Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-lrf7s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-27T22:07:01.539Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Improved test capabilities for cost-effective performance evaluation of airborne electronic warfare systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2016

M. Pywell  and
M. Midgley-Davies
M. Pywell
Affiliation:
mike.pywell@baesystems.com
M. Midgley-Davies
Affiliation:
mitch.midgley-davis@baesystems.com, Electromagnetic Engineering Department, BAE Systems – Military Air Solutions, Warton, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

State of the art test capabilities are described that can enable optimised electronic warfare (EW) system development programmes for military air platforms. EW systems are key enablers of air platform survivability and the above is important as defence ministries and industry world-wide wrestle with affordability, technical and industrial challenges. The military end user needs improved capability quickly, with high availability; defence ministries want this at lowest possible cost and with minimum risk. Satisfying these requirements, while remaining in business against a background of fierce international competition and world financial crisis, is indeed challenging. Improvements are described that can enable improved technical performance and lower cost, time and risk programmes than hitherto, with emphasis on RF EW systems and the recent multi-£M upgrade to BAE Systems’ EW Test Facility, with its aircraft-sized anechoic chamber. This upgrade assures a further decade of world-class UK capability for testing manned and unmanned air platforms.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 114 , Issue 1159 , September 2010 , pp. 527 - 547
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2010 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Pywell, M., Alonze, P.M., Hurricks, M.E. and Wellings, I.G., The new Enigma – Increased survivability with reduced cost? NATO RTO SCIP Symp. on Flight in a Hostile Environment (1999). Conf Proc RTO-MP-47, AC/323(SCI)TP/22.Google Scholar
2. Grant, R., F-22 in Strategic Context. TacAir Issues Series: F-22, 13 April 2009. Centre for Strategic & International Studies, Washington DC, USA. Csis.org/files/media/csis/events/090423_r_grant_presentation.pdf (accessed August 2009)Google Scholar
3. Keppler, J., NATO RTO Study SAS-064: Update of Requirements and Options for Future NATO Electronic Warfare Capabilities. Presentation to AOC Int. Conf. 20 October 2008, Reno, NV, USA.Google Scholar
4. UK Defence Industrial Strategy. Defence White Paper, CM 6697, 15 December 2005.Google Scholar
5. UK Defence Technology Strategy for the demands of the 21st century, October 2006.Google Scholar
6. MoD Defence Test and Evaluation Strategy. 22 July 2008.Google Scholar
7. Eberl, E.G., RF Threat Simulation for a Digital World. 34th Annual Dixie Crow Symp. EW Transformation, New Technology for Operational Systems. 22-26 March 2009, Warner Robins AFB, GA, USA.Google Scholar
8. DoD Modeling and Simulation (M&S) Management. DoD Directive 5000.59, 8 August 2007.Google Scholar
9. MoD Acquisition Operating Framework http://www.aof.mod.uk/index.htm (accessed August 2009)Google Scholar
10. Pywell, M., Developments in RF simulator technology – approaching the affordable fidelity limit, Aeronaut J, September 2007, 111, (1123), pp 545–560.Google Scholar
11. Banks, H. and McQuillan, R. (Eds), Electronic Warfare Test and Evaluation. NATO RTO-AG-300, 17, March 2000, AC/323(SCI)TP/24, ISBN 92-837-1034-7.Google Scholar
12. EW Test and Evaluation Process – Direction and Methodology for EW Testing. Air Force Manual 99-112, 27 March 1995.Google Scholar
13. Wallace, Wg Cdr P., Commanding Officer, RAF Spadeadam, UK Electronic Warfare Training Facility. Delivering Relevant EW Training in Modern Warfare, 45th AOC Int Symp & Convention, 19-23 October 2008, Reno, NV, USA.Google Scholar
14. Grant, Wo F., Air Warfare Centre, RAF Waddington: CEESIM and its role in the production of ‘Mission Dependent Data’ (MDD). 3rd Int CEESIM Users’ Conf, Peterborough, UK, 3-4 June 2009.Google Scholar
15. MoD Defence Technology Plan http://www.science.mod.uk/strategy/dtplan/default.aspx (accessed August 2009)Google Scholar
16. UK MoD Defence Research 2009, Annual Conference and Exhibition. 24/25 March 2009, International Conference Centre, Birmingham, UK. http://www.science.mod.uk Google Scholar
17. Stadler, K.M., Test and evaluation lessons learned from the field, Defense AR J, September 2007, 14, (2). http://www.dau.mil/pubs/arq/2007arq/2007arq45/arq2007_45.asp (accessed September 2009).Google Scholar
18. Ferbrache, D., (Director Analysis, Experimentation & Simulation, MoD) Way Forward on UK Defence Simulation. Euro Simulation Interoperability Workshop Plenary Session, June 28 – 1 July 2004, Edinburgh University, Edinburgh, Scotland.Google Scholar