
Appropriate Electromagnetic(Radars),
telemetry stations, TRS and Optical Cameras
in various wavelength (Visual, IR, NIR, UV…)
spread according to geometry of test
Instrumented Aircraft in appropriate locations
Data Analysis adapted to Kill Assessment
Feb. 2010
Unclassified
Lethality Assessment Process
Kill Assessment




Kill is assessed from the Ground and
Airborne Instrumentation
The Instrumentation are selected
according to the threat payload
Emphasis on the estimation of the
various behavior of the SSPk
components
Miss distance, Hit location and post hit
debris and effects are of main concern
Feb 2010
Unclassified
Assessing the kill & typing

Radars (Multiple bands)
- Residual and debris characterization via
RCS, ballistic coefficient and mapping
- Doppler Range Gates filling – debris
residuals expansion and density
- Aerosol cloud mapping – SHF and mm Wave radar
- Droplet Characterization – using multiple bands
SHF/mm Wave radars
Feb 2010
Unclassified
Assessing the kill & typing

Optics (Ground and Airborne Vis. And IR)
- Fireballs characterization for KA
- Hot Clouds characterization for Typing
- Aerosol cloud signature size/shape and
characterization for KA and Typing
(with Active and Passive optics at various
Wavelength)
- Threat and residual signature and Imaging
for KA and typing
Feb 2010
Unclassified
Lethality Assessment Process
Summary and Conclusion




Lethality assessment of Kill vehicle is a
studious, long and risky process
Shortcuts could lead to GIGO
Various Lethality and Kill assessment
definitions were proposed
An process starting from the design
phase till flight test validation was
described
Feb 2010