evaluating the benefit of networked ew systems greg chalmers and keith mason
TRANSCRIPT
Evaluating the Benefit of Networked EW Systems
Greg Chalmers and Keith Mason
The focus of ADF EW procurements for many years has been on EW self protection as a last resort in missile defence.
The 2009 Defence White Paper has put increased emphasis on networked operations, including EW operations.
For example, the sharing of EW sensed information across force elements for situational awareness
Evaluating the capability benefit of EW for networked operations is a very different activity to that of EW for platform self protection.
DSTO has developed a methodology and analysis tool to evaluate the benefit of EW systems to support force level ADF operations.
This methodology and tool provides a means of comparing EW technologies, force-mix options, and CONOPS to measure mission success.
Networked EW for the ADF
OR METHODOLOGY ANALYSIS TOOL
DEFINE THE PROBLEM Identify the issues up front Define scenarios/ missions Determine objectives of the operation
DEVELOP ANALYSIS PLAN Define Alternatives: Force- Mix Option (platforms / EW technologies / threats) Define blue/ red orders of battle (ORBATS) & electronic orders of battle (EOB) Concepts of operation (CONOPS) Doctrine (DOC) Constraints and assumptions Determine variables to be considered
DEFINE MEASURES Measure Of Performance Measure Of Effectiveness Measure Of Force Effectiveness Measure Of Capability
PRODUCE RESULTS Run the model to collect data for each scenario / alternative Number of iterations
DEVELOP SCENARIO(S) Develop & populate scenarios with models, ORBATS, EOBs, CONOPS, DOC & alternative options
ANALYSE RESULTS Compare measures Operational suitability Cost effectiveness Total cost Implications Confidence
ADVICE TO ADF Results presented to Military sponsor Focus on issues for the decision makers Highlight aspects requiring more detailed consideration, if any
DEVELOP MODELS Develop & populate with red and blue force platform, sensor and EW models
VALIDATE MODELS Run model scenarios Where available use Historical data / Subject Matter Experts (SME) / Field Study data to validate results
Model–Test-Model
PROVE THE RESULTS Sensitivity analysis Additional analysis (eg Statistical) Verify results, focusing on measures / suitability, etc (SME, Common Sense)
As Required
1. Define the problem1. Define the problem
2. Develop analysis plan2. Develop analysis plan
3. Define Measures3. Define Measures
4. Produce results4. Produce results
5. Analyse results5. Analyse results
6. Prove the results6. Prove the results
7. Communicate & 7. Communicate & document resultsdocument results
OA Methodology
HLA Network Bus
Entities/Interactions
Entities/Interactions
STAGE/CSMI
HLA HLA
Other Models
OA Module
3D View(Vega Prime)
Analysis Tool
Force Level EW Synthetic Environment
FLEWSE Architecture
Modeling Infrastructure
STAGE: COTS reconfigurable simulation framework for developing tactical synthetic environments. Includes simple platform, EW systems, sensor & weapons models
CSMI (Combined Sensor Modeling Infrastructure): In-house developed EW sensor/effector models to enable computation of EW system performance
Limitations: - Effects based modeling - Does not model detail of
tactical engagements
Analysis Tool - FLEWSE
OA Module Structure
STAGE/CSMI
Executes individual
simulation runs
CONTROL(Stage Batch Runner)Controls a sequenceof simulation runs
RelationalDatabase
(MySQL)
Simulation eventsLogged to database
POST PROCESSIN
G TOOLCreates reports
AnalysisData Extraction
Reports
Selected data queriedfrom database forsequence of runs
Analysis Tool - FLEWSE
Awareness of inbound air threats currently relies on radar surveillance. Could an EW sensor help?
Ground Based ESM (GBESM) offers: Earlier warning than ground based radar Emitter type, platform type, intent
Use OA methodology and tool to compare: Realistic ADF missions with current ADF capabilities Same missions with additional GBESM capability
How does it work: Hypothetical example
1. Define the problem1. Define the problem
2. Develop analysis plan2. Develop analysis plan
3. Define Measures3. Define Measures
4. Produce results4. Produce results
5. Analyse results5. Analyse results
6. Prove the results6. Prove the results
7. Document results7. Document results
Evaluation Process
1. 1. Define the problemDefine the problem
2. Develop analysis plan2. Develop analysis plan
3. Define Measures3. Define Measures
4. Produce results4. Produce results
5. Analyse results5. Analyse results
6. Prove the results6. Prove the results
7. Document results7. Document results
Evaluation Process
Liaise with RAAF and identify issue(s) requiring analysis:
- What is the threat? - What is the effectiveness of current
ADGE systems in detecting, locating and identifying threat systems, and how a GBESM may help
Select a scenario as a context for the evaluation through elaboration of the RAAF and Adversary’s:
- Objectives- ORBAT- CONOPS- Doctrine
1. Define the problem1. Define the problem
2. 2. Develop analysis planDevelop analysis plan
3. Define Measures3. Define Measures
4. Produce results4. Produce results
5. Analyse results5. Analyse results
6. Prove the results6. Prove the results
7. Document results7. Document results
Evaluation Process
Define alternative options for analysis that will discriminate the issues under consideration:
- effectiveness of ADGE systems- GBESM technologies
Develop vignettes appropriate for studying each alternative in the context of the scenario
1. Define the problem1. Define the problem
2. Develop analysis plan2. Develop analysis plan
3. 3. Define MeasuresDefine Measures
4. Produce results4. Produce results
5. Analyse results5. Analyse results
6. Prove the results6. Prove the results
7. Document results7. Document results
Evaluation Process
Sensor Measures:Detection/ID rangeTime to detect/IDNumber of entities detectedLocation error at first detectLocation error at
engagementSensor settings
Engagement Measures:Number of threats destroyedNumber of RAAF units
destroyedLoss Exchange Ratio
1. Define the problem1. Define the problem
2. Develop analysis plan2. Develop analysis plan
3. Define Measures3. Define Measures
4. 4. Produce resultsProduce results
5. Analyse results5. Analyse results
6. Prove the results6. Prove the results
7. Document results7. Document results
Evaluation Process
Use FLEWSE to run through each alternative of the scenario a large number of times and log measures to file
1. Define the problem1. Define the problem
2. Develop analysis plan2. Develop analysis plan
3. Define Measures3. Define Measures
4. Produce results4. Produce results
5. 5. Analyse resultsAnalyse results
6. Prove the results6. Prove the results
7. Document results7. Document results
Evaluation Process
Compare the results for each alternative and evaluate effectiveness of AGDE systems
Develop confidence measure over range of runs
1. Define the problem1. Define the problem
2. Develop analysis plan2. Develop analysis plan
3. Define Measures3. Define Measures
4. Produce results4. Produce results
5. Analyse results5. Analyse results
6. 6. Prove the resultsProve the results
7. Document results7. Document results
Evaluation Process
Undertake sensitivity analysis and prove statistical significance
1. Define the problem1. Define the problem
2. Develop analysis plan2. Develop analysis plan
3. Define Measures3. Define Measures
4. Produce results4. Produce results
5. Analyse results5. Analyse results
6. Prove the results6. Prove the results
7. 7. Document resultsDocument results
Evaluation Process
Brief client, write report
The focus of ADF EW procurements for many years has been on EW self protection as a last resort in missile defence.
The 2009 Defence White Paper has put increased emphasis on networked operations, including EW operations.
For example, the sharing of EW sensed information across force elements for situational awareness
Evaluating the capability benefit of EW for networked operations is a very different activity to that of EW for platform self protection.
DSTO has developed a methodology to evaluate the benefit of EW systems to support force level ADF operations.
This methodology ant tool provides a means of comparing EW technologies, force-mix options, and CONOPS to measure mission success.
Summary
QUESTIONS??