3AF - 6 th International Conference on Missile defence

1. 3AF - 6th International Conference on Missile defence Lethality Assessment Process By Elie Levy Col. (Res.) President of Linkcom-Telecom May 2010 - Israel unclassified

2. UnclassifiedLethality 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

3. UnclassifiedLethality Assessment Process Presentation topics 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

4. 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

5. Unclassified Lethality Assessment ProcessDesign 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)

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. UnclassifiedLethality 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

10. UnclassifiedLethality 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)

11. 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…

12. UnclassifiedHydrocodes elementsCharacteristic

13. Unclassified Lethality Assessment ProcessHypervelocity 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

14. Unclassified Lethality Assessment ProcessHypervelocity 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

15. Unclassified Lethality Assessment ProcessTwo stages Light Gaz Gun

16. Unclassified Lethality Assessment ProcessHypervelocity 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)

17. UnclassifiedLethality Assessment ProcessSled 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.

18. Unclassified Lethality Assessment ProcessFlight 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

19. UnclassifiedLethality Assessment ProcessFlight 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

20. UnclassifiedLethality Assessment ProcessKill 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. UnclassifiedLethality 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