Scope and Aim

*Identify aircraft stores separation in the

context of MIL-STD/HDBK-1763 and 244A and

establishing aircraft stores compatibility

*Revisit Applied CFD Challenge II after 15 years

*Discuss joint fires future:

*the profession of arms in the Information Age

*establishing armament systems compatibility

*JAIME CODEx

*But first: imagery on the

Presenters’ Backgrounds …

Unclassified Unclassified 2

S

OUTH AUSTRALIA

WO

OM

ER

A

TEST RANGE

Unclassified

P>x = δ x -π

Peta JMPIs

Serviced

(0<x<1)

Unclassified 3

Terminology

* ACFD. Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics

* AIME. Armament Integrated Mission Environment.

* ASC. Armament Systems Compatibility.

* Fires. The use of weapon systems to create a specific lethal or nonlethal effect on a target.

* Information Age. In the post-digital age, the benchmark is the use of distributed modelling and simulation in a Live, Virtual and Constructive (LVC) environment.

* Joint Fires. Fires applied during the employment of forces from two or more components, in coordinated action toward a common objective.

* Profession of Arms. Traditionally seen as those personnel who are uniformed members of a professional military force. The authors view – those personnel who are professionally involved in live trials, experimentation and the employment of arms: when used to destroy or neutralise threats be they kinetic, non-kinetic or cyber-based.

* Threats. The ability of an enemy, or potential enemy, person, organization or physical object/entity that intends to cause harm (i.e., limit, neutralise, or destroy effectiveness of current or projected mission, organization, or item of equipment).

* Yin-Yang. Literally shadow and light / female and male

Unclassified Unclassified 4

ALITITUDE ( ft)

30,000

0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.2

MACH NUMBER

700KCAS

600 KCAS

500 KCAS

400 KCAS

300 KCAS

CARRIAGE

EMPLOYMENT

0.90.70.50

0

20,000

10,000

Unclassified 5

• PART I – FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION

• PART II – FORM, FIT AND FUNCTION

• PART III – STRUCTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL

• PART IV – AEROELASTICITY

• PART V – CAPTIVE CARRIAGE: HANDLING QUALITIES AND PERFORMANCE

• PART VI – EMPLOYMENT AND JETTISON

• PART VII – MISSION PLANNING, BALLISTICS, SAFE ESCAPE AND WEAPON DANGER AREAS

• PART VIII – PROCEDURE

- 1 Operators / Flight Manual

- 2 System Preparation / Maintenance Manual

- 3 Systems Loading Manual

- 4 Tactics Manual

- 5 Mission Planning Tools

• PART IX – SPECIFICATIONS

Aircraft Stores Compatibility

Unclassified 6

The Standard Top Ten Lies to Engineering

1. It’s only a software change.

2. It’s the same as a MK82 / AIM-9 / MJU-8 *.

3. Only secondary structure was modified.

4. The Contractor / Project Office / Cleaner * says its OK.

5. The US Army / Air Force / Navy / Brits / Canadians * do it all the time ...

6. The OT&E starts today, we don’t need a Clearance then do we?

7. It’s just a “one-time” flight, we don’t need a Clearance then ...

8. This Program has CAF’s top priority, we don’t need ...

9. Of course there’s an agreed Operational Concept ...

10. I’ll still respect you after the flight.

* Select any one, it doesn’t really matter

Unclassified Armament Systems Compatibility: Mal Tutty Unclassified 7

Unclassified 8

JDAM FLIGHT 13M = 0.962 6382 FT 43 DIVE

FIGURE 3 JDAM MISS DISTANCE

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

TIME, SEC

0

5

10

15

20

25INCHES

PREDICTION

TEST PHOTOGRAMETRICS

TEST TELEMETRY

JDAM FLIGHT 14M = 1.055 10832 FT 44 DIVE

FIGURE 4 JDAM MISS DISTANCE

0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2 0.24

TIME, SEC

0

4

8

12

16

20INCHES

PREDICTION

TEST PHOTOGRAMETRICS

TEST TELEMETRY

JDAM FLIGHT 13

M = 0.962 6382 FT 43 DIVE

FIGURE 1 JDAM ATTITUDES

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

TIME, SEC

0

5

-5

-10

-15

-20

DEG

TELEMETRY

PREDICTION

THE

PSI

PHI

JDAM FLIGHT 14M = 1.055 10832 FT 44 DIVE

FIGURE 2 JDAM TRAJECTORY

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

TIME, SEC

0

5

-5

-10

-15

-20

DEG

TELEMETRY

PREDICTION

THE

PSI

PHI

Unclassified 9

JDAM FLIGHT 13M = 0.962 6382 FT 43 DIVE

FIGURE 11 JDAM TRAJECTORY

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

TIME, SEC

0

5

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25

DEG

TELEMETRY

PREDICTION RAMPANT

THE

PSI

PHI

JDAM FLIGHT 14M = 1.055 10832 FT 44 DIVE

FIGURE 12 JDAM ATTITUDES

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

TIME, SEC

0

5

-5

-10

-15

-20

DEG

TELEMETRY

PREDICTION RAMPANT

THE

PSI

PHI

Unclassified 10

Distribution of aircraft and store

geometries and flight test data

Quality of papers and presentations.

Representative of state of the art for

current CFD-based tools for stores

carriage and separations.

Wind tunnels will still be relied on for the

provision of the major part of the

aerodynamic data on which stores

certification are to be based.

CFD solutions were within the error range

of the wind tunnel and flight test data.

Accuracy would not be the issue.

Time required to produce a solution needs

to be decreased significantly.

CFD-based tools should now become far

more prevalent in use during

Requirements Definition and Systems

Engineering trade-off studies.

Unclassified 11

Improvements in the ejector modeling and

ejector foot/store interaction during the

ejection needed to be accomplished.

One of the principal drawback of CFD

Challenge II was that all the CFD results,

using both Euler and Navier Stokes, as

well as a simulation that ignored the

JDAM canards gave similar results.

Does that mean that Navier Stokes

formulation does not have to be used, or

were the test cases selected fortuitous for

the inviscid formulation?

ACFD III warranted to investigate.

Results available from

maltuttyJAIME@Hotmail.com /

www.maltutty.com and

Cenkoag@mail.com

Unclassified 12

Comparison of PSP test data with CFD predictions

F-18/MK-83 BL 143 store CP M = 0.90 a = 4.5

-0.80

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

x/c

Australia

Canada

PSP

US Navy

UK

Pre

ssu

re

coe

ffici

ent,

Cp

Normalised chordwise distance, x/c

F-18/MK-83 BL 143 store CP M = 0.90 a = 4.5

-0.80

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

x/c

Australia

Canada

PSP

US Navy

UK

Unclassified 13

Unclassified 15

Unclassified 16

Unclassified 17

Unclassified 18

Unclassified 19

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36 0.40

De

gre

es

time

MK-84/Litening M = 0.93 570 KCAS

The telemetry

Psi

Phi

The Prediction

Psi

Phi

Unclassified 20

Unclassified 21

The Profession of Arms in the Information Age:

network enabled armament systems compatibility in an LVC world

AIAC 2015, METU Ankara Turkey, 11 September 2015

Malcolm ‘Maven’ Tutty MEng, FIE(Aust), RAeS JAIME Enterprises Australia

Unclassified 22

Live

Embedded Training Systems C4I &

Combat

Systems

Role Players

Exercise Control

AAR

Response Cells

Opposing Force

(OPFOR)

Design

Plan Prepare Execute

Analyze Evaluate

Knowledge Management

Assets

Authoritative Sources

Joint LVC Testing & Training Environment Testing & Training Audience

Joint, Multinational, & Coalition Partners

Global Information

Grid

Joint Coalition Context

Virtual

Constructive

Planners & Designers

Key Players: JMETC

InterTEC Test Community

Training Community

Instru

me

nta

tion

TE

NA

& C

RIIS

McKee SETE 2010

Armament Systems Compatibility: Mal Tutty Unclassified 23

A Family of System of Systems

Unclassified

Systems – The Platform, Flight &

Mission Sim, SE Integ Lab, PT Trnrs

FoS - Σ SoS for the JTF

SoS – Σ Platform Type(s) +

Flight & Mission Sims +

SE Integ Lab + LVC + TENA +

Part Task Trainers +

Weapons +

EW / DE / EWSP +

TBMCS + Missions Planning +

Intell + Maintenance + …

Developed at Tutty (2012) from Abbott (2009) Unclassified 25

• PART I – PHYSICAL SUITABILITY: CONCEPTUAL & FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION

• PART II – PHYSICAL SUITABILITY: FORM & FIT

• PART III – PHYSICAL SUITABILITY: STRUCTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL

• PART IV – PHYSICAL SUITABILITY: AEROELASTICITY

• PART V – PHYSICAL SUITABILITY: CAPTIVE CARRIAGE: HANDLING QUALITIES AND PERFORMANCE

• PART VI – PHYSICAL SUITABILITY: EMPLOYMENT AND JETTISON – NOISE & EM EMISSIONS & RCS

• PART VII – INFORMATION SUITABILITY: EXTERNAL INTERFACES, MISSION PLANNING, BALLISTICS, SAFE

ESCAPE, WEAPON DANGER AREAS AND MUNITIONS EFFECTIVENESS

• PART VIII – COGNITIVE SUITABILITY: PROCEDURES, TTPS AND HUMAN FACTORS

- 1 Operators / Flight Manual

- 2 System Preparation / Maintenance Manual

- 3 Systems Loading Manual

- 4 Tactics Manual

- 5 Mission Planning Tools

• PART IX – EMERGENT PROPERTIES: COI/CTP/MOE/MOP TEST AND EXPERIMENTATION

• PART X – SPECIFICATIONS TRACEABILITY

Armament Systems Compatibility

Unclassified 26

Conclusions

Unclassified

Aircraft Stores Compatibility history

Need for Wind Tunnels usage questioned in 1980/90s

Confidence in CFD usage for timely aircraft stores separation

and inserted early in weapons integration program

Bottom Line: ACFD II Challenge Blind Tests established CFD

accuracy and confidence for aircraft stores separation use

Next: Pt II on Armament Systems Compatibility and Pt III aircraft

stores handling qualities, performance and accuracy testing

Network-enabled complex adaptive systems impact …

Five Eyes / NATO Code of Practice proposed for Experimenters

and Testers to establish network-enabled Armament Systems

Compatibility

Unclassified 27

Unclassified -3

Si ego Certiorem Faciam, Mihi Tu Delendus Eris. Homer, The Iliad

Disclaimer

*The research & presentation are derived from research

primarily based on unclassified, open sources: see AIAC-2015-

022 paper at Tutty etal (2015), available from 8th AIAC and the

authors website – www.maltutty.com

*Author’s views are based on ongoing research in the Five Eyes

and NATO and are intended to promote discussion.

*The results are Unclassified, publically releasable but do not

necessarily represent the extant official views of the

Australian / US Department of Defence, the Five Eye nations

or that of University of SA, as yet.

*No apologies about the HIGH ‘Augustine Acronym Index’ –

if you can’t translate these ones as engineers, scientists or

techo wannabes you really shouldn’t be playing in the military

effects-based space!

Unclassified Unclassified 29