1 / 27

5 October 2005

31 st ANNUAL AIR ARMAMENT SYMPOSIUM. 5 October 2005. Air Armament Center Directed Energy Activities. Lynda Rutledge Director, Direct Attack Systems Group AAC/DASG. INTRODUCTION. DE Technology Changes the Battlespace DE Technology is Transformational Revolutionary vs Evolutionary

elina
Download Presentation

5 October 2005

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 31st ANNUAL AIR ARMAMENT SYMPOSIUM 5 October 2005 Air Armament Center Directed Energy Activities Lynda Rutledge Director, Direct Attack Systems Group AAC/DASG

  2. INTRODUCTION • DE Technology Changes the Battlespace • DE Technology is Transformational • Revolutionary vs Evolutionary • DE Warfare Rewrites the Rules • Required To Maintain Technological Edge • Requires Adjustment in Conventional Thinking How Do We Get Directed Energy Systems Fielded?

  3. BACKGROUND • 2004 Air Armament Symposium Recommended Establishment of a Directed Energy IPT • AAC Hosted Directed Energy Workshop 8-10 Feb • Focused On Armament Application • Bring Labs, Warfighters, Industry, Acquisition Together To Determine: • How We Can Help Warfighters Use DE To Create Desired Effects On Battlefield Cheaper And/Or Better Than Conventional Systems • How We Connect Warfighter, Industry, Acquisition and Lab Communities To Speed Transition • Desired Outcome: • Establish “State Of The Union” • Map Out Common Way Ahead For Armament Application Of DE

  4. WORKSHOP RECOMMENDATIONS • Establish IPT to Provide Path Forward for Weaponization of DE Technology • Recommendations in 6 Months • Assess Through Three Working Groups • Systems Integration & Demonstration WG • Modeling Simulation & Effectiveness WG • Military Worth Objectives WG

  5. DIRECTED ENERGY IPT Leadership Group System Integration & Demo WG Modeling & Simulation WG RECOMMENDATIONS Prove the “So What?” Measure the “So What?” Military Worth WG Define the “So What?”

  6. LEADERSHIP WG • AAC/XRS Lynda Rutledge, Chair • ACC/A8MS Col Lou Berrena • AF/XORW Col John Croghan • AF/XORE Col Richard Rankin • AFCSO Col Michael Edwards • ACC/A8MS Lt Col Glenn Panaro • AFRL/DE Dr Simpson • AFRL/DE Dr Hussey • AAC/AGMSW Terrance May • ASC/XRS Len Pohlar • ATK Mark Fleenor • Boeing Carl Avila • Lockheed Martin Steve Kress/Ron Knight • Northrop Grumman Dan Wildt • Northrop Grumman Chris Wallace • Raytheon Mike Booen • Raytheon Myke Holt

  7. DIRECTED ENERGY IPT Leadership Group Mature Systems Candidates System Integration & Demo WG Modeling & Simulation WG • Evaluate DE Systems Technology/ Acquisition Maturity • Assess Feasibility Of Executing A Demo To Prove Desired Military Worth • Plan Systems Level Demonstration Program Military Worth WG Mature Systems Candidates

  8. SYSTEMS INTEGRATION & DEMONSTRATION WORKING GROUP . . . SYSTEMS INTEGRATION / DEMO MEMBERSHIP • AAC/XRS Steve Whitten-Chair • AFSOC/XPT Lt Col Mike Ward • AAC/XRS Ron Rapp, Mike Bowen • AAC/AGMSW Russ Klug • AFRL/DET/DEH Cynthia Kaiser, Ken Yates, Steve Langdon, Dave Crook • 46th TW Bob Stovall • AFRL/MN Jerry Provenza • ATK Don Sullivan • Boeing Steve Seto • Lockheed-Martin Steve Kress • Northrop-Grumman Steve Bos • Raytheon Al Steichen

  9. SYSTEMS INTEGRATION & DEMONSTRATION WORKING GROUP . . . IDENTIFIED POTENTIAL SYSTEMS • Contacted Other Govt Agencies • AFRL/DE, Army, Navy, OSD, DHS • Contacted Industry System Integrators • ATK, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon • Requested Concepts Ready For: • Milestone A or ACTD (TRL 4) Within 2 - 4 Yrs • Milestone B (TRL 6) Within 5 - 7 Years

  10. SYSTEMS INTEGRATION & DEMONSTRATION WORKING GROUP . . . DE SYSTEMS EVALUATED • HIGH ENERGY LASERS (HEL) • Advanced Tactical Laser • Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL) • Laser with Relay Mirrors • Laser Counter Man Portable Air Defense Systems (ManPADS) • HIGH POWER MICROWAVE (HPM) • Active Denial • Engine Stopper • Counter IED • HPM Counter ManPADS • Airborne Counter Electronics

  11. SYSTEMS INTEGRATION & DEMONSTRATION WORKING GROUP . . . TECHNOLOGY READINESS LEVELS (TRL) TRL SYSTEM • HEL Systems • Tactical Lasers • Chemical • Solid State • Laser w/Relay Mirrors • Counter ManPADS TRL 7 TRL 3 TRL 4 TRL 4 • HPM Systems • Active Denial • Counter-IED • Counter-ManPADS • Engine Stopper • Counter Electronics TRL 6 TRL 5 TRL 4 TRL 3 TRL 4 Several DE Systems Mature Enough to Proceed to System Demo

  12. DIRECTED ENERGY IPT Leadership Group Mature Systems Candidates Modeling & Simulation WG System Integration & Demo WG • Identify Baseline Analysis Capability • Identify Shortfalls In Analysis Capability For Selected Systems • Conduct Preliminary Mission/Campaign Level Analysis Military Worth WG System Effects

  13. MODELING, SIMULATION AND EFFECTIVENESS WORKING GROUP . . . MODELING, SIMULATION & EFFECTIVENESS MEMBERSHIP • AFRL/DETA Linda Lamberson, Chair • ACC/A8YM Cam Shontz • AFSAA/SAFC Bill Troy • AAC/ENA Ian Talbot • 46th TW Bob Stovall • ATK Greg Skidmore • Boeing Lynn Bonsail • Boeing Jerry Bukley • Boeing Steve Seto • Boeing Jeremy Sato • Lockheed-Martin Steve Calico • Lockheed-Martin Mike Bright • Lockheed-Martin Chris Murphy • Northrop-Grumman Michelle Creedon • Northrop-Grumman Bob Antinone • Raytheon Sean Miller • Raytheon Andy Paul

  14. MODELING, SIMULATION AND EFFECTIVENESS WORKING GROUP . . . ABILITY TO ASSESS SYSTEM PERFORMANCE • Models & Data Sufficient To Support Mil Worth Assessment • Chemical Laser • Solid State Laser • Laser w/Relay Mirrors • Counter-ManPADS - Laser • Active Denial • Counter-ManPADS - HPM • Counter Electronics • Models & Data Not Yet Sufficient To Support Mil Worth Assessment • Counter-IED • Engine Stopper Need To Continue Maturing DE Modeling and Simulation

  15. MODELING, SIMULATION AND EFFECTIVENESS WORKING GROUP . . . CAMPAIGN ANALYSIS When Notional DE Concepts Were Inserted in Campaign Level Analysis: • Significant Portion Of Target Set Held at Risk • Reduced Blue Attrition • Reduced Time to Complete Campaign DE Concepts Proved Promising in Preliminary Analysis

  16. DIRECTED ENERGY IPT Leadership Group System Integration & Demo WG Modeling & Simulation WG • Quantify the Benefit of DE Applications and Assess Against Current and Projected Capability and Threat • Identify Highest Payoff DE Applications for Warfighter • Identify Any Shortfalls That Prevent Capturing The Military Worth Mature Systems Candidates Military Worth WG System Effects

  17. MILITARY WORTH WORKING GROUP . . . MILITARY WORTH MEMBERSHIP • ACC/A8MS Lt Col Glenn Panaro, Chair • AF/XORW Dave Detore • AF/XOR Dr. Howard Meyer • ACC/A8YF Major Eric Carlson • AFSOC/XPT Lt Col Mike Ward • AFSAA/SAFC Bill Troy • AFRL/DETA Larry Grimes • AAC/XRC Joe Shearer • AAC/ENA Darryl Thornton • ATK Bob Blake • Boeing Phil Dunlap • Boeing Lee Gutheinz • Boeing Rich Niksch • Boeing Paul Korb • Lockheed-Martin Tom Burris • Northrop Grumman Steve Boss • Northrop-Grumman Chris Wallace • Northrop-Grumman Richard Dunn • Raytheon Myke Holt

  18. MILITARY WORTH WORKING GROUP . . . MILITARY WORTH ASSESSMENT • Evaluated Against Three Scenarios • Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) • Urban Operations (UO) • Anti-Access (AA) • Evaluated Against Three Master Capabilities Library (MCL) Functional Areas • 1.0 Surveillance and Reconnaissance • 5.0 Force Application • 7.0 Force Protection • Evaluated Against I-CRRA Objectives • Compared With Current Conventional Systems

  19. MILITARY WORTH WORKING GROUP . . . MIL WORTH EVALUATION RESULTS Contribution 1-Weak 9-Strong 0-No 3-Moderate GWOT UO AA MCL 1 ISR MCL 5 Force Application MCL 7 Force Protect I-CRRA DE Better vs Conventional SYSTEM • HEL Systems • Tactical Lasers • Laser w/Relay Mirrors • Counter ManPADS • HPM Systems • Active Denial • Counter-IED • Counter-ManPADS • Engine Stopper • Counter Electronics

  20. MILITARY WORTH WORKING GROUP . . . MILITARY WORTH ATTRIBUTES of DIRECTED ENERGY SYSTEMS • Rapid Response Engagement (Speed Of Light ) • Surgical / Ultra-Precision Strike • Scalable Effects: Adjustable Dwell / Power • Low Collateral Damage Compared To Current Systems

  21. INTEGRATED EVALUATION RESULTS Contribution Strong No Weak Moderate SYSTEM INTG & DEMO WG 40% M&S WG 20% MIL WORTH WG 40% INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT • HEL Systems • Chemical Laser • Solid State Laser • Relay Mirrors w/SSL • Relay Mirror w/Chemical • Counter ManPADS • HPM Systems • Active Denial • Counter IED • Counter ManPADS • Engine Stopper • Counter Electronics

  22. RECOMMENDED DEMO CANDIDATES • Ground Based Counter- ManPAD System • Real World Threat Identified • Tactical Laser System with Relay Mirror • Solution for a Number of Missions • Enabling Demonstrations for Future Airborne System While Still Meeting Current Requirements

  23. WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE ? • Directed Energy IPT • Continue and Expand Membership of Directed Energy IPT • Maintain Momentum for Cooperative DE Systems • Baseline / Develop Modeling and Simulation • Pursue System Demonstrations • Counter ManPADs • Tactical Laser System w/ Relay Mirror Spiral

  24. COUNTER-MANPADSPATH FORWARD • Baseline Missile Detection Tracking (MDT) & Vulnerability Analysis–FY06 Exit Criteria: Baseline Counter-ManPADS MDT DE Effects Characterization Against ManPADS • Conduct Counter-ManPADS FY07 ACTD • Phase 1 Exit Criteria: Demonstrate Initial Target Acquisition and Track • Phase 2 Exit Criteria: Deliver System With Demonstrated Effective Kill Mechanism, C2, and a Mature MDT

  25. LASER WITH RELAY MIRRORPATH FORWARD • AFRL/DE Continue Laser w/Relay Mirrors Risk Reduction Demo Exit Criteria: Baseline MDT & DE Effects Characterization • Conduct FY08 Systems Level Demonstration Exit Criteria: Demonstrate Relay Mirror System Functionality • Demonstrate Missile, Detect and Track • Demonstrate Effective Kill Against Airborne Target

  26. FINAL THOUGHTS It Took 100 years to Crawl, Walk, Run From Wright Flyer to F/A-22 1903 2003 Wright Flyer P-40 F-86 F/A-22 DE Strike Fighter UCAV WPN 1960s 2005 20?? DE Technology Today To Develop DE Strike Fighter, DE UCAV and DE Gunship We’re Ready to Leave Crawling Phase and Begin Walking Phase

  27. Last Slide

More Related