Ada 129500

AD-A129 500 SURVE OFMISSILE SIMULATION AND FLIOHT MECHANICS/2
FACIIE IN N NAT0 U ARMY MISSIE COMMAND REDSTONE

ARSENAL AL SYSTEMS SIMULATION A. WIM HOLMES MAY 83
UNCLASFED DMI/RD-83-4-TH SBI AD-E95O 395 F/G 16/1 N
Ito
11111650Q 5
LL
125 1., 11
111u11
MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TESTCHART

BUREAU
NATIONAL OF STANDARDS-1963-A
iI
0oTCNCLREOTR-3
0
vt SURVEY OF MISSILE SIMULATION AND FLIGHT

=1 MECHANICS FACILITIES IN NATO
Dr. Willard M. Holmes

Systems Simulation and Development Directorate
Army Missile Laboratory
U. S. Army Missile Command
MAY 1983
The contents of this Report have been published as AGARD's Rlight

Mechanics Panel AGARDograph AG.279.
F~ademtcon'e Areeremi, A~imatam 35009
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.
jUN 10 1983U
A
(ca1 015
ONt FOFI 1021, 1 JUL 79 PREVIOUS EDITION4 1S OBSOLETE
77
7Tr.-7 P ..
DISPOSITION INSTRUCTIONS
DESTROY THIS REPORT WHEN IT IS NO LONGER NEEDED. DO NOT

RETURN IT TO THE ORIGINATOR.
DISCLAIMER
THE FINDINGS IN THIS REPORT ARE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS AN

OFFICIAL DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY POSITION UNLESS SO DESIG-
NATED BY OTHER AUTHORIZED DOCUMENTS.
TRADE NAMES
USE OF TRADE NAMES OR MANUFACTURERS IN THIS REPORT DOES

NOT CONSTITUTE AN OFFICIAL INDORSEMENT OR APPROVAL OF
THE USE OF SUCH COMMERCIAL HARDWARE OR SOFTWARE.
IQ
J
UNCLASSIFIED
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (VI.. Dae Enierud _________________
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFORE COSEPLETIG FORM

1REPORT NUMEER01 12. GOVT ACCESSION No. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER
RD-83-4 Wki-A 429 ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
4. TITLE (ad Subtitle) 5. TYPE OF REPORT A PERIOD COVERED

Survey of Missile Simulation and Flight Mechanics Technical Report
Facilities in NATO
6. PERFORMING ONG. REPORT NUMBER
7. AUTNOR(a) 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBERfa)
Dr. Williard M. Holmes
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 1o. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT. TASK
Commander AREA a WORK UNIT NUMBERS
U. S. Army Missile Command
ATTN: DRSMI-RD
II. CONTROLLING wFilk fAt AND ftiRess 12. REPORT DATE
Commander MAY 1983
U. S. Army Missile Command 13. NUMBER OFPAGES
ATTN: DRSMI-RPT14
T4MTURI I@ N~fh aOiMMSWf differmnt from Controlling Office) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of this repo"t)
UNCLASSIFIED
150. DECL ASSI IlCATION/ DOWNG-RADING

SCHEDULE
1S. DISTRIBUTION STATEMEN4T (of this Report)

Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited.
17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of th. abstract entered In Block 20, It different from Report)
1S. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

The information in this report was prepared for AGARD and first published in
AGARDograph AG 279._
IS. KEY WORDS (Codtinuve on reverse aide it necessary mud Identify by block mnber)
M~ ASTRACr (006ae M vmm egs anwed d #~& Air Nybock mnMba)

This report presents the results of a Flight Mechanics Panel sponsored survey of
24 simulation and flight mechanics facilities in six NATO community nations.
The information was obtained by a combination of a questionnaire mailed to each
facility and a follow-up on-site visit and interview with facility managers and
operational personnel.
JA,N 72 m~uO By65OSLT UNCT,4SSIFIE

SECURITT CLAMPICATtOR OF THIS PAE9 (111000
D008EaSereo
1. BACKGROUND
AGARD's Flight Mechanics Panel is investigating the feasibility of the

cooperative use of HkTO community facilities for the simulation, test and eval-
uation of missile systems and subsystems as related to missile system flight
mechanics. The use of ground based simulations has proven to be of vital
importance in time and cost reduction of missile development, flight test
planning, and accomplishing improved performance through the operational life
of the weapon system. The joint and cooperative use of simulation facilities
in the W1%TO community nations could provide a basis for significant cost
reduction in the areas of: ground based missile simulations, subsystem tests,
evaluation of aircraft and weapon system integration and separation, iden-
tification and correction of operational problems, flight test planning, and
post flight analysis, developing and accessing operational tactics and strate-
gies.
Any potential cost reductions realized and improved missile system perfor-
mance through the cooperative use of facilities requires that several factors
be addressed. Past AGARD conferences, working group sessions and panel
discussions have demonstrated that a diversity of terminology and concepts are
used to: describe missile simulations, describe model credibility and provide
supportable interpretation of simulation generated data. The simulation
generated data bases are generated using a wide range of facilities with dif-
ferent levels of operational technology, frequently without clearly defined
methodology of simulation model development and validation.
2. OBJECTIVES
The major objectives of this study was to conduct a survey of missile

system simulation facilities in the RITO alliance, including government and
contractor facilities. Information from this task would address missile
system and subsystem simulation capabilities, methodology of simulation devel-
opment, simulation model verification and validation. In addition,
approaches and procedures were to be recommended that would enhance coopera-
tive development of missile system simulation, test and evaluation as related
to missile system flight mechanics.
3. SURVEY TASK -
This report presents the results of a Flight Mechanics Panel (FMP) spon-
sored survey of twenty-four (24) simulation and flight mechanics facilities in
six NKTO community nations: France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy,
the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States. While this survey
is comprehensive, in providing a cross sectional view of operational physical
facilities and capabilities, practical considerations preclude a more
exhaustive facility survey and related data base. The information reported
here was obtained by a combination of a questionnaire mailed to each facility
and a follow-up on-site visit and interview with facility managers and opera-
tional personnel. The questionnaire addressed five areas of technology con-
sidered essential in the simulation, test and evaluation of missile systems
and related subsystems. These areas are: (1) physical facilities, including
. . . . . .- ..
hardware system to create Sensors Exposure Environments (SEE) to stimulate or
activate missile sensors for radio frequency, infrared, electro-optical and
laser environments, (2) electronic computer computation, including: digital,
analog, hybrid and special computers; hardware-in-the-loop operation and
related software and higher level simulation languages, (3) methodology of
simulation development including: computer implementation, simulation model
verification, and validation, (4) simulation utilization including: hardware
development, flight test operations, post flight analysis and system level
studies, subsystem tests and hardware validation, use of simulation by groups
other than the developing group, (5) simulation program development, standards
and procedures, including: procedures and special activities that support the
development and implementation of programs for use by organizations and groups
outside the developing organization; modular approach to simulation develop-
ment, documentation standards and procedures. Technology areas reviewed
during on-site visits not included in the mailed questionnaire includes: wind
tunnels used for missile and aircraft aerodynamic configuration studies; dual
aircraft cockpit facilities for evaluation of aircraft and weapon system per-
formances, study and development of combat tactics and strategies. Interviews
during on-site visits included questions regarding capabilities specifically
related to missile system flight mechanics in the areas of: flight vehicle
design and integration, flight-dynamics, flight testing and experience in
operational problem solving.
4. FINDINGS
First - The combined capability of Just a few of these facilities could

address the vast majority of the needs of any simulation task as related to
missile system development, test and evaluation. A high degree of specializa-
tion in subsystem test and evaluation is available that could be supportive to
total system test and development. The availability and use of any facility
surveyed would, however, require considerable planning and coordination with a
high priority requirement processed through national governments, defense
departments and Company Corporate structures. A majority of the facilities
had little or no experience in working on joint N9TO related projects.
Second - Notably missing from a vast majority of facilities were any

established or formal procedure for accomplishing any level of simulation
model validation. The majority of the model validation efforts relied on
visual inspection of simulation generated data and available real world test
data. The simulati6n model was run and modified until the developer had a
"good feeling" about the results. There were no readily available techniques
or procedures-to communicate to a non-developing group the various confidence
levels expressed by the model developers.
Third - Only a very limited number of facilities had formal documentation

available on capabilities and documentation procedures in practice. The
* absence of any commonality in documentation, even internal to the facilities,
indicates a source of difficulty in communicating facility capability and
simulation results of mutual interest to joint users of the facility capabil-
ity.
Fourth - While a wide range of missile simulation capability exists,

missing is a "collective coherance" or frame of reference that is readily
iio
available for simulations jointly developed or for simulations developed for
use by a group not directly involved in the original simulation development
effort. This frame of reference for simulation development would provide a
basis for mathematical and simulation model documentation and communicating
model credibility to joint users or third-party users of models and data
bases.
5. RECOMMENATIONS
Relative to the cooperative use of missile simulation facilities and capa-

bilities available in the N&TO community, the following recommendations are
submitted:
a. A "hierachy" or frame of reference for simulation development should

be established as related to missile system flight mechanics. This frame of
reference would be available for use by joint simulation developers or for
simulations developed for users not involved in the initial simulation model
development. This reference should include provisions for: identifying par-
ticular simulation development methodologies; communicating different levels
of the developer's confidence in the simulation model; and identifying the
process of developing model and data base credibility.
b. Theoretical and practical methods and techniques should be identified

and suggested for accomplishing simulation model verification and validation.
These methods and techniques shoule be consistent with the hierarchy for
simulation development and the domain of intended simulation model applica-
tion.
c. A general procedure should be identified for specifically

accomplishing missile system simulation model documentation. The documen-
tation procedures should be consistent with needs for communicating model
credibility and identifying the model developer's confidence in the simulation
model to a separate user group.
d. A benchmark simulation model should be identified that can be used to

demonstrate the significance of the "hierarchy" or frame of reference for
simulation development. This benchmark model would be used in exercising the
methodologies of simulation development and demonstrate techniques for model
verification and validation. This model would also serve as a vehicle to com-
municate simulatiot model confidence building processes. Various simulation
facilities could be engaged to exercise the model and demonstrate particular
techniques and identify documentation procedures and establish terminology
utilization.
Accefm C01l rThr
-Distrit%1on,/
......
. . .. . . . . . . I
.. ....
. IlD... , ,.. li
PREFACE
AGARD's Flight Mechanics Panel (PMP) sponsored this survey of the missile
system simulation facilities in the A&TO member community. One objective of
this survey was to identify facilities with capabilities to simulate, test
and evaluate missile systems and related subsystems. A second objective was
to identify approaches and procedures that would enhance cooperative develop-
ment of missile system simulations, test and evaluation as related to missile
system flight mechanics. These objectives have been achieved. This report
describes: The methodology used in conducting the survey, the results and
information from the survey effort and recommendations based on findings from
both the mailed questionnaire and on-site visits. During visits to the facil-
ities, interviews were conducted with managing official and operational per-
sonnel.
The report should be of interest to those in the missile and flight mechan-
ics community involved in: the resource development and utilization of
mathematical and simulation models; developing, testing and evaluation of taca-
tical missile systems and related subsystems. While it was not an objective
to give an in-depth technical description of the facility capabilities, an
objective was to provide points of contact and a general descriptive capabil-
ity in specific technological areas. This objective was achieved. This
report provides a data base for a preliminary review by user groups and a
point of contact for additional information on specific facility capabilities.
A point of emphasis should be made regarding the data and information con-
tained in this report. Emphasis has been placed on producing an unclassified
data base consistent with the stated objectives. This unclassified objective
was discussed with the flight mechanics panel prior to the initiation of this
effort. The result was that all inquiries for data would emphasize the
unclassified nature of the request for information on facility capabilities
and not as missile system test results or project related data. In all
instances during on-site visits, the question was posed to each facility,
"Would there be any significant additional information on your facility caps-
bility if this had been a classified visit?" In nearly all instances, the
response was, "No, there would not be any significant additional information
on facility capabilities for a classified visit." To ensure further
compliance with the interest of facility managing officials, only information
obtained for this -urvey through the questionnaire or during on-site visits
has been included in this report. In many instances, additional information
was available from open literature sources, but was not included unless specif-
ically received during the survey effort.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
LIST OFILLUSTONSI.I... .. .. .. . .... ... .. .. ix
LIST OF TABLES .. ................ ...... . .. x
SECTION I. SURVEY TASK
1. Objective of Survey .. ........... . . . . . . . . . I
1.1 Survey Methodology. .. ............ .. ..... I

1.2 Findings. .. ........... .. .. .. ... . .2
1.3 Recommendations .. ... .................... 4
SECTION II. FACILITIES SURVEYED
2.1 SNIAS. . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. ... . . 11
2.1.1 Background and Comments o . . o. o. .I 11

2.1.2 Simulation Methodology .... ............ 12
2.2 Celar Bruz... ....... .. .. ...... . . 12
2.2.1 Background and Comments.........

o . 12
2.2.2 Simulation Methodology ................ 14
2.3 MATRA.o............... .............. 15
2.3.1 Background and Comments. . . . . . .. . .. . 15

2.3.2 Simulation Methodology ......... .... ..... 16
2.4 Facilities Survey Data .. ..... ..... . . . . . 17
3. The Federal Republic of Germany. . . . . . . . . . 23
3.1 Bodenseeverk Geratetescnik Gmbli . . . o ... 23
3.1.1 Background and Comments......

o 23
3.1.2 Simulation Methodology..................23
3.2 DFVLR. . . .. . .. . .. . . . o 24
3.2.1 Background and Comments . . . * . . . 24

3.2.2 Simulation Methodology. . o . . . . o o o 24
3. Dornier GmbH ........... . .. .. . . 25
3.3.1 Background and Comments .... .. . .. 25

3.3.2 Simulation Methodology. . .. . . . . . . . 26
4 V
Page No.
3.4 Industrienlagen Detriebsgeserliechaft GmbH.. ........ 27
3.4.1 Background and Comments. .. ............. 27

3.4.2 Simulation Methodology .. .. ............. 28
3.5 Messerschmitt-Bolkow-Blohm GmbH. .. .... . .. .. ... 29
3.5.1 Background and Comments. .. ....... . . . . 29

3.5.2 Simulation Methodology .. .. .......... 29
3.6 Facilities Survey Data .. . ............ . . 30
4. Italy. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. 36
4.1 Oto Melaro .. ................ ......... 36
4.1.1 Background and Comments. .. ............. 36

4.1.2 Simulation Methodology .. .. ............. 36
4.2 Selenia. .. ......................... 37
4.2.1 Background and Comments . . .. .. .. .. .. . .37
4.2.2 Simulation Methodology .. ............... 37

4.3 Facilities Survey Data. .............. ..... 38
5. The Netherlands .. ........................ 43
5.1 The National Aerospace Laboratory NLR. .. ....... 43
5.1.1 Background and Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

5.1.2 Simulation Methodology . . . .. .. .. .. .. . .44
5.2 Physics Laboratory TNO .. .................. 44
5.2.1 Background and Comments .. ...... . . . . . 44

5.2.2 Simulation Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.3 Facilities.Survey Data... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
6.* The United Kingdom .. ............ .... . . . . . 52
6.1 British Aerospace Dynamics Group o . . . . . . . . . . . 52 i

6.1.1 Background and Comments . . . . # - o . . . . 52
6.1.2 Simulation Methodology .*o . . . ...... . . 54
6.2 EMI4 Electronics Limited .. .......... . . . . . . 56
6.2.1 Background and Comments . . . . . . . . .. .. .... 56

6.2.2 Simulation Methodology . . . . . . . . . 57
vi
Page ND.
6.3 Marconi Space and Defense Systems Limited . ... . . . . . 57
6.3.1 Background and Comments. . . *. #. . *. o. . 57

6.3.2 Simulation Methodology . . . . .oo.. . o . 58
6.4 Royal Aircraft Establishment . . .oo . . . . 59
6.4.1 Background and Comments . .. . . . . . 59

6.4.2 Simulation Methodology . . . .. .. .. .. .o...59
6.5 Facilities Survey Data . .. ...... . . . . . .o . . 60
7. The United States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
7.1 Air Force Armament Laboratory . . . o

. o o . 68
7.1.1 Background and Comments........... . ... 68

7.1.2 Simulation Methodology. .. ..... . . . . . . . 70
7.2 US Army Missile Command o . . . . o. . . . . . . 71
7.2.1 Background and Comments. . . . o.. .. 71

7.2.2 Simulation Methodology . .. o.o. .. . .. . . 76
7.3 Boeing Aerospace Company. ....... .. o. ..... 79
7.3.1 Background and Comments.o........ . . .. ... 79

7o3.2 Simulation Methodology . . . . o . o . . . . . 80
7.4 Hughes Aircraft Company .o . . o . . . . .. ....... 81
7o4-1 Background and Comments . . . .. .... . . 81

7.4.2 Simulation Methodology..... ........ . . . 82
7.5 Martin-Marietta Company .o . ... *.. ... . . . . . . 83
7.5.1 Background and Comments . . . o . o . .o . o o . 83

7o5.2 Simulation Methodology . . .. .. .. o.. o... 84
7.6 McD6nnell-Douglas .o . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
7.6.1 Background and Comments . o .. .... . . .o 86

7.6.2 Simulation Methodology .o . . . . . . . . . o. . 87
7.7 NavalResearch Laboratory.o o... .. o... . 89
7.7.1 Background and Comments . o o o o o o . . . . . 89

7.7.2 Simulation Methodology * . o. . o o o 93
vii
Page No.
7.8 Raytheon Company . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
7.8.1 Background and Comments . .. ... . . . . 94

7.8.2 Simulation Methodology........
o . . 94
7.9 Facilities Survey Data .. .............. . 97
REFERENCES . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . .
** .. 109
APPENDIX A FACILITY SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE .. .............. 11
LIST OF ACRONYMS... ...... . . .... . . .. .. .... 127
viii
LIST OF ILLUSTRRATIONS
Page No.
Figure CB-I. Hyper Frequency Anachoic Chamber ... .......... . 13
GERMANY
Figure IABG-l. Dual Cockpit Facility..... ............... ... 28
UNITED KINGDOM
Figure EMI-1. Plan of Radar Modeling Facilities .. ......... ... 56
Figure MSDS-l. Starglow Hybrid Computer .... ............. ... 58
UNITED STATES
Figure EAFB-I. Radio Frequency Target Simulator Layout ..... ... 69
Figure MICOM-l. Electro-Optical Simulation System (SEE) .. ..... 72
Figure MICOM-2. Infrared Simulation System (SEE).............. 73
Figure MICOM-3. Radio Frequency Simulation System (SEE) .. ..... 74
Figure MICOM-4. Central Hybrid Computer Complex .. ......... ... 76
Figure MICOK-5. Typical ASL Simulation Program ... .......... ... 77
Figure MICOM-6. Simulation Development Methodology .......... .78
Figure MM-i. Typical Mission Integrates GBL and STL

for Total System Test ..... .............. . 84
Figure MDAC-l. Target Simulator and Flight Table .......... ... 87
Figure MDAC-2. The MDAC Three-Tier Simulation .. ......... ... 88
APPROACH TO ACHIEVING MISSION REQUIREMENTS
Figure NRL-1. CTS Closed Loop Mission/ECM Simulation... ....... 90
Figure RAY-l. Design Simulation Process .... ............. ... 95
Figure RAY-2. Simulation Model Hierarchy .... ............ . 96
ix
!fT
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE NO.
SECTION I
Table I. NATO Nations with Mailed Questionnaires and

Percentage Returned ........ ................ 5
Table II. Summary of Survey for Facilities Visited in France . 5
Table III. Summary of Survey for Facilities Visited in

Republic of Germany ....... ............... 6
Table IV. Summary of Survey for Facilities Visited in Italy . . 7
Table V. Summary of Survey for Facilities Visited in

the Netherlands ......... .................. 8
Table VI. Summary of Survey for Facilities Visited in

the United Kingdom ..... ................... 9
Table VII. Summary of Survey for Facilities Visited in the

the United States ...... ................ ... 10
SECTION II
FRANCE
Table FR-I. Infrared Facilities ...... ................... 17
Table FR-2. Infrared Facilities ...... ................... 17
Table FR-3. Radio Frequency Facilities .... ............ . 18
Table FR-6. Electro-Optical Facilities . . .......... 19
Table FR-I7. Electro-Optical Facilities .... ............ . 20
Table FR-8. Electronic Computer Computation. . . ...... 20
Table FR-9. Electronic Computer Computation. . . . . . . . . . 21
Table FR-1O. System Simulation Development .......... 21
Table FR-li. Systems Simulation Development. . . . ..... 22
Table FR-12. Simulation Utilization.... ............ . . . 22
x
Page ND.
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
Table FRG-1. Infrared Facilities .... ............... . 30
Table FRG-2. Infrared Facilities ..... ............... ... 30
Table FRG-3. Radio Frequency Facilities . . ........ 31
Table FRG-4. Radio Frequency Facilities ... ........... ... 31
Table FRG-5. Radio Frequency Facilities ... ........... ... 32
Table FRG-6. Electro-Optical Facilities ... ......... . . 32
Table FRG-7. Electro-Optical Facilities ... ........... ... 33
Table FRG-8. Electronic Computer Computation .. ......... ... 33
Table FRG-9. Electronic Computer Computation .. ......... ... 34
Table FRG-1O. Systems Simulation Development .. ......... ... 34
Table FRG-ll. Systems Simulation Development . . . . . . .. 35
Table FRG-12. Simulation Utilization .... ............. ... 35
ITALY
Table IL-1. Infrared Facilities ................... . •.38
Table IL-2. Infrared Facilities ..... ............... ... 38
Table IL-3. Radio Frequency Facilities ... ........... . 39
Table IL-4. Radio Frequency Facilities ... ........... ... 39
Table IL-5. Radio Frequency Facilities ... ........... ... 39
Table IL-6. Electro-Optical Facilities ... ........... ... 40
Table IL-7. Electro-Optical Facilities ... ........... ... 40
Table IL-8. Electronic Computer Computation ........ 40
Table IL-9. Electronic Computer Computation . . . . . . . . 41
Table IL-IO. Systems Simulation Development . ........ ... 41
Table IL-11. Systems Simulation Development . . ...... 42
Table IL-12. Systems Simulation Development . . . . . . . . . 42
xi
Page No.
NETHERLANDS
Table NE-1. Infrared Facilities .............. 46
Table NE-2. Infrared Facilities .... ................. 46
Table NE-3. Radio Frequency Facilities ... .......... . . 47
Table NE-4. Radio Frequency Facilities ... .......... . . 47
Table NE-5. Radio Frequency Facilities ... ........... ... 48
Table NE-6. Electro-Optical Facilities ... ............. . 48
Table NE-7. Electro-Optical Facilities ........... 49
Table NE-8. Electronic Computer Computation ........ 49
Table NE-9. Electronic Computer Computation .. .......... 50
Table NE-bO. Systems Simulation Development . . . .. . 50
Table NE-11. Systems Simulation Development . ........ ... 51
Table NE-12. Simulation Utilization ... .............. 51
UNITED KINGDOM
Table UK-l. Infrared Facilities .... .............. ... 60
Table UK-2. Infrared Facilities ................... 61
Table UK-3. Radio Frequency Facilities ... ............ 62
Table UK-4. Radio Frequency Facilities ... ............ 62
Table UK-5. Radio Frequency Facilities ... ........... ... 63
Table UK-6. Electro-Optical Facilities .......... 63
Table UK-7. Electro-Optical Facilities ... ........... ... 64
Table UK-8. Electronic Computer Computation . . . . . . .. 64
Table UK-9. Electronic Computer Computation . . . . . . .. 65
Table UK-10. Systems Simulation Development . . . . . . .. 65
Table UK-ll. Systems Simulation Development . . . . . . .. 66
Table UK-12. Systems Simulation Development . . . . . . .. 67
4xii
i x 00
Page No.
UNITED STATES
Table MICCM-l. Sensor Exposure Environment

(SEE Summary) .... .............. 75
Table NRL-l. CTS System Capabilities .. ............ 90
Table NRL-2. CTS System Capabilities .. ............. 91
Table NL-3. CTS System Capabilities .. ............. 92
Table IRL-4. CTS System Capabilities ........ . 93
SURVEY DATA
Table US-i. Infrared Facilities ... .............. 97
Table US-2. Infrared Facilities ... ............... 98
Table US-3. Radio Frequency Facilities ......... 98
Table US-4. Radio Frequency Facilities ............ 99
Table US-5. ...

Radio Frequency Facilities ......... .100
Table US-6. Electro-eptical Facilities . ... .... . 101
Table US-7. Electro-Optical Facilities ....... .. 102
Table US-8. Electronic Computer Computation ........ 103
Table US-9. Electronic Computer Computation . ...... o 104
Table US-IO. Systems Simulation Development ...... 105
Table US-if. Systems Simulation Development . . . ... 106
Table US-12. Simulation Utilization Development ..... 107
xiii
.... --- Ae- . ~-m o l

SECTION I. SURVEY TASK
1. OBJECTIVES OF SURVEY
One objective of this task was to conduct a survey of missile system

simulation facilities in the iWTO nations. This survey would include facili-.
ties in both government and contractor organizations. Facility information
derived from this task would address missile system and subsystem simulation
capabilities, methodolosy o simulation development, simulation model verifi-
cation and validation. In addition, approaches and procedures were to be
recommended that would enhance cooperative development of missile system simu-
lation, test and evaluation as related to missile system flight mechanics.
1.1. SURVEY METHODOLOGY
The information obtained for this survey was accomplished using two
methods of data collection, the mailed questionnaire and on-site visits to
selected facilities. Initially, facilities were identified from a review of
publications that included advertising from organizations involved in tactical
weapon technology development throughout the NATO Community. Specific names
and addresses were obtained for those organizations advertising tactical
missile system capability and related technology. The compiled list was sub-
mitted to the Flight Mechanics Panel (FMP) for address verification or addi-
tion of facilities. EMP delegates provided points of contact for facilities
outside the United States.
A comprehensive questionnaire (see Appendix A) was developed and mailed

to sixty-one facilities in six NkTO countries and provided for a response in a
wide category of capabilities in simulation and test and evaluation as related
to missile system flight mechanics.
The questionnaire addressed capabilities in five areas of technology as

related to missile system simulation.
1. Physical Facilities: Sensor Exposure Environent (SEE) for radio

frequency, infrared, electro-optical and laser sensors.
2. Electronics Computers: Analog, digital, hybrid and special purpose

computers.
3. Methodology of Simulation Development: Analog, digital simulation,

partitioning for hybrid computation hardware-in-the-loop operation.
4. Simulation Utilization: Hardware development, flight test support,

subsystem test and evaluation.
5. Simulation Program Development Standards and Procedures:

Verification, validation procedures, standard terminology, documentation stan-
dards.
The returned questionnaires were used as a basis of selecting facilities

for obtaining additional information on capabilities not practicable or
feasible to accomplish through a questionnaire.
4i1i I I...
The second method of information collecting was accomplished by on-site
visits to facilities selected from the questionnaire and recommendations by
FMP delegates. Visits were completed to twenty-four simulation facilities in
six NATO nations. In advance of each facility visit, an outline was sent
indicating the topics of general interest for review and discussion. The
general areas for discussion included: flight vehicle design and integration,
flight dynamics, simulation, flight testing and operation problem solving
experience with various missile systema. During interviews with organiza-
tional and facility managers, an additional set of questions were discussed
specifically addressing simulation model verification, validation, documen-
tation and the major strength of their simulation capability.
Unclassified information was requested for both the questionnaire and

during on-site visits. At the end of each on-site interview, the question was
asked, "Would any significant amount of additional information on your simula-
tion facility capability be available if this had been a classified visit?" In
nearly all instances the response was, "No significant additional information
on facility capability would be available with a classified visit."
1.2 FINDINS
The overall goals and objectives of this survey task have been achieved.
As reported in Table 1, questionnaires were mailed to sixty-one locations in
six NATO nations. Responses were obtained from all nations, resulting in an
overall return rate of fifty-two percent. A brief summary overview of missile
simulation and test capabilities is shown in Tables 2 through 7. The summary
of capabilities shown includes the broadest range of consideration in any par-
ticular technological area. 'A review of the more detailed information in the
facilities survey data tables for each HkTO country surveyed will provide a
basis for assessment of individual capabilities in specific technologies.
Technology areas reviewed during on-site visits not included in the mailed
questionnaire include: wind tunnels for missile and aircraft aerodynamic con-
figuration studies, dual aircraft cockpit facilities for evaluation of
aircraft and weapon system performances, study and development of combat tac-
tics and strategies.
The digital computer was the most consistently used simulation tool com-
mon to all facilities, in the area of physical facility capability. This was
followed by hardware-in-the-loop (HWIL) operation capability, with hybrid
computer simulation being the third most common. While the analog computer
appeared as frequently as the hybrid computer in the overall statistic, the
actual use of-the computer was being reduced and in several instances, would
be phased out of the facility during the next 12 to 15 months.
Data from the returned questionnaire and information obtained through the
on-site interviews show that the greatest variation of information on a spe-
cific topic was that related to simulation model verification and validation, as
indicated in Tables 2 through 7. Virtually missing in all instances were any
references to specific simulation validation techniques other than the engi-
neering judgement approach. There were no results available to indicate the
existence of any overall general guidelines for simulation modeling develop-
ment and verification for a specific simulation task. There appeared to be
little commonality in simulation model related terminology and guidelines for
l,.t..~.
documentation. Frequently no guidelines or common terminology existed within
individual facilities. Nearly half the facilities visited indicated that they
have had some experience on MNTO project tasks which required a cooperative
effort with at least one other country.
Most facilities visited could be viewed as taking one of two different

approaches in a particular simulation development task. These can be iden-
tified as Type I approach or Type 2 approach. Type 1 approach used simulation
to determine performance characteristics of systems and related subsystems
hardware prior to actual hardware development. The hardware was then devel-
oped and manufactured according to simulation generated specification. The
simulation is the driving force in developing testing methodology and hardware
performance criteria. An example: Type 1 approach in simulation development
and utilization would specify the flight test scenario and the data to be
obtained from the flight test. The primary purpose of the flight tests is to
build confidence in the simulation model. Testing of the integrated hardware
configuration would not necessarily be the primary purpose of the flight test.
Type 2 methodology develops the simulation either in parallel with the system
and subsystem hardware development or after the hardware characteristics have
been established. Likewise, flight test scenario and test variables are
selected to test the integrated hardware. The variables selected are not
necessarily those required to build confidence in the simulation model. The
essential difference in these two approaches to simulation development is the
influence on intermediate system simulation development and operations, i.e.,
simulation model validation procedures for establishing confidence in the
simulation model generated data bases and accomplishing documentation.
The following general statements can be made regarding simulation devel-

opment, validation and utilization as related to missile system flight
mechanics, test and evaluation, after reviewing the data received from the
questionnaire and information obtained from the on-site visits.
First, the physical facilities provide a wide range of simulation tech-

nology and simulation development capability. A high degree of specialization
in subsystems test and evaluation was found to exist in many instances. The
combined capability of just a few of these facilities could address the
majority of the needs of a simualtion task as related to missile systems test
and evaluation. The availability and utilization of these resources would,
however, require considerable planning and coordination with a high priority
requirement processed through national governments, defense departments and
corporate structures. The majority of the facilities visited were dedicated
primarily to-tompany products or were under strict government project obliga-
tion.
Second, while a wide range of missile system simulation capabilities

exist, missing from a majority of the facilities were formal procedures for
accomplishing any level of simulation model verification and validation. Also
missing is a frame of reference or a "Collective Coherence" for simulation
developers and users. The need for such a frame of reference is demonstrated
by the response to the model validation and documentation questions. The
existence of some general frame of reference for simulation development and
utilization, as it relates to the needs and requirements of missile system
flight mechanics, would provide a general basis for confidence building in
simulation models.
4
Third, the question of developing confidence in simulation models is
central to any simulation user, and the issue of verification and validation
is essential to any simulation developer of effective and useful simulations.
One of the most effective means of establishing confidence and communicating
the validity of a model is the availability and common use of certain methods,
techniques and testing procedures. While a variety of methods and techniques
does exist to provide some basis of developing confidence in simulation utili-
zation, not any of the methods or techniques are very widely used throughout
the facilities surveyed.
Fourth, documentation of simulation models varied widely from computer
listing to multivolume documents. The absence of any commonality in documen-
tation procedures or terminology can possibly be related indirectly, if not
directly, to the missing frame of reference for simulation development.
1.3 RECGOMENDATIONS
Relative to the cooperative use of missile simulation facilities and'

capabilities available in the NKTO community, the following recommendations
are submitted:
a. Identify a hierarchy of simulation development, as related to missile

system flight mechanic test and evaluation. This hierarchy or frame of
reference should include provisions for simulation methodologies that address
Type 1 and Type 2 approaches to system simulations. This frame of reference
would be available for use by joint simulation developers or for simulations
developed for users not involved in the initial simulation model development.
This reference should include provision for: identifying particular simula-
tion development methodologies, suggesting a general approach for building
confidence in system simulation models, communicating different levels of the
developer's confidence in the simulation model to a third party user group,
and identifying a process of developing model and data base credibility.
b. Identify and suggest theoretical and practical methods and techniques

fok accomplishing simulation model verification and validation. These methods
and techniques should be consistent with the hierarchy for simulation develop-
ment and the domain of intended simulation model application.
c. Identify a general procedure for specifically accomplishing missile

system simulation model documentation. The documentation procedures should be
consistent with needs for communicating model credibility and identifying the
model developer's confidence in the simulation model to a separate user group.
d. Identify a benchmark simulation model that can be used to demonstrate

the significance of the "herarachy" or frame of reference for simulation devel-
opment. This benchmark model would be used in exercising the methodologies
of simulation development and demonstrate techniques for model verification
and validation. This model would also serve as a vehicle to communicate simu-
lation model confidence buidling processes. Various simulation facilities
could be engaged to exercise the model and demonstrate particular validation
techniques, identify documentation procedures, and establish terminology utili-
zation.
4
Table 1. -NATO Nation& With Mailed Questionnaires and Percentage Returned
Nation Questionnaire Percent

__ __Mailed Returned
France 10 1 10
The Federal Republic of Germany 7 5 71
Italy 5 2 40
The Netherlands 10 2 50
The United Kingdca 11 6 55
The United States 178 12
TOTAL 61 32 52
Table 2. Sumary of Survey Results for Faoilities Visited in frace
Technolory Areas Facilities in France

2 3
Sensor Exposure Environment

Infrared
Electro-Optical
Laser x
Radio Frequency x x
Computers
Analog x I
Digital x x x
Hybrid x x
System Simulation
HWIL x x x
CSSL
Simulation Development Procedures I I I
Simulation Models
Verification (a) (a) (a)
Validation (a) (a) (a)

NATO Project Experience x x I
it Colar/lrus
2 Matra
3 Snias/Division Engins
(a) General engineering Judgement no atanaard or formal procedures establshed.
.... . ... .. . . .. .. . . .. .. .! II III5

Table 3. Sumary of Survey "s-ts for ' cAities Visited in
Federal Republic of Zermay
Technology Areas Facilities in FRG
1' 2 3 4 5
Infrared X
Electro-Optical X
Laser X
Radio Frequency
Computers
Analog X X X
Digital X X X X X
Hybrid X X X
System Simulation
HWIL X X
CSSL X XX X
Simulation Development Procedures
Simulation Models
Verification . X (a) (a)
Validation (a) (a) (a) (a)
NATO Project Experience X
10 Bodenseewerk Geratetechnik Gmbh

2 DFVLR
3 Dornier, Friedrichshafen
4 IABG, Ottobrunn..
5 Mesaersohmitt-Bolkow Blohm Gmbh (MBB)
(a) General engineering Judgement - no standard or formal procedures established.
""' . .. .I6". . ,. .. .. . . - ' ' ' ..

Table 4. Summary of Survey Results for Facilities Visited in Italy
Technology Areas Facilities in Italy

1% 2
Infrared
Eletro-Optical
Laser'
Radio Frequenoy x
Commuters
Analog X
Digital X X
Hybrid X
System Simulation
HWIL x
CSSL
Simulation Development Procedures (a) x
Simulation Models
Verification X
Validation (a) (a)
NATO Project Experience X
Is Oto Melara
2 Selenia-Industrie Elettromiche
(a) General engineering judgement - no standard or formal prooedures established.
4 7J
._ ____.__,._...... l_ ii4
Table 5. Summfary of Survey Results for Facilities Visited in the Netherlands
Technolomy Areas Facilities in the Netherlands
Sensor Exposure Environment,
Infrared
Electro-Optical X
Laser X
Radio Frequency (b)
COMPuLers
Analog X
Digital X
Hybrid X
SYsteM Simulation
HWIL X
CSSL X
Simulation Development Procedures (a)
Simulation Models
Verification -
Validation (a)
NATO Project Experience
I National Aerospace Laboratory, NLR

2 Physics Laboratory, TNO
(a) General engineering judgement -no standard or formal procedures established.
(b) Corner reflector
Table 6. Summary of Survey Results tar Facilities Visited in
The United Kingdow
Technology Areas Facilities in UI
1. 2 3 6
Sensor Expsure Environment
Infrared X
Electro-Optical X
Laser
Radio Frequency X X (b)
Computers
Analog X X X X X
Digital X X X X X X
Hybrid X X X I
SYstem Simulation
HWIL X X X I
CSSL X X X
Simulation Development Prooedures X (a) X
Simulation Models
Verification (a) (a) (a) (a)

Validation (a) (a) X (a) (a)
NATO Project Experience X X X
io British Aerospace Corporation, Dynamics, Bristol Division

2 British Aerospace Corporation, Dynamics, Hhtfield Division
3 British Aerospace Corporation, Dynamics, Stevenage Division
4 EMI, Somerset, Wells
5 Marconi Space and Defense Systems.
6 Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough
(a) General engineering Judgement - no standard or formal procedurms established
(b) Facility under construction - expected commission date aid 1981.
-I
Table 7. Summy of Srvey Results for Faoilities Visited in the United States
Technolony Areas Facilities In USA
1' 2 3 1 5 6 7
Sensor Extosure Environment
Infrared X X X X X X X
Electro-Optical X X X X I
Laser X X X X
Radio Frequency X X X X X X X
Computers
Analog X X X X X X X
Digital X X X X X K X X
Hybrid X X X X 3{ X
Sstem Simulation
HWIL X X X X X X K K
CSSL X X X X
Simulation Development Procedures X X X X (b) X
Simulation Models
Verification X X X X X (a) X
Validation X (a) X (a) (a) (a) K
NATO Project Experience K
1 Army Missile Command

2 Boeing Aerospace Company
3 Eglin Air Force Base
4 Hughes Aircraft Company
5 Martin Marietta Company
6 MoDonnell Douglas
7 Naval Research Laboratory
8 Raytheon Company
(a) General engineering judgement - no standard or formal procedures established.
(b) Now facility - no existing procedure.
10
'.. -. ."" ... FIT .... -" .... * "-'. " -, ' .* ,'" P
SECTION II. FACILITIES SURVEYED
2. FRANCE
2.1. CGMPANY OR ORGANIZATION
SNIAS/DIVISION ENGINS
Department ECF
Fort Des Gatines
Verrier Le bkisson, France
POINT OF CONTACT
All inqueries regarding French facilities should be directed to:
M. l'Ing. Principal Warin

Direction Technique des Engins
26 Boulevard Victor
75996 Paris Armees
France
TELEPHONE: 552-4791
2.1.1. BACKGROUND AND CG4HENTS
The Snias simulation facility at Verrie Le Boisson includes a HWIL

operation capability with a three axes flight table. The hybrid computer
operation includes tvo separate analog/digital computers that can be intercon-
nected for use on a single large scale simulation task. A special digital
software package is used to determine scaling and analog computer setu. for
hybrid computer operations. The analog computers are Electronic Assrfti-ion,
Inc. (EAI) 693s. The digital operation uses an SEL 32/77 which incl'._es two
processors with a shared memory. Experience with HWIL operations include:
radio frequency and laser seekers, actuators, gyro instruments and on board
flight computers. Additional scientific digital computer support is provided
by a Honeywell computer system with some forty remote termiials. Two AP120
array processors are on order. One AP120 digital computer will be dedicated
to target generation, the second computer will be dedicated to performing HWIL
operations.
Additional capabilities include an anechoic chamber and a laser opti-

cal target genirator facility. The anechoic chamber includes the capability
for manual and computer control of the radio frequency emission for target
motion in the horizontal plane. This capability is particularily applicable
to the study of anti-ship missile systems. Experience with HWIL operation
include: TOE homing heads, gyros and autopilots, and actuator systems.
Target motion for laser homing head studies include a three degrees-
of-freedom (DOF) target motion capability. Presently under installation is a
five axes flight motion table for infrared homing head studies. This will
include two axes for target motion and three axes for homing head motion.
4I11
The major strength of this facility operation is identified as the
ability to systemize all stages of simulation development, including the
systematic development of simulation with HWIL operation. The status of the
availability of the facility for use by groups outside the organization is not
known and inquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Defense.
2.1.2. SIMULATION METHODOLOGY
The early phase of developing a simulation typically starts with

acquiring or developing mathematical models for the system under study. The
mathematical models are typically implemented on a digital computer.
Simulations requiring HWIL operation are implemented on the analog-digital
computer for realtime operation. Simulation models are developed for each
system under study and the implementation reflects specific problem areas
under study. Before the models are implemented, the complete simulation
program is partitioned into modules to correspond to system subassemblies.
Where required, subassemblies from the physical system are tested and a data
base established to develop models of subsystems.
Verification of the digital computer implemented program is

accomplished by inspecting typical trajectories and comparing selected model
parameters with results from paper studies using frequency responses, transfer
functions and related methods. A formal procedure is not in practice to
achieve validation of simulation models, however, some general practices have
been used previously. The three axes operation of the simulation model are
broken down and each axis is examined in detail. Where required or data is
available, subsystem responses are compared with simulation submodels
generated data. The HWIL siiulation using the three axes table is used prior
to flight test trial. Test data obtained from the flight trials are compared
to simulation generated data.
2.2 COMPANY OR ORGANIZATION
Celar
35170 Bruz, France
POINT OF CONTACT:
NOTE: All inquiries regarding French facilities should be directed to:

Direcfion Technique des Engins
26 Boulevard Victor
75996 Paris Armees
France
TELEPHONE: 552-4791
2.2.1. BACKGROUND AND COMENTS
The Celar/Bruz facilities include a hyperfrequency anechoic chamber

and an air combat simulator. The hyperfrequency anechoic chamber is setup in
a building with a main hall approximately 50 meters long with two wings at
4 12
_7
each end of the main hall and with a side hall. The main purpose of this
chamber is to provide means for measuring high frequency electromagnetic rays
under conditions as close as possible to those of free space. The require-
ments that led to building of the high frequency chamber included: the need
to measure radar cross sections of aircraft or missile type targets, measure-
ments of radio and radar antennae, measurement of radio electric compatibility
and various testing involved electromagnetic radiation phenomena. The
emissions reception equipment located in the control room is operational for
emissions in the range of 100 Hlz to 18 GHz and for reception in the range of
100 MHz to 40 GHz. The typical emissions power ranges from approximately 1
millivatt to 100 milliwatts. The dimensions of the anechoic chamber are
approximately 25 meters by 12 meters by 12 meters. A plan of the overall
hyperfrequency facility is shown in Figure CB-1. The chamber area includes a
positioning system with remote positioning from the control room for changing
the position of the object or antenna to be tested. Included is a moving
trolley that traverses the chamber. The positioning system has four degrees
of freedom: Axis one, horizontal translation of the whole moving equipment
along the axis of the room; Axis two, vertical translation by hydraulic jacks;
Axis three, rotation over 360 degrees in bearing; and Axis four, mast tilting
in elevation. It is planned to add two additional axes: Axis five, transla-
tion of the mask perpendicularly to its axis; and Axis six, rotation of the
object around an axis at the top of the mast. All of the positioning axes can
be controlled remotely, either manually or under computer control.
25
2 SPro
biod
Fu C . p. .... .... ...
. ... ................ ........
____--_-
"' ........ .... .......
Hall d* deChar9emefnt IIaoso
4.7x4_
%.F
Figure CB-1. Hyperfrequency Anachoic Chamber.
13
The air combat simulator has been operational since 1975. The simula-
tor has been used for technical and tactical studies in the use of close air
combat missiles. The combat simulation consists of three parts: the pilot's
environment, the console of the chief of operation, and the computers and
software. The pilot's environment is composed of two identical polyester 6.40
meter diameter spheres which make up large field screens. Each sphere has a
combat aircraft cockpit, a horizon lantern which permits the projection of a
simplified drawing of the ground over 360 degrees, and a device for projecting
the enemy aircraft. The perspective view of the two fighting aircraft and
their trajectory are presented to the chief of operation on a stroke writing
color graphic console. The flight parameters of each aircraft (altitude,
speed, incidence, total energy, etc.) appear in figures on the console. The
visualization presents, in realtime to the chief of operations, the firing
field into which the fighter aircraft must fly to fire its missiles success-
fully against the enemy aircraft. All visualization to the chief of opera-
tions can be recorded on a magnetic tape for pilots to observe at the end of
combat and for debriefing.
The computational time step for realtime operation of the whole facil-
ity is 32 milliseconds. The realtime simulation center is organized around a
10070 computer with five STR 400 satellite processors. All programs are writ-
ten in FORTRAN.
Simulation development in the Celar facilities emphasizes the develop-

ment of generic hardware simulators, i.e., cockpit simulator, homing head RF
environments or SEE and infrared system simulators. The needs for such
systems are identified from discussions with the technical services depart-
ment. Simulations are not normally developed for one particular system, but a
family of systems. This includes simulators for a family of helicopters, dog-
fight aircraft, tank simulator for armament, etc. Using a particular simula-
tor, specialized simulatio..a are developed for a set of missions.
Simulation operations are typically divided into two types, realtime

and non-realtime. Since 1974, a higher order simulation language LTR
(language, time, real) has been the Defense Ministry's standard for realtime
simulation operations. LTR has application in all fields where information
processing takes place in realtime. Compared to assembly language
programming, reduction in cost (measured in working days) is three to four to
one using LTR. Realtime simulation programs in these facilities use LTR and
FORTRAN for some special HWIL operations, while non-realtime programs use
FORTRAN. Large simulation scenario development typically uses the UNIVAC 1180
series. A reduced version of the particular scenario is transferred to com-
puters located in the work bench or test laboratory area.
Although a standard or formal procedure for simulation model valida-

tion does not exist, certain procedures are used to develop data bases,
depending on the particular system model. An example, for missile systems
measured data is desirable for checking models, for aircraft simulators and
flight programs, however the pilot's opinion is the primary source of data.
4 14
2.3. CLHPANY O CRGANIZATION
MATRA
37, Avenue Louis-Brequet
78140 - Velizy, France
NOTE: All inquiries regarding French Facilities should be directed to:

Direction Technique des Engine
26 Boulevard Victor
75996 Paris Armees
France
TELEPHONE: 552-4791
2.3.1. BACKGROUND AND CC4HMENS
The Matra facilities located at Velizy, include a HWIL capability with

an EAI 8400 digital and two EAl 8800 analog computers tied together with an
EAI 8930 interface system. Additional digital computer capability includes an
IBM 3031 (to be replaced by UNIVAC 1110) and a SEL 30/27. Present HWIL
operation capabilities include on board flight computers. Plans are in
progress to acquire a three axes flight table to operate with the hybrid com-
puter. Experience in system analysis studies for airborne fire control system
dates back to more than a decade. During 1971, analyses were conducted on the
probability to succeed in an intercept mission for the STRIDA II, MIRAGE III
and CYRANO II-R530 systems. The objective of these analyses was to improve
the operational use of the system by optimizing software and operational pro-
cedures. In 1973-1974, high altitude and low altitude studies were conducted
for the STRIDA II, selected radar systems and the Super 530 system. The pur-
pose of these studies were to specify performance for undefined parameters of
the system. High and low altitude studies for the MIRAGE 2000 system were
conducted during 1976 and additional studies with updated data were completed
in 1980. During this same period of time, other studies included developing
simulations to study the dynamics in aircraft dogfight combat situations. The
goal of these simulation studies included developing different models for:
tactical studies, future missile specifications and requirements for a
realtime air combat training simulator. Other areas of system experience
include: the Crotal surface-to-air missile, the Super 530 air-to-air inter-
ception missile, and the Martel air-to-surface missile. Experience in joint
tasks include -ollaboration with the Italian firm Oto Melare on the Otomat
anti-ship missile.
The major capability of this facility operation is system level

integration. The availability of facilities to groups outside of Matra would
be determined by the Ministry of Defense.
15
Simulations used throughout the development phase of an air-to-air

missile, for example, require the development of several different simulation
programs. Typical simulation models include: a 6-DOF, and a simplified 6-DOF
model warhead effectiveness model, and hybrid computer simulation model for
HWIL simulation. The system simulations are typically all digital, non-
realtime, modular structured for subsystem components association with program
subroutines. The 6-DOF's include the aerodynamics in plane and out of plane
forces and moments, induced rolling moments, fin hinge moments, body bending,
detector models including rate gyros and accelerometers, integrating rate
gyros and antennas including the gimbal systems. The simplified 6-DOF's has
reduced complexity in the aerodynamic models, no roll or out of plane motion,
perfect integrating rate gyros and antenna stabilization loops. The
simplified models are used to define the firing envelope of the missile.
Frequently a simulation will include seeker noise and detector errors allowing
the radom variable to be studied using a Monte Carlo approach.
Validation of models focuses on subsystems and the associated modular

structure of the simulation models. Results from theoretical calculation and
laboratory test data are used when available to validate the subsystem models.
Data generated from the 6-DOF simulation is used to validate the simplified
6-DOF model. Simulation programs are typically used throughout the flight
trial of a missile development program and support the study of problems as
they arise. As flight trial data becomes available, the simulation models are
updated. Typically, the flight trials are conducted specifically to test
system and subsystem hardware operation as opposed to obtaining data for simu-
lation model validation. Data obtained from laboratory testing and flight
trials are compared with simulation generated data typically using visual
inspection by an experienced system engineer. There are no formal procedures
for accomplishing simulation model validation.
4 16
".
-- I I I | I I I
71
2.4. FACILITIES SURVEY DATA
Table FR-i. Infrared Facilities
NOTE: The Ministry of Defense requested that questionnaires

from each facility be processed through the Ministry
of Defense's Department of International Affairs. One
questionnaire was received for the Ministry of Defense.
COUNTRY France
Radiation Radiated Radiation at Sources Viewed Display Field

Wavelength Energy Sensor Inputs By Sensor (Decrees)
(Micro- Broad Narrow 2
Simul- Instan- Total
meters) Band Band (WATTS/CM ) taneously Shapes taneous AZ EL
Facility (Lasers)
CELAR, (RETURNED QUESTIONNAIRE NOT AVAILABLE)

(BRUZ)
MATRA (RETURNED QUESTIONNAIRE NOT AVAILABLE)

(PARIS)
SNIAS (RETURNED QUESTIONNAIRE NOT AVAILABLE)
MINISTRY (NO IR FACILITIES)

OF
DEFENSE
Table FR-2. Infrared Facilities
COUNTRY France
Angular Subtense of Sensor Motion Counter- Typo Facility

Targets as Viewed P=Position (Degrees) measures Simulated Used To
Facility By Sensor (Milliradians) VaVelocity (Deg/See) Simulated Engagement Evaluate
A.Air-to-Air
_ __ __B2GR-to-Air
max ' n Pitch Roll Yaw CxAir-to-Gnd
CELAR (RETURNSD QU.tIONNAIRE NOT AVAILABLE)
(BRU7)

(PARIS)
MINISTRY (NO IR FACILITIES)

Or
DEFENSE
17
Table FR-3. Radio Frequency Facilities
COUNTRY France
ANECHOIC CHAMBER
Frequency Sensor
Generated Simulation Size (Meters) Number of Target Motion
Reflection Separate From Center
Facility tHZ BANDS INJECT RADIATE L W H Coefficient Radiation Line of Array
(Deibels) Channels (Degrees)
CELAR (RETURNED QUESTIONNAIRE NOT AVAILABLE)
(BRUZ)
MATRA (RETURNED QUESTIONNAIRE NOTAVAILABLE)

(PARIS)
MINISTRY
OF (NO RF FACILITIES)
DEFENSE
COUNTRY France
Sensor
Sensor Motion Accommodation tngagement Simulated Planned
Pi Position (Deg) L a Length (CM) A.Active Guidance Facility Used Improvements
V.Velocity D z Diameter (CM) P.Passive Guidance for Evaluation Or
Facility (Deg/Sec) . WT Weight (KG) S.Semi-Active Of: Development Modification
Countermeasure
Pitch Roll Yaw L D WT A P S Research & Dev
CELAR (RETURNED QUESTIONNAIRE NOTAVAILABLE)

(BRUZ)

(PARIS)
SNIAS (RETURNED QUEXIONNAIRE NOT AVAILABLE)
MINISTRY
DEFENSE
i 18
ti ' V.
COUNTRY France
Wave Form
Target Generation
Array C-Chirp Model
Effective Frequency Polarization P-Pulsed RF
Position Update Radiated Diversity Diversity CW-Continuing Clutter
Accuracy Rate Power wave
Facility (Milliradians) (HZ) (Watts) Yes No Yes No O-Other Yes No

(BRUZ)

(PARIS)
MINISTRY
DEFENSE
Table FR-6. Electro-Optical Facilities
COUNTRY France
Facility Method of Target Spectral Range Scale Target Scene

Scene Generation Of Target Scene Factors Illumination
(Micrometers) (Foot Candles)
Visible IR Visible IR Visual Mid Near Far incan- Flores-
Terrain Terrain Projection Projection IR IR IR descent ence
Model Model (OK) (OK)

(BRUZ)

(PARIS)
MINISTRY
OF (NO EO FACILITIES)
DEFENSE
-19
4_ 19
... - - --- ! I I I -
II - --
I . *
Table FR-7. Electro-Optical Facilities
COUNTRY France
Iae to Sensor Collimating Minimum Sensor Motion Translation Laser Type of

AU-AUTO- Optics Altitude P-Position (Deg) V-Vertical Caps- Engagement
Collimate Lense RsReraCtive Simulated V3Vloclty (Deg/ L-Lateral bility Simulated
OT-Other RE-Reflective (Meters) See) LOLongitudinal Yes/No
Facility AU OT R/RE Focus Pitch Roll Yaw V L LO A-Air to Air

(FOV) Range BzGround to Air
(DeR, (Meters) C-Air to Ground
CELAR QUESTIONNAIRE NOT AVAILABLE)

(RETURNED
(BRUZ)
.MATRA (RETURNED QUESTIONNAIRE NOT AVAILABLE)

(PARIS)
MINISTRY
OF (NO EO FACILITIES)
DEFENSE
Table FR-8. Electronic Computer Computation
COUNTRY France
Facility Analo, Comuters Method of Digital Computers

umber N Opertional Generating Number Largest Cathode Software
And Of Amplifiers Functions Of And Memory Ray Tube Package
Model Multiplers One. Two, Model Available Terminals Used
Three and Four (Words)
Variables
CELAR (RETURNED QUESTIONNAIRE NOT AVAILABLE).

(BRUZ)
MATRA (RETURNED QUESTIONNAIRE NOT AVAILABLE).

(PARIS)
. NIAS (RETURNED QUESTIONNAIRE NOT AVAILABLE).
MINISTRY 5, 20 7SO Diode function , 0K 8 RTM

OF EAI, generation SEL
DEFENSE R 48 12/71
4 20
iV
Table FR-9. Electronic Computer Corporation
"t'NTFY France
'!SL
TV".
Fvt'rid
Conutr
~
Ofbe !,rlr Ifr
Aralov-To,- tlielt,1-70
*~ -. ,-
Pack-,r w-r .. 7 >
Facil~tv Simulation Creration .'igitA 1 Aralow : i.-.' ..
la nguage -ort'ertns -r.-.rrt r- w
AF (nFTr':JEV 'EU~T,-!.NAIPF:Y! PETUFfFrt)
(PAPItI
(rFAT2PNEL
CUESTIY!NNAIPF
NOT!PET1 PD)
Table FR-10. System Simulation Development
'OUTHRY France
71clttv Procedures 'or "oddl lrret ires for !c&,1 Pr'-r.rsr fer Mce 1
Imlpementation of' Verificatior.
Araio or Pile't'l
7MAP (PETt'HNEP
QUESTIONNAIPE NOT AVAILABLE)
'ATPA (PETV2PNEDQUESTtONNAIE NOT AVAILABLE)

(PAP!!'
1
*PET"PNED CUETIC'iNA:F '0 AVAILACLE)
TotAl nv~e~nol.ci 1 '71 ~ r'~i ;--.; -'r i. !"-

O
r lided into su"sVstem. 'ion mcrlelzare 1, wior'
.rr- i- -t
DEMS
ifferent mg~de on -coeinru0t7r r
tromnrtare1,,et
ter ,r.
intograte Irto *otai
21
Table FR-Il. System Simulation Development
COUNTRY France
Facility Procedure for Are Digital Programs Procedures for Availability Of

Developing Hybrid Used to Assist in Simulation Facilities for
or HWIL Simulation Hybrid Computer Documentation Cooperative Use
Partitioning? During Develoonent

(BRUZ)
YATRA (RETURNED QUESTIONNAIRE NOT AVAILABLE)

(PARIS)
!4INISTRY
OF - No N.o --
DEFENSE
Table FR-12. Simulation Utilization

COUNTRY France
Facility Are Simulations Major 11sesof Simulation Are Simulations Any Standard Standard
Developed for (Analysis. Exploratory Developed to Terminology or Reports
Cooperative Use Investigation, Product Support Testina of Procedures in Published for
With Outside Improvements, Other) of Hardware - I.e. Simulation Maior
Groups? Flight Tests? ovelcoment fimulatic'.O
(dentifV l
^ELAR (RETURNED QUESTIONNAIRE NOT AVAILABLE)

(BRUZ)
"ATP.A (TETURNEDQUESTIONNAIRENOT AVAILABLE)

(PARIS)
ZNIAS (RETURNED QUESTIONNAIRE NOT AVAILABLE)
uINIrTRY
OFNo Others
DEFENSE
22
3. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
3.1. COMPANY OR ORGANIZATION
BODENSEEWERK GERATETECHNIK GmbH

ABT FFK-L
Postfach .120
7770 UBERLINGEN
POINT OF CONTACT: Mr. Roland Gauggel
TELEPHONE: 07551/81484
3.1.1. BACKGROUND AND COMMENTS
The Bodenseewerk Simulation Facilities located at Uberlingen, empha-

sizes all digital simulations including HWIL operations. Infrared and laser
SEEs are available to simulate homing head seekers for both open loop and
closed loop testing. Flight motion simulation uses a five axis cargo table to
provide rotational dynamics required for 6-DOF HWIL operation. Infrared (IR)
target characteristics are generated using a black body target generator. The
laser facility generates targets using a screen projection system with a com-
puter controlled, two gimbal mirror system. The laser spot can vary in inten-
sity but not size. A Perkin Elmer computer system is used for all simulation
operation. BOSIM is a CSSL (Continuous System Simulation Language) based
language with automatic HWIL and realtime support and was developed by
Bodenseewerk. BOSM is typicatlly used for all simulation operations including
developing digital programs and HWIL operations.
The availability and use of these facilities for groups outside the
company depends very much on the particular equipment needed for a simulation
project. Particular pieces of the laboratory equipment are owned by a consor-
tium of companies and dedicated to specific projects. The availability of
equipment in this category would be considerably different than company owned
equipment. The use of other facilities and equipment owned by the company is
available with appropriate sponsorship through the Ministry of Defense.
The major strength of the simulation laboratory, as stated, is in the

area of digital simulation including HWIL simulation operations with IR and
laser seekers and actuators.
Simulation is used throughout all stages and phases of a missile pro-

ject. Starting with a set of requirements, very simple models of the missile
are used to perfect the basic relationships in the scenario. Initially,
models are 4eveloped that include limits imposed by operation and the laws of
physics. The models are implemented on a digital computer and the simulation
generated data is the basis of further development of a particular subsystem.
The models are refined and updated to a desired level and hardware require-
ments are generated based on insights gained from the simulation. The hard-
ware developer and manufacturer produce a prototype of the subsystem hardware.
4 23
The simulation models are further refined and used as a check on the hardware
during development and testing. The data base obtained from testing the hard-
ware provides for a type of subsystem model validation.
The subsystem model that evolved with the prototype hardware develop-
ment, is integrated into the overall system simulation. Using the total
system simulation, sensitivity studies can be conducted to identify critical
parameters. The hardware can be modified to achieve acceptable system and
subsystem performance. This iterative process is continued until the desired
hardware performance characteristics are achieved or a determination is made
that the desired results are not achievable or practical.
A formal procedure for accomplishing simulation model validation'does

not exist at this time. Emphasis on developing competent models is directed
toward missile subsystems validation and is accomplished by extensive testing
of hardware and inspecting data bases. Statistical analyses are used with
appropriate data bases.
NAME: DFVLR
DEUTSCHE FCRSCHUGS -
UND VERSUCHANSTAFF
FUR LUFT-UND RAUMFAHRT e.v.
OBERPFAFFE NHOFEN
8031 WEBLING
POINT OF CONTACT: Mr. Hans Schubert
The focus of simulation activities in DFVLR's Flight Mechanics and

Flight Control Department is digital simulation. A hybrid computer with two
EAI 781 analog computers and a SEL 8132 digital is available. Presently the
analog computers are typically used for data analysis. The hybrid computer
system has been used to simulate the ROLAND missile system with man-in-the-
loop operations. The digital computer is used to maintain ROLSIM, and all
digital simulation-of the ROLAND missile. The background of experience in
areas of model-ing and simulation of missile subsystems include: Improved HAWK
(IHAWK), KORMORAN and ROLAND missiles. The major strength of this facility is
identified as mathematical formulation and simulation development of guidance
and control subsystem models.
The methodology of simulation development begins with a given system

description. Initial effort is toward developing a simplified model based on
the task description. The effort is continued toward a more definitive system
description and updating the model until a satisfactory match is achieved.
24
. . ______________
. .. "_________
,________........------y
The model is partitioned into blocks that correspond to special subsystems.
The partitioned model is then implemented on the digital computer using
FORTRAN language.
No procedure exists for accomplishing simulation model validation.

Since there is not a facility to generate a data base, a procedure is not
needed to perform model validation. Any focus on model validation would be at
the subsystem level. The intuitive approach to validation is used, i.e. simu-
lation generated data observed by experienced engineers. A decision is made
as to the acceptability of the model based on the observed data. The perfor-
mance of each simulated subsystem is compared to the written specificiations.
Dornier GmbH
ABRLG-Flugsimulation
Postfach 1420
7990 Friedrichshafen
POINT OF CONTACT: Mr. H. Friedrich
3.3.1. BACKGROUND AMD COMMENTS
The Dornier Company's simulation capabilities located at

Friedrichshafen are primarily'focused into two groups. The aerodynamics and
flight mechanics calculation group and the guidance and control group.
Facilities associated with the flight mechanics group is a wind tunnel testing
facility. Missile and aircraft related analytical investigation includes:
aerodynamics stability and controllability, launch dynamics and trajectory
analysis, firing zones, flight trajectory and end game analysis. A major
strength of this group is identified as relating to the development of physi-
cal configuration of missiles and aircrafts, and aerodynamic heating problems.
The second area of the Dornier facilities involved in simulation is the
missile guidance and control group. This group conducts all aspects of
studies and analysis as related to the guidance and control of tactical missiles.
This area has the capability to perform HWIL operations, using television and
IR imaging seekers and radio frequency seekers using injection techniques.
The three axes table is used for inertial systems hardware when an RF seeker
is not used. In addition, a special spring loader is available to simulate
aerodynamic loading when actuator hardware is in the loop. The major
strengths of this group are identified in the areas of design, analysis and
evaluation of guidance systems for long range stand-off missiles. This in-
cludes the special application of existing guidance laws or developing new laws
as appropriate for mid-course and terminal guidance for a particular project
or application. Computers supporting the simulation and computational
requirements in the guidance and control area include: an EAI analog, a
Scientific Data Systems (SDS) 9300 and SEL 32/77 Digital. The Continuous
System Modeling Package (CSMP) is the higher order simulation language used in
this facility.
425
Additional capabilities include an electro-optical (EO) system with a
visible terrain model application. The terrain model's physical size is
approximately 2 1/2 meters (2.5M) by 30 meters (30.OM).
The methodology of simulation development in the aerodynamic and

flight mechanics calculation group is typically based on requirements and
geometry developed by other groups. An initial effort is to optimize geometry
as a function of controls and performance criteria. After performing
necessary calculations, the resulting mathematical model is validated by wind
tunnel testing of the physical model. The mathematical models and physical
models are changed as necessary and the test operation repeated. This process
is iterated until acceptable results are achieved. A procedure for formal
validation of a simulation model is not in effect at this time. Since actual
flight data is generally not available, a strong motivation does not exist to
develop a procedure that would require such a data base.
The methodology of simulation development for the guidance and control

group starts by defining the goal of the simulation. Specifically, what is to
be produced by the simulation or what is the area of intended application of
the particular simulation program? All necessary mathematical models are
collected and a preliminary main program is developed with any appropriate
number of small or modular program structures. Another step in the develop-
ment process is to identify specific areas where new mathematical models must
be developed with corresponding simulation programs. As a general practice,
previously developed subprograms or modular programs are used as appropriate;
however, a new main program it always developed for each new project or appli-
cation. If the goal of the simulation is such that seeker HWIL operation is
required, the seeker is installed on the three axes table for both open loop
test and closed loop operations.
A digital computer program is generally developed for all hybrid com-

puter operations. This two step process is used as the focus of the simula-
tion model verification and subsystem model performance *omparison. The model
validation process focuses on the subsystem. Using data bases obtained from
the subsystems during laboratory tests, the subsystem models are checked.
Validation of the total integrated system requires a data base obtained from
flight trials. If such a data base is available, the simulation generated
data is overlayed with the flight test data and visual inspection is per-
formed. Experienced engineering judgement is used to determine if the results
are close enough. Mathematical and analytical techniques are available from
data base analysis. Due to system nonlinearities and other factors, the
results from the use of these analytical methods have not proven to be satis-
fac tory.
26
4l
- - -.-.. <... --. ----------,,- * .

Industrieanlagen Betriebsgeseuschaft, GmbH

IABG-WTF
EI NSTEI NSTRABE
D-8012 Ottobrunn
POINT OF CONTACT: Dr. Peter Ebeling
TELEPHONE: 089/6008-3247
The [ABG facilities at this location include both digital simulations

and combat cockpit simulators. The focus of activity is to look at the whole
air combat system. This includes: the Aircraft avionic system, sensor and
missile seeker operation, guidance and control problems associated with spe-
cific guidance systems, interfaces that accomplish the integration of the
missile with the aircraft, acquisition and fire control. The aircraft combat
,simulations includes two equally equipped cockpits located inside a 12 meter
projection sphere. The projections of the earth-sky horizons and target pro-
vide a 360 degree representation of the outside world. All projections are
controlled by a central computer. The target image is generated by a scaled
physical model and projected by a closed loop television circuit. The mathe-
matical models used for the simulation of performance and handling qualities
of aircraft, their avionic and weapon systems all have a modular structure.
For simulating two different types of aircraft, a realtime program has been
developed. With a modular structure the programs can be quickly adapted to
different types of aircraft with clearly defined interfaces and data specifi-
cation while the cockpit simulators use a combination of existing instrumen-
tation. On board computers are not used. Due to the typical need to modify
tactical software during evaluation and analysis, external computers are used
and are shared with other projects.
The digital computer capability includes two Control Data Corporation

CDC 6600 systems with realtime operating system. Presently, a hybrid system
SS100 analog computer exist in the facilities, however, this system will be
phased out during the next year and only an all-digital simulation capability
will exist. The software system includes FORTRAN IV for realtime operation
and a CSSL with special commands for analog computer control.. A plan of the
dual cockpit-facility is shown in Figure IABG-1.
The major strength of this facility is defined to include: feasibil-

ity analysis during the early stages of the design of both manned and
unmanned simulation weapon combat systems. This includes both the aircraft
and missile system and related major subsystems. The use of the facilities by
other groups is feasible with appropriate sponsorship through the Ministry of
Defense.
27
49. A
The development of a simulation to conduct a feasibility study starts

with a study plan. First, an assessment is made of the threat aircraft and
missile scenario. Next, a deduction is made regarding the preliminary
requirements for future aircraft and missile systems to counteract the threat.
A study is conducted of aircraft maneuverability and the environmental com-
ponent that can be expected to be encountered in the postulated combat zone.
A more detailed study of the end game scenario is also conducted. The results
from these preliminary simulation studies are returned to the government and
missile industry where preliminary missile design studies are conducted. The
course missile designs are returned often with simplified simulations.
Sketches are made of the components in the system and how they fit together to
accomplish the specified mission. The most important limitations of the
system, such as seeker field of view, are reviewed in some detail. A feasibil-
ity study and review of the proposed design are conducted to determine if the
proposed missile is feasible by some desired date in the future, and what are
the risks in developing such a system. A further design review will establish
a measure of effectiveness for the missile performing in an operational
environment.
Validation of the system operation using the cockpit simulators in-

cludes a review of the results by the government and industry with an evaluation
by the pilots as to the realism and feasibility of the total system operation.
No other formal procedures are in operation for this facility.
12 mPtojecIoanS0hem
COC 66090 MWCoanop On-L,.w0AtRecOirC Pea

IoW/ (Ev-Sk-
Ii~wac. .ntnknwWTa9
- V4fl st
_/eft" -
H311SS-100 Am"eomput
Cowni~nwwWO mocts
Figure IABG-1. Dual Cockpit Facility.
28
I .',
Messerschmitt-Bolkow Blohm GmbH (MBB)

ABT AE 134
Post Fact 801149
8000 Munchen 80
POINT OF CONTACT: Mr. Werner Bub
TELEPHONE: 089/60004125
The MBB simulation laboratory at this location includes a CSC 6600

Digital Computer System used for specialized HWIL operation. The hardware
typically included in a simulation are airborne missile computers, ground
based computers and related hardware attached to the bus system. The stated
major purpose of this facility is to validate missile system design and vali-
dation of onboard computers and related software. The laboratory is engaged
in developing complete missile related simulation and modeling of ground based
radars. A background of experience in missile system simulation includes the
new operational Hot and MKM antitank missiles. The major strength of this
facility is identified as experience in developing mathematical and simulation
models of overall missile system with specialized UWIL operations with onboard
flight computers and digital autopilots.
The use of the simulation facility by groups outside the MBB company
is possible with appropriate sponsorship throught the Ministry of Defense.
Ideally, in developing the simulations, the laboratory would receive

mathematical models of the missile subsystems from the subsystem designer.
This could be from a group with MBB, industrial companies or partner companies
involved in a particular project. These models would be corrected as
necessary and included into the overall system model. In practices that vary
from the ideal, models are developed in the laboratory. The developed models
become proposal models requiring discussions with the subsystems designer. In
the event that technical data is not available, the proposed models are pre-
sented as expected operation by the subsystem with questions regarding the
adequacy of the model. Questions are generally asked by the subsystem's
designer that only data generated by a model can answer. The models are
changed as appropriate to obtain acceptable performance. This iterative pro-
cess continues until satisfactory performance can be achieved.
Starting with raw data for model development or model validation are
not typical operations. Since the models are developed to verify missile
system design, test data would not be typically available. On a case by case
basis, the system and subsystem simulation models are reviewed with the
system's engineer. Data generated by the simulation is reviewed and if
results are found acceptable, the model is also acceptable. A formal valida-
tion procedure is not available, but the experience and intuitive judgement of
429
the system designers serve as a basis as to the adequacy of the models. A
procedure has been established for the engineers to use in documenting soft-
ware programs which is a Hiearchical Input Process-Output (HIPO) procedure
suggested by International Business Machines. (IBM) for software documentation.
Table FRG-1. Infrared Facilities
COUNTRY Federal Republic of Germany
Radiation Radiated Radiation at Sources Viewed Display Fied

Wavelength Energy Sensor Inputs By Sensor (Degrees)
(Micro- Broad Narrow Slmul- Instan- Total
meters) Band Band (WATTS/CM2) taneously Shapes taneous AZ EL
Facility (Lasers)
BODEN- 3-0 to 5.0 Band 10-6 to 10-3 - Circle, 0.03 -60 ±50
SEEWERK (Laser.1.065) Point
DFVLR (NO IR FACILITIES)
DORNIER (NO IR FACILITIES)
IABG (NO IR FACILITIES)

(HARDWARE INFRARED SIMULATOR IN PLANNING STAGE)
MBB (NO IR FACILITY)
Table FRG-2. Infrared Facilities
Angular Subtense of Sensor Motion Counter- Type Facility

Targets as Viewed PxPosition (Degrees) measures Simulated Used To
Facility By Sensor (Milliradians) V*Velocity (Deg/Sec) Simulated Engagement Evaluate
A.Air-to-Air
-- __BzGR-tQ-Air
Max Min Pitch Roll Yaw C.Air-to-Gnd
BODEN- - P:+120 P-1360 P= 45 Air To Air Dev HW,

SEEWERK V 3O0 V21500 V.600 Prod NW,
IR Guid
DFVLR (NO IR FACILITIES)
DORNIER (NO IB FACILITIES)
:ABG (:0 IP FACILITIES)
MBB (NO lR FACILITIES)
430
Table FRG-3. Radio Frequency Facilities
ANECHOIC CHAMBER
Frequency Sensor
Facility MZ BANDS INJECT RADIATE L W H Coefficient Radiation Line of Array
(Decibels) Channels (Degrees)
BODEN- (NO RF FACILITIES)

SEEWERK
DLULR (NO RF FACILITIES)
DORNIER (NO RF FACILITIES)
IABG (NO RF FACILITIES)
MBB (NO RF FACILITIES)
Sensor
Sensor Motion Accomodation Engagement Simulated Planned
P= Position (Deg) L = Length (CM) A=Active Guidance Facility Used Improvements
VxVelonity D z Diameter (CM) P=Pasaive Guidance for Evaluation Or
Facility (Deg/Sec) WT= Weight (KG) S=Semi-Active Of: Development Modification
Countermeasure
BODEN- (NO RF FACILITIES)

SEEWERK
DFULR (NO RF FACILITIES)
4 3
~
S-~
Wave Form
Target Generation
Array C-Chirp Model
Accuracy Rate Power Wave
Facility (Milliradians) (HZ) (Watts) Yes No Yes No O-Other Yes No
BODEN- (11ORP FACILITIES)

SEEWERK
DFULR (NO RF FACILITIES)
Table FRG-6. Electro-Optical Facilities

Visible IR Visible IR Visual Mid Near Far Incan- Fiores-
Terrain Terrain Projection Projection IR IR IR descent cence
BODEN- (SCREEN PROJECTION FOR LASER)
SEEWERK
DFVLR (NO EO FACILITIES)
DORNIER YES 0.3 1:300 Various

to
0.8
IAJM (NO EO FACILITIES)
M 8 (No EO FACILITIES)
32
_ __ _ _ _ _ _ _7
Table FRG-7. Electro-Optical Facilities
Image to Sensor Collimating Minimum Sensor Motion Translation Laser Type of

AU-AUTO- Optics Altitude PZPosition (Deg) VaVertical Caps- Engagement
Collimate Lense R:Refractive Simulated V.Velocity (Deg/ L:Lateral bility Simulated
OT-Other RE.Reflective (Meters) See) LO:Longitudinal Yes/No
Facility AU OT R/RE Focus Pitch Roll Yaw V L LO A-Air to Air

(FOV) Range BGround to Air
(Deg) (Meters) :Air to Iround
RODEN- (NO E0 FACILITIES)

SEEWERK
DFVLR (NO EO FACILITIES)
DORNIER OT - R 1.8 00 P.0 P:..5 P=1.4 P-1.4 P=104 No A'r-to-Air

to to V=3.O?' V-O.5 V=O.5
INFINITY ?0
IABG (No EO FACILITIES)
MBB (NO E0 FACILITIES)
Table FRG-8. Electronic Computer Computation
Facility Analog Computers Method of Dlgltal Computers

Number Number Operational Generating Number Largest Cathode Software
Model Multiplers One, 'To, Model Available Terminals Used
Variables
BODEN_- - 3 Perkin 2 Mega- 18 Bosim, Simas

SEEWERK Eamer Bytes Pascal,
Assembler
DFVLR 2 EAI 72 216 Digital Control Sol Mod 80K 3 Standard and
MDD781 Function 8112 High Level
Generation Software
DONIER EAI8800 48 192 SDS9300 ,12 8 Assembler,

SEL 32/77 Bytes Forman, RT
Monitor
IABG - ,CDC 192K - Realtime

7600, Words Operating
0817r Systems, NOS
None CDC 6600 131K 12 Realtime

Words System, ACSL,
NOS
AA
4 33
"7-=77 7
Table. FRG-9. Electronic Computer Computation
CSSL Hybrid Number Of Number Of CSSL Type Hardware-In. Type Hardware Type
Type Computer Analog-To- Digital-To Package For The-Loop Typically Interfaces
Facility Simulation Operation Digital Analog Hybrid Simulation Included Typically
Languae Converts Converters Simulation HwIL Required
BODEN- Bomt, Yes 16 16 Bosim Yes Seeker Head, Electronic,

SEEWERK Sims Rudder Actuator, Pneumatic,
Cargo Table Computer
DFVLR ECSSL, Yes 32 32 Hybrid No None

Fortran Operations
Based CSSL Interpreter
DONIER CZMP Yes 16 16 NO Yes Aircraft Electrical

Cockpit
Equipment
IABG MImiC No - - Yes Cockpits Computer,

ACSL Head Up/Down Electronic,
CSSL Displays Hydraulic
MN ACSL No Airborne Airborne Electronic,
Computers, Computers, Computer,
Intertial HW Intertlal HW AD/DA
Table FRG-1O. System Simulation Development
COUTb
R Federal Republic of Germany
Facility Procedures for Model Procedures for Model Procedures for Model
implementation of Verification Validation
Analog or Digital
Computer
BOOER- Methodological approach Step-wise verification of system Post flight simulation

SEEWERK going from the moat detailed components by comparison with of TM flights and
to simpler models hardware tests comparison of plots
DFVLR Modular, step by step Extensive digital test runs of Use of flight test results
programing of models using subsystem responses. Comparison or solutions from other
existing validated digital with results from linearized validated simulations
programs for standard models model$ or analytic solutions
DONIER
IABG Develop modular simulation Testing of subsystem, compare with Cross checking with theoretical
model. DeqnLoe input/output deterministic solution, controlled considerations, comparing
orthe model of all subsystem missile time response and check cases and time histories
industrial sources
MBB Digital programing of model Software testing code Review of simulation results
using standard methods, top inspection with system engineers, use
down design flight results If available
,34
Table FRG-!1. System Simulation Development
COUNTRY Federal Republic o Germany
Facility Procedure rot Are Digital Programs Procedures for Availability Of

Developing Hybrid Used to Assist in Simulation Facilities tor
or HWIL Simulation Hybrid Computer .Documentation Cooperative Use
Partitioning? During Development
BOOEN- Bosim digital, Yes, Bslm No

SEEWERK program system
components, replace
program with
hardware
DFVLR None No No -
DONIER
IABG Checkout the simula- Yes Model description after Yes, rrocedure to help
tion Models o hard- veritication exchange models for iifterent
ware, substitution missile components
ot models with hard-
ware
MBB Simulation model No hyhrid computation, Yes, HIPO Type

developed to simulate abandoned in 1979
HW, replace model
with NW
Table FRG-12. Simulation Utilization
COUNTRY Federal Republic or Germany
Facility Are Simulations mjor Uses o Simulation Are Simulations Any Standard Standard
Developed for (Analysis, Exploratory Developed to Terminology or Reports
Coopwative Use Investigation. Product Support Testing o Procedures in Published for
With Outside Improvements, Other) o Hardware - i.e. Simulation Major
Groups? Flight Tests? Development Simulations
Identify (Describe) (Describe)
BODEN- No Analysis, investigation, Yes, develop Yes, use Bosis language

SEEWERK product improvements simulation prior consistent manual
to HW, update method to name
program with variables
HW Dew
DFVLR Yes, German Exploratory, product Models are No No

Ministry ot improvements modified for special
aeense Vurpose simulation
DONIER
IABG No Analysis and pertormance No No No

evaluation
moo Yes, digital Analysis, dftinition Yea, detinition Yes, standard

program provided o flight test structure,
tor NATO projects * scenarios, subsystem standard letters
component for terms
characteristics
35
______________-I
4. ITALY
OTO MELARA
VIA VALDILOCCHI 15
LA SPEZIA, ITALY
POINT OF CONTACT: Dr. L. Barzoli
TELEPHONE: 0187-5330111
During the past three-quarters of a century, the Oto Melara Facilities

at La Spezia has developed experience in the areas of heavy mechanics, such
as guns, armament, tanks, mobile vehicles and ship guns. During the past 10
years the company has been engaged in a technology and equipment modern-
ization effort. This includes the expansion of digital computer capability
and application electronics. The digital computer capability at this loca-
tion includes a Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) Vax 11/780, PDP 11/45 and
two PDP 11/34s for graphic task. About 7 years ago Oto Melara merged with
other companies including SISTEL ELETTRONICI, S.P.A.. SISTEL owns very fast
digital computers and several analog computers. This has resulted in all
hybrid computers with HWIL being conducted at other locations. This location,
however, includes an anechoic chamber for conducting open loop X-band RF tests
with a single target motion in the yaw plane. The overall organizational
capability includes a fully instrumented doppler radar range with camera
tracking data used in trajectory reconstruction. The major strength at this
facility is stated as the experience and background in developing missile
system definition and providing specifications for the Army and Navy weapon
system proposals. The experience with servo systems used in the development
of gun systems has been applied to many aspects of missile subsystems. In
cooperation with Matra of France a program for the design of a missile system
was initiated. The outcome of this joint effort was the OTOMAT anti-ship
missile system. Other cooperative programs include project HAF, which
involved the design of a man portable antitank weapon system. This project
includes considering both infrared and optically guided weapons.
The focus 6f simulation at this location is on digital computer simu-

lation. Data bases and mathematical models are obtained from appropriate
sources for aerodynamic data, autopilots, seeker models and related missile
subsystem models. Mathematical models are used with Bode, Nyquist and related
analysis to verify subsystem simulation operations. These simulations are
typically developed for a specific missile subsystem. A three-axes model, for
example, was developed for the MAF missile. The model includes the missile
aerodynamic characteristics and necessary wind tunnel data to simulate the
lateral missile performance. Validation is accomplished at this level with
telemetered flight data. Typically, missile flight tests are conducted to
validate the system hardware and subsystem models. Early flights are con-
ducted to validate the aerodynamic characteristics, later missile flights are
436
_ __ -~~1 __-m
conducted to include step functions to validate the guidance autopilot. In
addition, bench tests are used to obtain a data base for specific subsystem
validation.
There are no formal or written procedures for accomplishing simulation

model validation. Bench test data and flight test results, when available,
are part of the data base for simulation model validation. Typically, visual
inspection of the data from the simulation and the hardware tests serve as the
basis of comparison.
Selenia, Industrie Elettroniche Associate, S.P.A.

Via Tiburtina KM. 12.400
00131 Rome, Italy
POINT OF CONTACT: Mr. Amilcare Gazzina
TELEPHONE: 43602491
The Selenia facilities at this location have been involved in missile

system and subsystem related analysis and development since about 1960. The
earliest activity was as a licensed manufacturer of component parts for
selected subystem of the HAWK missile system. Other areas of manufacturing
included interface hardware for weapon subsystem in fighter aircraft. These
activities led to the high level of participation in the development of the
ASPIDE missile. A special background of experience was obtained with this
program in developing an improved system performance with constraints imposed
by a previous configuration of the missile system. Aerodynamically the new
missile was to continue operation with the intended aircraft. This com-
bination of experience establ_ ned the framework for further participating in
missile system development.
The expressed purpose of the simulation group at this facility is to

conduct assessments of overall missile sytem performance, assist in planning
flight tests and conduct product improvement studies. The major strength
is stated as developing simulations to support experimental test and devel-
oping mathematical models of system and subsystem operation.
Hybrid computer simulation with HWIL operation is achieved with an EAI

7800/646 system coupled together. Additional digital computer support is
obtained via terminals connected to a UNIVAC 1100/80 system. Past experience
with HWIL operation includes control actuation system and RF seekers. Seeker
operational tests %re achieved by using signal injection techniques.
The major emphasis in simulation and analysis is on missile system

related subsystems. This includes autopilots and actuator subsystems. While
no formal or written procedure has been established in simulation model and
HWIL operation, a case by case approach is used. Hybrid computer simulation
37
is generally developed directly from the mathematical model without developing
an all digital program of the model. Verification is typically accomplished
for simple linear models by the use of closed form solutions. Non-linear and
more complex models are partitioned into submodels and the same procedure
used.
Data obtained from bench and laboratory tests are used for the pur-
poses of validation. When available, flight test results are compared with
results from the simulation. As a general rule, visual inspection, including
overlays, are used to estimate needed parameter adjustments and to determine
if the missile performed within established bounds. A defined standard proce-
dure does not exist for accomplishing simulation model validation.
Table IL-l. Infrared Facilities
- N TRY al
Radiation Radiated Radiation at 'urre5 VjMC' ::.nrv Cief!"

Wavelength £nergy rensor InDuts
( icro- Proad Narrow "t- t
2
reters) Band Band (WATTS/C' ) tarec,,i. -"
Facility
(!0 IR FACILIT:EZ)
".LABA
(L; :;PZ:A)
.ELE1:1r. '!.C :P FACIL-:T,'Ef)
Table IL-2. Infrared Facilities
COUNTRY Italyv
Sensor Motion Counter- TvpP Facility

Angular Subtease of
Tarcets as Viewed P.Position (Degrees) ieasures Simulated Used To
V.Velocitv (Deg/Sec) Simulated EngaRement Evaluate
Facility By Sensor (Milliradians)
A=Air-to-Air
3.CB-to-Air
Max Min Pitch Roll Yw ,Ar-to- nd
OTO (NO TR FACILITIES)

:!ELARA
SELENIA (NO IR FACILITIES)
438
Table IL-3. Radio Frequency Facilities
COUNTRY Italy
.ANECHOIC CHAMBER
Frequency Sensor
Reflectioli Separate From Center
Facility MHZ BANDS INJECT RADIATE L W H Coefficient Radiation Line of Array
(Decibels) Channels (Degrees)
OTO - X - Radiate 3 3 2 -40 2 _30
MELARA
SELENIA (NO RF FACILITIES)
CUNTPY tai'
;ave Fr,
Tarcet -r~r~t c r
Arrnv irr
?fpcti.'
_ Fr-'uemr,: Fr iL-t cr -e
Position UoeAte Padiat e iversit" " i t "-______"___
Accuracv Rate Power _ .'__
73cilitv (rMiliradians) W!Z) (wAtts) Yes C, :-
10
1TO "1Th 0. 1 w Y
"SLARA
2ELE?.IA (:O PF FAV:-::TEf)
COUNTRY Italy
Sensor
Sensor Motion Accommodation Engagement Simulated Planned
Ps Position (Dog) L - Length (CM) AxActive Guidance Facility Used Improvements
YVeelocity D a Diameter (CM) P-Passive Guidance for Evaluation Or
Facility (Dea/3*e) WI. Weight (KG) SSemi-Active Of: Development Modification
Countermeasure
Pitch Roll Yaw L D WT A P 5 Research & Dev
SOTO - - P30 70 O40 50 A P Develop HW,
MELARA V,50 Production,
CM. R&D
SELENIA (NO RF FACILITIES)
39
II,-I I
Table IL-6. Electro-Optical Facilities
COUNTRY

Seene Generation Of Target Scene Factors Illumination
Visible IN Visible i Visual Mid Near Far Ibcan- Flores-
Terrain Terrain Projection Projection IR IR In descent cence
OTO (NO O FACILITIES)

ME14RA
SELAIA (NO 90 FACILITIES)
Table IL-7. Electro-Optical Facilities
COUNTRY Italy
Collimating Minimum Sensor Motion Translation Laser Type of

Facility Iaie to Snsor
Optics Altitude P.Poaition (Deg) VzVertical Capa- Engaement
AU-AUTO-
RRefractive Simulated V-Velocity (Deg/ L.Lateral bility Simulated
Collimate Lense
O'-Other RE.Roflective (Meters) See) LO=Longitudinal Yes/No
OT R/RE Focus Pitch Roll Yaw V L LO A.Air to Air

Facility AU
(FOV) Range BAnround to Air
(Deg) (Meters) C.Air to Ground
OTO (NO E0 FACILITIES)

MELARA
SELENIA (NO E0 FACILITIES)
Table IL-8. Electronic Computer Computation
COUNTRY
Italy
Facility Analog Comouters Method of Diital Comuters

Model Mu*ltiplers One, Two, Model Available Terminals Used
Variables
"0 None U. VAX 564K 20 SAP-C. Special

MELARA 11/780 Mechanics,
POP 11 Aerodynaaics
3ZIJNIA 2 CAI 32 100 Manuel Diode UNIVAC 1 KEB 2

8OO Function 1100/80
TRAS Oenerates
40
Table IL-9. Electronic Computer Computation
COUNTRY Italy
CSSL Hybrid Number Of lumber Of (CSL Type Nmrd.re-In- Type

;W ze Type
Type Computer Analog-To- Digital-To Package For The-Loop Typioally lntefmoea
Facility Simlation Operation Digital Analog Hybrid Simulation Included Typically
Language Converta Converters Simulation HVIL BeeQired
OTO No No 1None No
MKLAXA
SOLUSIA NO Yes 32 120 None Ye Control gleotrnic
Actuation,* Hydraulic
Seekers
Table IL-iO. System Simulation Development
COUTNRY Italy
Facility Procedures for Model Procedures for Model Procedures for MOdsl
Implementation of Verification Validation
Analog or Digital
Comouter
OTO Missile math model developed Field or flight testing lab Telemetry analysis
MELARA In sub model configuration and results
combined for total system
operation
SELEMIA Partitioning between analog Static and dynamic check, Bench test of subsystem
and digital, selection of comparison with all digital flight tests of control
variable range, scaling of program and lower level vehicles
equations calculations
41
~41
Table IL-li. System Simulation
COUNTRY Italy
Facility Procedure for Are Digital Programs Procedures for Availability Of

Developing Hybrid Used to Assist in Simulation Faciliti- for
or HIL Simulation Hybrid Computer Dooamentation Cooperative Use
Partitioning? During Develo u t
OTO None No No
MBLARA
SItLINA -Ya Yes
Table IL-12. System Simulation
CoUlFmy Italy
Facility Are Simulations major Uses of Simulation Are Simulations Any Standard Standards
Cooperative Use Investigtion . Product Support Testing of Procedures in Published for
With Outside Improvements, Other) of Hardware - i.e. Simulation Major
Oroups? Flight Tests? Development Simulations
OTO Ho Analysis, exploratory Flight testing of Yes, Fin angles. No
Mr.ARA investigation issile autopilot. and aerodynamic
propulsion. laser parameters
beam Dro lector
SELANA No Analysis, exploratory Flight test No Reports, but no
investigation programming, splash standards
area comoutatlons
42
... . .. . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . .. r" " ' " L'W' . -". --

5. THE NETHERLANDS
5.1. COMPANY OR (RGANIZATION
National Aerospace Laboratory NLR

Anthony Fokkerweg 2
1059 0M Amsterdam
THE NETHERLANDS
POINT OF CONTACT: Mr. Moelker
TELEPHONE: (020) 5113113
5.1.1. BACKGROUND AND CGMMENrS
The NRL facilities located in Amsterdam houses a complex of facilities

that include: wind tunnels, fixed and moving base flight simulators, analog
and digital computer to perform cockpit man-in-the-loop operations. The high
speed tunnel (HST) is a variable density closed circuit wind tunnel having a
test section of approximately 1.60 x 2.00 square meters. The velocity regime
ranges from mach - 0.0 up to mach - 1.37. The wind tunnel capabilities can be
used as a test and evaluation facility by user groups outside NEL. A second
wind tunnel facility exists in the NKL complex, a supersonic blow down tunnel
(SST) with a test section of approximately 1.2 x 1.2 square meters. The veloc-
ity regime ranges from mach 1.2 up to mach 4.0 with a maximum running time
being approximately 40 seconds. While the major emphasis of facility utiliza-
tion is directed toward cockpit/aircraft performance evaluation, wind tunnel
studies of stores separation is also conducted with the help of computer
models. High speed missile studies have also been conducted.
The cockpit of the flight simulator is mounted on a 4-DOF otion base.

This consist of a platform mounted on top of four hydraulic jacks enabling
heave, roll, pitch and yaw motions. The single seat cockpit is equipped with:
stick or wheel/column, rudder pedals, electro-hydraulic control force siaula-
tion system, instruments and warning light and collimating display system for
outside view. Supporting the cockpit/flight simulator are: Digital Equipment
Coporation PDP 11/55 and a PDP 11/65, and EAI 680 Analog Computer. Other
digital computer capability includes the Control Data Corporation Cyber 70
system.
The major strength of the facilities are identified as: conducting

wind tunnel tests and physical model development with associated data reduc-
tion and man-in-the-loop cockpit studies. The flexibility of the facilities
also include capabilities for wind tunnel testing of various missile
configurations. Considerable experience exists in joint effort for system
testing and data evaluation. A series of joint test operations were involved
in the saltination test and evaluation of launch boundaries for firing ais-
siles from the F16 aircraft. The data from this effort was included in
simplified models of the system operations.
43
W 7
- t..
The method of preparing for wind tunnel use is to develop the physical
model, perform wind tunnel tests, collect and reduce data, and as appropriate,
develop analytical and simulation models. Aerodynamic simulation models are
developed to be included in existing simulation models of missile and aircraft
systems. The concept of simulation model validating has not been developed
for the NRL facility operation. In some studies however, the results from a
4-DOF simulation have been compared with results generated from other sources
using a 6-DOF simulation. Typically large scale simulation models are devel-
oped by the user group or other elements in NRL. Monte Carlo programs are
available, but statistical validation is minimal due to lack of data. In
general, there are no formal validation procedures used in the simulation
development and operation.
5.2. CGMPANY OR ORGANIZATION
Physics Laboratory TNO

Prins Maurits Laboratory TNO
P. 0. Box 96864
2509 JG THE HAGUE
THE NETHERLANDS
POINT OF CONTACT: Mr. IR. M. W. Van Batenburg
TELEPHONE: 31-70-264221 EXT. 325
5.2.1. BACKGRtOUND AND CGMMENTS
The Physics Laboratory located in the Hague is one of four labora-

tories that form the Niational Defense Research Organization TNO. The stated
purpose of the Physics Laboratory is to support the Ministry of Defense in
conducting research on material that might be useful for military equipment in
the near future. Within this mission, the areas of major focus in the labora-
tory include: microwave physics, infrared subsystems, underwater sonar
acoustics, mine countermeasures and digital information systems. Presently,
the major activity is operations research as related to the areas of interest.
Operation research activity has grown from involving approximately one-tenth
of the laboratory personnel in 1968 to approximately one-third in 1981.
Research in microwave physics is directed toward atmosphere and

enviroment as related to the limitation imposed by the atmosphere on the per-
formance of observation devices and lasers. Laser techniques are studied
experimentally in order to stabilize, modulate and pulse solid-state and gas
lasers. Additional activities include the study and analysis of advanced
night vision equipment under operational conditions. Facilities to measure
and evaluate the characteristics of special purpose optical and EO components
are available. The Physics Laboratory facilities are fully committed until
1983. Any time available, using the existing facilities would require a
change in priorities of programs. However, additional effort could be ini-
tiated if resources were available from outside the Ministry of Defense.
4
44
Historically, simulation development in the Physics Laboratory was

accomplished by looking at the problem and developing the simulation as the
system or subsystem was developed. During the past few years, however, the
approach to simulation development in the laboratory has changed signifi-
cantly. Presently, more emphasis is placed on the initial system structure
analysis for both hardware and software. Structure analysis, as used here, is
the process of looking at the problem and defining the needs for the program
or simulation to be developed and the experience available to develop the
desired program. The next effort is the synthesis of the equipment and opera-
tion to be built. As in the case of a radar system, the next step is to simu-
late the design using a simulation language on the computers. Only then will
the design and development of the system using hardware or micro-computers be
attempted. The programming of the final system will be directly based on the
program of the initial simulation. In a more specific fashion, the hardware
specifications are derived from the simulation, and are used by other groups
to build the specific system. The performance of the hardware is compared
with the results produced by the simulation, i.e., when radar is tested, the
results are compared with the simulation for a type of hardware validation.
In special cases, the hardware seeker might be functionally represented in the
simulation program for further hardware data evaluation. Software required
for the developed hardware is embedded in the initial simulation. Cross com-
pilers are used to compile programs from the original simulation for micro-
processor operation. Since there are no analog computers for combined
analog-ditial hybrid operation, micro-processors constitute the only HWIL
operation conducted in the laboratory.
445
Table NE-i. Infrared Facilities

COUNTRY
The Netherlands

Wavelength Energy Sensor Inputs By Sensor (Degrees)
(Micro- Broad Narrow 2
Sijaul- Instan- Total
etr) Band Band (WATTS/CM ) taneously Shapes taneous AZ EL
Facility (Lsrs)
NRL (NO IR FACILITIES)

AM4STERDAM
7 (NO IR FACILITIES)
THE HAGUE
Table NE-2. Infrared Facilities
COUNTRY The Netherlands
Angular Subtense of Sensor ?ioticn Counter- Type Facility

Targets as Viewed P.Position (Degrees) measures Simulated Used To
Facility By Sensor (Milliradians) V.Velocity (Deg/Sec) Simulated Engagement Evaluate
A.Air-to-Air
____________________________________________ EGR-to-Air
NRL (NO IR FACILITIES)
AMSTERDAM
TNO (NO lB FACII.LTIES)
THE HAGUE -
4 46
TL V-*4C
i't74
Table NE-3. Radio Frequency Facilities
COUNTRYThe Netherlands
ANECHOIC CHAMBER
Frequency Sensor
Generated Simulation Size (Meters) Number of Target Notion
Facility M4IZ BANDS INJECT-RADIATE L w H CoFiin a io ieo ra
(Decibels) Channels (Decrees)
NRL (NO0RF FACILITIES)

AMS-ERDAN _________________________________________
TNO 5 GHZ C (CORNER

REFLECTOR) 6 6 6 -30dB 56HZ -
THE HAGUE -5dB C
Table NE-4. Radio Frequency Facilities
Sensor
Sensor Motion Accomdatiou Engagement Simulated Planned
Facility PaPosition (Dog) L-Length (CM) A=Ative Guidance Facility Used Improvements
V.Yelocity D*Diameter (CM) P.Passive Guidance For Evaluation or
(Deg/See) W.Weight (K2) S-Semi-Active Of: Modification
PITCH ROLL YAW L D WT A P S
NRL (NO RF FACILITIES)

AMSTERDAM
maO (CORNER
REFLECTOR)
THE HAGUE
4 47
Table NE-5. Radio Frequ~ncy Facilities
Wave Form
Target Generation
Array C-Chirp Model
Facility (illiradians) (HZ) (watts) Yes No Yes No O-Other Yes No
NRL (1O RF FACILITIES)

AMSTERDAM
TNO (CORNERREFLECTOR)
THE HAGUE
Table NE-6. Electro-Optical Facilities


Visible IR Visible IR Visual Mid Hear Far Incan- Flores-
NRL Yes
AMSTERDAM
THO NO (DATA BANK OF WEST GERMANYTERRAIN)

THE HAGUE
448
Table NE-7. Electra-Optical Facilities
Facility Image to Sensor Collimating Minimum Sensor Motion Translation Laser Tvpe or
AU-AUTO- Optics Altitude PuP031tiOn (Deg) V.Vertical Capa- Engagement
Collimate Lense RzRefractive Simulated VaVelocity (Deg/ L=Lateral bility Simulated
OT-Other REaReflective (Meters) See) L)=Longitudinal yes/No
Facilitv AU OT R/RE Focus Pitch Roll Yaw V L LO AtAir to Air
(POV) Rangte Banroun,! to Air
(Deg) (Meters) -zAlr to 3round
XRL No inaVv~ae
AMSTERPDAM
,OYes -
THE HAGUE
Table NE-8. Electronic Computer Computation
COUNTrRY The Netherlands
Facility Analon Computers Method of Digital Computers

Model Multiplera one, Two, Model Available Terminals Used
Variables
NRL 2, lB86CDC 128K 6 Several
AMSTERDAM ew18o Cyber (60 bits) Standard
73-28 Packages
T NO CDC 1100K i~o Pert/Time,

THE HAGUE Cvber Apex III
74 In ?033. E-tc.
4 49
Table NE-9. Electronic Computer Computation
CSSL Hybrid Number Of Number Of CSSL Type Hardware-In- Type Hardware Type
Language Converts Converters Simulation HWIL Required
NRL No Yes U8 80 Yes Aircraft Electronic

AMTR Cockpit
Equipment Hydraulic
Computer
TNO SI4LA No o -
THE HAGUE
Table NE-la. System Simulation Development
COUTHRY The Netherlands
Implementation of Verification Validation
Analog or Digital
Computer
NRL Depends on use and model Depende on use and model Coapariaon of results with
AJ6TERDAM Plight Teat Data generated
by more detail models
TNO Only digital simulation Modular approach Comparing separate modules

THE HAGUE performed and overall module with
similar computer or measures
data
4 50
2 /
Table NE-lI. System Simulation Development
facility Procedure for Are Digital Programs. Procedures for Availability Of

NRL No None - But procedures

AMSTERDAM are in preparation
TNO None No None Yes

THE HAGUE
Table NE-12. Simulation Utilization
Facility Are Simulations Major Uses of Simulation Are Simulations Any Standard Standards
Cooperative Use Investigation, Product Support Testing of Procedures in Published for
With Outside Improvements, Other) of Hardware - i.l. Simulation Major
NRL Yes, RNLAF, Operational Research No No In preparation

AMSTERDAM Digital studies
TNO Simulation of Analysis, operational No NO No

THE HAGUE Missile Coupled Analysis studies
with Seeker Head
Simulation Developed
by Others
II4ll I 51 |-
6. UNITED KINGDOM
British Aerospace Dynamics Group

Post Box 600
Six Hills Way
Stevenage, Hertz. SGI 2DA
ENGLAND
POINT OF CONTACT: Mr. P. R. Franks
TELEPHONE: Stevenage (0438) 2422, Extension 3392
The British Aerospace Dynamics Group has physical simulation facilities

distributed among several locations. Each location has a particular area,
that has achieved a degree of simulation technology specilization which
contributes to the company's total simulation capability. While organiza-
tional, each of these locations operate under the umbrella of one parent orga-
nization, i.e., the Dynamics Group, each location has a high degree of
autonomy in its total operation. The physical simulation facilities were
merged under the British Aerospace Dynamics Group umbrella at different times
and for different purposes. The combined operation of these facilities pro-
vide'a broad capability in the areas of missile system test and evaluation.
The autonomy provided each site had led to variations in methods of simulation
development and operation. -The capabilities of the British Aerospace Dynamics
Group, as related to this survey of missile system simulation and test facili-
ties, is focused on three geographical locations: Stevenage Division, Bristol
Division, and the Hatfield Division.
The Stevenage Division includes two sites with physical simulation

facilities, Site A and Site B (or the Air Strike Weapons site). Located at
Site A is the Dynamic's Group Radio Frequency (RF) Facilities. The RF SEE has
a 6-DOF of freedom capability with sensor/seeker in the loop operations.
Target generation and target motion are achieved with radiating horns mounted
on a circular rail in the anechoic chamber. Site A is the only BA facility
with a RF capability. At the time of the survey, the facility had been
operating for a little more than 2 years. The use of this facility included
production testing of missile systems and related subsystems. Site A also
includes a combined analog-digital hybrid computer capability, using a com-
bination of EAI 8812, 8811, 581 analog computers coupled to an SEL 3275 digi-
tal computer. Under appropriate sponsorship, the facilities at Site A
location could be made available for joint use by organizations outside the
Dynamics Group. Stevenage Site B, the Air Strike Weapons Group's physical
facilities consist of capabilities to develop all digital simulations. The
facilities include an SEL 32/55 digital computer and EAI 680 analog system
used for studying special modeling requirements and not for combined digital-
analog operations. HWIL simulation is limited to including onboard digital
computers and related digital operations. The focus of activities at Site B
is on programs to obtain data required for simulation model development and
validation. Trial tests include laboratory test, ground test, and flight
test.
5
52
...
. ........
. . .. ----....
T.. - ,t. .
The Hatfield Division of the Dynamics Group is identified as a digital
mainframe computing and simulation facility with no hybrid computer or analog
computer capabilities at this location. Simulation modeling activities are
generally directed toward two areas: (1) cost reduction of modeling and (2)
developing more confidence in the developed model. Analysis and evaluation of
test results are part of the overall operation. Subsystem hardware testing is
usually limited to benchtest operations. The major strengths as related to
missile simulation are identified as the capabilities in the areas of analyti-
cal modeling of missile system and related subsystems. This includes the
ability to reproduce the time histories of the actual missile flight profiles
using all digital simulations. The total facility capabilities are used by
other groups either with appropriate sponsorship or with a commercial
agreement. An area of interest in cooperative technology development is the
development of imaging IR models to obtain a more realistic modeling of the
actual target.
The Dynamics Group's facilities at the Bristol Division include capa-

bilities in hybrid computation, IR and EO simulations. The hybrid computer
system includes an EAI 8800 analog computer coupled with a PDP 11/45 digital,
WL operation includes signal processors or missile subsystem not requiring a
flight table. Actuators with special load devices have been operated as part
of the HWIL operation. The major strength of this facility is identified as
developing missile guidance simulation, both analytical and with HWIL. While
the hybrid facilities operate for the most part as an internal group, the
facilities are available to other user groups with appropriate sponsorship.
The infrared facilities at the Bristol location have the stated purpose
of design, development and e~aluation of IR seekers and related subsystems.
This includes the development and investigation of infrared countermeasures
and counter-countermeasures techniques. The operation of this facility empha-
sizes hardware test, development and evaluation as much or more than large
scale simulation development. Hardware validation is an operational function
performed at this facility. A particular area of interest being pursued in
the infrared technology areas is the development of complex and extended
target simulations to accomplish improved testing of advanced TR seekers and
related countermeasures.
The Bristol location's Human Factors and Visual Research Department

includes an EO capability with a physical terrain model. The expressed pur-
pose of this facility is to investigate methods and techniques to counteract
visual target acquisitions. The major strength of this facility is identified
as the speed and flexibility with which different sensor configurations can be
set up with experiments conducted in realtime, particularly in the areas of
mechanical search or sensor motion. Results from the experiments are used
with theoretical models to investigate visual application performances for a
particular system. Short term objectives are to conduct man-in-the-loop
operational studies. Long term objectives include the development of a
library of models of various acquisition conditions. The facilities would be
generally available to groups outside the company with appropriate spon-
sorship.
453
A total digital program is used in the hybrid computer simulation develop-
ment process. Since a higher order simulation language is not presently
available, the digital models are cross compiled for the digital portion of
hybrid computer operation. Several techniques are used to verify model opera-
tions on the hybrid computer. One such technique is small signal responses of
the system model and specific subsystems of the model. For HWIL operation,
local frequency and step responses of the hardware are cemnared with model
responses. As a final step, and to the extent feasible, Lne hardware rides
piggyback on the closed loop model prior to actually replacing the model with
the hardware. Experience with HWIL operation includes gyro instrument pack-
ages, radar sensors and radar guidance systems, autopilots, electronic and
pneumatic actuators.
6.1.2 SIMULATION METHODOLOGY
Each location in the Dynamics Group missile simulation capabilities has

variation in a general approach to simulation development, verification and
validation. The major strength of the Stevenage Division, Site A, is iden-
tified as the experience base in simulation and analysis the organization can-
bring to focus on the missile system or subsystem under investigation.
Simulation is viewed as a means of proving the weapon system. While not docu-
mented, a standard approach is identified as being used in developing simula-
tion models and related simulations. Initially, the definition of the
particular experiments to be conducted is identified and the range over which
the experiment is expected to operate is established. Second, the goals and
objectives are defined for the simulation, then model development is initiated
to satisfy these requirements. An all digital simulation is developed to
check the model operation and acceptability. A variation of the models devel-
oped in the Site A's approach to model validation includes: comparing small
perturbation data from the actual hardware with similar data from the models,
comparing available flight test data with simulation model outputs, comparing
Monte Carlo averages and test results. In cases where data base permits, time
series analysis are performed on test and simulation results, comparing point
by point in time histories and parameter matching.
Site B, or the Air Strike Weapons Group identifies the major strength
as the ability to handle any task associated with the development of guided
weapons or copies that have similar design data. This includes tasks
requiring model development of the weapon system, model validation and the
resultant use of the model for production purposes. Methodology of simulation
development, as related to in-house programs, starts with basic theory as
opposed to testing a system for a data base. The developed model is used to
study desired operating characteristics of system and subsystems. In a
corresponding fashion the developed simulation programs are used to establish
missile test firing to obtain data required for model validation. Further
validation data are obtained from ground testing and special laboratory tests.
The validation process typically includes, as part of stated objectives, what
the accuracy limits should be in comparing the real world data and simulation
generated data. Methods used to address the validation of subsystem model
include: frequency domain analysis, correlation techniques and Monte Carlo
statistical comparisons.
4 54
___.__----___--______________ ---
Simulation development in the Hatfield Division follows the direction
of developing mathematical representation of the physical system from a data
base. The form and structure of the models depends on -the particular data
base available relative to the system under development or investigation.
Additional considerations for model development are the range of experiments
available to acquire data for model validation. Simulations are developed,
variables identified and telemetry channels selected to correlate with simula-
tion models. The validation process is directed toward a point-by-point time
history comparison with plots and graph overlays. Validation is considered as
having been accomplished with the simulation generated data and the real world
data match to within some specified percentage boundary of the real world.
The Bristol Division's methodology of simulation development in the

hybrid computation facilities includes, as a first step, obtaining a compre-
hensive set of mathematical equations. These equations are generally supplied
by the customer or user of the results. The models and related information
are typically provided by the systems departments. The equations are struc-
tured into separate blocks with attempts to partition the blocks into standard
models of the type that exists in the simulation library. New equations are
structured in separate blocks for integrating into the total simulation. The
initial operation with the completed simulation model is to develop an all
digital simulation using FORTRAN. The digital portion for hybrid simulation
is reprogrammed from the all digital program. Documentation during simulation
development consists primarily of embedded statement in the program and the
developed mathematical expression. Final documentation focuses on a set of
simulation runs and the final configuration of the mathematical model returned
to the customer.
The Bristol Division's infrared facility emphasizes hardware tests,

development and evaluation as much as simulation development. The methodology
of simulation development, model verification and validation is focused on
particular areas as it relates to hardware being developed. The digital
programs are developed as much or more for computational purposes than for
HWIL operation for closing the seeker loop. The methodology of simulation
development in the Human Factor and Visual Research Department begins with a
focus on what observable tasks are feasible to simulate and can the human
operator actually perform elements of the task involved in the experiment?
Data obtained from the laboratory experiment is compared with field tests
results to refine the mathematical models as part of verification of the
experimental models. A validation procedure for simulation models has not
been established, due to the short time the facility has been operational.
455
_________l_______ *|-.
6.2 COMPANY OR ORGANIZATION
EMI Electronics Limited

Wells, Somerset a5lAA
England
POINT OF CONTACT
Mr. Brinn Jackson

Telephone: 0749-72081
6.2.1 BACKGROUND AND COMMENTS
The EHI facilities located at Bristol have a special emphasis in the

area of missile system test and evaluation. The EKI facilities for modeling
radar systems to obtain detailed data on scattering characteristic of radar
targets have been in continual use for the last two decades. The direction of
technological development for modeling at scaled wave length required the
development of millimeter radars for use as reliable measuring instruments. -
The emphasis at the E4I facility is one of practicality combined with research
to obtain target scattering information needed in order to assess the behavior
of a full scale radar in operational use. The range of frequencies covered in '
various modeling operations is from 800 MHz to 980 GHz. With this capability,
a further emphasis is on the development of many different types of targets
and models that use a wide range of scaling factors. The major strength of
the ZI simulation facility is identified as having an excellence in deter-
mining the radar scattering characteristics in total for military targets and
developing digital simulation with the resultant data base. A plan of the
radar modeling facilities is shown in Figure EKI-1.
Outdoor image ta%*s .
Radar~... o.. ,.
3-40G I Radar
MCW adas 32 41
rI W
-S0GHZ Water Radar

10.33 a 80 GHz
Figure EMI-I. Plan of Radar Modelling Facilities.
456
____I' - 14"04 -. .-- P.

The activity related to developing a simulation of the radar charac-

teristics of a target starts with obtaining measured data and is from one of
three methods: full scale trials of the actual system, calculations based on
theoretical models, or the use of scale modeling. While each method is useful
and has some specific advantage, EKI has determined that only through scale
modeling can a sufficient data base be obtained efficiently and economically
to permit the adequate assessment of modern radars. Experience has shown the
need for attention to detail in the physical model of the target. It is norm-
ally convenient and economical to perform the work with model targets of sizes
between 1/2 meter to 5 meters. This range of the physical determines the
scale factors to be associated with various aircraft, missiles and ships.
The typical complex model might have several hundred points that
characterize the target radar characteristics. Typically three methods of
using data from the model are available for simulation model building and anal-
ysis. The data can be reduced to statistical form with curves of cumulative
probability of glint and target cross section, and plots of spectral distri-
butions. Second, the data is used in raw form, either by physically modeling
engagement situations or storing and using information specifically related to
a given radar and target combination. Third, using knowledge of the main
sources of reflection on a target derived by radio modeling measurements and
by theoretical studies, derive a mathematical description of the system under
measurement and study. Validation of data focuses on insuring that data
obtained from the experiment is what the experiment operator ititends to obtain
from the experiment. A validation of the simulation model is typically
achieved by statistically comparing means, and averages and amplitudes with
overlays. Data from full scale system testing are used when special measure-
ments can be made. See references 1 and 2.
6.3 COMPANY OR CRGANIZATION
Marconi Space and Defense Systems Limited

The Grove, Warren Lane
Stanmore, Middlesex HA 74LY
England
POINT OF CONTACT
Miss Peggy Hodges

Teleprone - 01954-2311
6.3.1 BACKGROUND AND COMMENTS
MSDS facilities located at Stanmore include a hybrid computer complex

with lIBJL operating capabilities. These facilities include a three-axis
table for performing 6-DOF missile motion. HWIL operations using RF seekers
are pres ently accomplished using signal injection. Input signals are derived
from simulation models of appropriate antenna patterns. Currently, a design
study is in progress to establish requirements for an anechoic chamber with RF
generating capabilities in the range of 8 GHz to 18 GHz. This facility is
expected to be completed during the next 2 to 3 years. Longer range plans
include efforts directed toward the millimeter wave systems with capabilities
457
.7!
for optimization of millimeter wave seekers. The MSDS Hybrid computer system,
identified as the "Starglow Hybrid Computer," includes three EAI 8812 analog
computers linked to an EAI 8400 digital computer. The EAI 8400 is also linked
to an SEL 3200 digital computer. A block diagram of the Starglow Hybrid
Computer System is shown in Figure MSDS-l.
The purpose of the simulation facility is to develop hybrid and digital

simulations for a wide range of weapon systems. The major strength of this
facility is identified as the ability to develop and effectively implement
complex simulation with HWIL operation, including such hardware as, signal
processors, and RF receivers. The major areas of experience are in the devel-
opment of air-to-air and air-to-ship missile systems simulations.
The hybrid computer complex is not dedicated to a particular system and

is available to other organizations on a time available basis.
Line
S~~Prlo 'PLAl Wd A
6.32 S
CPOFG
II
ANALOGUE DIGITAL .1G T XlI O
HlYBlRID
Figure MSDS-1. Starglow Hybrid Computer.
facilities pro-
The methodology of simulation development of the MSDS
all digital simulation to serve as a verification check
vides for developing an
of
on implemented hybrid computer simulations. As a check on the validity
using RI signal injection for seek-in-the-loop operation, some RWIL operations
have been conducted in facilities in the United States and other locations to
help validate the data base for such an operation. Other methods of simula-
and
tion model validation include; overlay plots of simulation generated data
distance, and post tests
real world data, comparing trials with simulated miss
or more.
data compared with simulation statistical averages of forty runs
58
_7'7. - ,7 7C 1
Royal Aircraft Establishment

Weapon Group Computer Complex, Q145 Building
Farnborough, Hants GU14GTO
ENGLAND
POINT OF CONTACT: Mr. S. Parkhill
TELEPHONE: Country Code 44, (0252) 24461 Ext 3293
The Royal Aircraft Establishment's simulation physical facilities

located at Farnborough has a hybrid computer with some HWIL operation capabil-
ities. At the time of this survey an anechoic chamber was being installed
with operational status expected in the next 12 to 18 months. The computing
capabilities include DEC 1155 digital coupled to an AD4 (Applied Dynamics
Four) analog computer for Hybrid computer and HWIL operations. Near term
plans include replacing the AD IV analog computer with an AD 10 digital
machine. A DEC 1150 and a data general clips 5230 provide a stand alone digi-
tal computing capability. Supporting the simulation computer operations capa-
bility are two simulation languages; a discrete event language PAWS (Program
for Assessment of Weapon Systems) and Digital Simulation Language (DSL) 77.
The major strength of the simulation facility is identified as pro-

viding support for open shop use of the facilities. This emphasizes the
availability of the facilities to user groups outside RAE with appropriate
sponsorship. Experience with user groups with HWIL operations include; micro-
processors, seekers and man-in-the-loop operations.
The methodology of simulation implementation and development is

established by the group utilizing the RAE simulation facilities. Since the
major thrust of these facilities' operation is supporting particular user
groups, a methodology of simulation development has not been established.
Each group selects its own method for developing their particular simulations.
This consideration.also applies in the area of simulation model verification
and validation. In the past, simulation model verification and validation are
the sole resgonsibility of the particular group using the facilities.
4 59
.. . .. . .. . . . ." ' ' Un T.. .7.... .. * '~ -*

Table UK-i. Infrared Facilities
COUNTRY United Kingdom,

Wavelength ___Energy- Sensor Inputs fySensor (Demr60S)
(micro- Broad Narrow Sti-Instan- Total
eters) Band Rand (WATTS/CM2) taneously Shapes taneous AZ EL
Facility (Lasers)
RAE 1.0 to 14,. Broad Narrow 0.0 to 10-12 2 Point 10 360 ±20
Bristol 0.2 to 20 Source
RAE (NO IN FACILITIES AT THIS LOCATION)

Hatfield
RAE (NO IR FACILITIES AT TIS LOCATION)

Stevenage
Div
RAE (NO IN FACILITIES AT THIS LOCATION)

Stevenage
Site B.
EKI (NO RETURNED QUESTIONNAIRE)

Wells
MSDS (NO IR FACILITIES)

(Marconi)
Stanmore
RAE (NO IN FACILITIES)

Farnborough
60
Table UK-2. Infrared Facilities
COUNTRY United Kingdom
Angular Subtense of Sensor Motion Counter- Type Facility

Targets as Viewed PuPosition (Degrees) measures Simulated Used To
Facility By Sensor (Milliradians) VzVelocity (Deg/See) Simulated Engagement Evaluate
A.Air-to-Air
BGR-to-Air
BAE 10 0.5 0 0 P.360 CW Jamers Air-to-Air Dev HW

Bristol VW1OO Pulse Gnd to Air Production
Div Jamiers CM. IR Quld
RAE (NO IR FACILITIES AT THIS LOCATION)

Hatfield
BAE (NO IR FACILITIES AT THIS LOCATION)

Stevenage
Div
RAE (14OIR FACILITIES AT THIS LOCATION)

Stevena e
Site "B"
EMI (NO RETURNEDOUESTIONNAIRE)

Wells
MSDS (NO IR FACILITIES)

(Morconi)
Stanmore
RAE (NO IR FACILITIES)

Farnborough
-- -
jZ 6Tn1
Table UK-3. Radio Frequency Facillfties
COUNTRYUnited gingdom
ANECHOICCHAMBER
Frequency Sensor
enerated ulation SIze (Meters) Number or Target Motion
nRefletion Separate From Center
Facility MHZ BANDS INJECT RADIATE L w H Coefficient Radiation Line or Array
I (Decibels) Channels (Degrees)
BAE Bristol (NO R? PACZLITIES AT THIS LOCATION)

Division
BAE (NO RF FACILITIES AT THIS LOCATION)

Hatfield
BAE 2 GHZ I, J Radiate 13 3 2.5 6 oda in 1 .7

Stevenage to Quiet Zone
Division 18 GHZ (Measured)

Stavenage
Site "B
EMI (NO RETURNEDQUESTIONNAIRE)

ells
HSDS (NO RF FACILITIES - DESIGN STUDY IN PROGRESS)

(Marconi)
Stansore
RAE 2 GHZ - Inject Radiation 6 4 4 -45 dE at 4 .25

Farnbrough to 3 GHZ
16 GHZ
Table UK-4. Radio Frequency Facilities
Target Wave For.

Generation
Array C-Chirp Model
Facility (Milliradians) (HZ) (Watts) Yes No Yes NO 0-Other Yes No
BAR (NO RF PACITIES AT THIS LOCATION)

Bristol
Division
BAE (NORF FACILITIES AT THIS LOCATION)

Hatfield
BAE 0.125 2 HZ over 14.0 Yes - No P, CW - No

Stevenage 1D a travel
Division
*Stevww4e
Site "a"
EMI (NO RETURNED
QUESTIONNAIRE)
Wells
MSDS (NORF FACILITIES - DESIGN

STUDYIN PROGRESS)
Marconi
anmore
RAE 10 100 1.0 Yes - No C - o
62
-' .* -7
Table UK-5. Radio Frequency Facilities
COUNTRYUnited Kingdom
Sensor
Sensor Motion Accommodation Engagement Simulated PleAned
P- Position (Des) L . Length (CM) A-Active Guidance Facility Used ImProVeWmts
V.Velocity D a Diameter (CM) PuPassive Guidance for Evaluation or
Facility - (Dea/Sec) Wr. Weight (KG) S-Semi-Active Of: Development Modification
Pitch Roll Yaw L 0 WT A P S
Conteraau e
Reeach & Dev

Bristol
Division
SAE (NO RF FACILITIES AT THIS LOCATION)

Hatfield
BAE P..45 P-.540 P=.45 150 30 so - Dev HO, CM 2 DOF for

Stevenage V=200 V-200 V.200 Production, target. decoy
Division R&D with glint and
Polarization
BAE (NO Nt FACILITIES AT THIS LOCATION)

Stevenage
Site "B"
tiMI (NO RETURNED QUESTIONNAIRE)

Wells
M.SDS (NO RF FACILITY - DESIGN STUDY IN PROGRESS)

(Marconi)
Stannore
RAE (NO SENSOR MOTION) - - - - - -Dev hardware, Addition of

Farnborough Production, R&D flight table
Table UK-6. Electra-Optical Facilities

(micrometers) (Foot Candles)
Visible IR Visible IR Visual Mid Near Far Incan- Flores-
Terrain Terrain Projection Projection lB lB IR descent laence
Model Model (OK) 0Og)
SAE Yes - .
0.0 to - - 200:1-
Bristol 0.7
Division
BAE (NO..EOFACILITIES AT THIS LOCATION)

Hatfield
SAE (NO KO FACILITIES AT THIS LOCATION)

Stevenage
Division
BR (NO EO FACILITIES AT THIS LOCATION)
10 Stevenage
Site "B"
EMI (NO RETURNED
QUESTIONNAIRE)
Wells
MSDS (NO 90 FACILITIES)

(Marconi)
Stsimore
RAE (NO EO FACILITIES)
rarnboroujh
63
Table UK-7. Electro-Optical Facilities
Image to Sensor Collimating Minimum Sensor Motion Translation 'ase. T'" f

AU-AUTO Optics Altitude PsPoaition (Deg) V.Vertical -apa- Eaasement
Collimate Lense RaRefractive Simulated VaVeloeity (Deg/ L.Lateral bilLtv imLulated
OT-Other REReflective (Meters) see) LO.Longitudinal Vtas/%
Facility AU OT R/RE Focus Pitch Roll Yaw V L LO A-AIr to Air
(POV) Range B.around to Air
(Deg) (Meters '-Air T rnh
BAE 90 P..1O P..1O PM P2*' E
Bristol V.lO VJO
Division
RAE (NO EO FACILITIES AT THIS LOCATION)
Hatfield
BAE (NO EO FACILITIES AT THIS LOCATION)

Stevenage
Division
BAE (NO EO FACILITIES AT THIS LOCATION)

Stevenage
Site "B-
EMI (NO RETURNED QUESTIONNAIRE)

Wells
MSDS (NO EO FACILITIES)

(Marconi)
Stanmore
RAE (NO EO FACILITIES)

Farnborough
Table UK-8. Electronic Computer Computation
^OUNTRY United Kingdom
Facility Analog Computers m..hod of Digital Computers

Number Number Operational eneratlng Number LarRest Cathode Zoftware
And Of Amplifiers Functions Of And Memory Ray Tube Fackaqe
Model Multiplers One, Two, Model Available 7erninals Uced
V~ri.bles
PAt Bristol ::AI h F' anc 19M 'eaai~es 2 M, ox:

r
Divislor 8OO digitallv 'E , 'AX :BSM %''
BAE None - - - P'P

? " 'egaves "
Hatfield 2S
_','!10, '.aae
SAE ,AI 144 6T F1, , BM ':1g :,er-,v "Sv'

Stevenage 81,, 'TOO, "VFG '9/ISA
ivision 3811, 7E(2/'
RAE None -CL 120K, 12E ,

Stevenage l3., tK 21" LACOOASE.
tite
"B SEL"/T" S'L
EMI (!10RETURNED QUESTIONNAIRE)
dells
MSDS '. EA, " 7I? MVFG EAI 80C -,egabvtps
I.n 10 "T
-TS.
(Mareoni) 9800 sr 2120(
Itanmore VAXVl/Plk(
RAE 2, ADA i16 38 Digital ind BM, DG 14 ECLIPSE,
Farnborough Jiode function Eclipse, BASIC, FORTRAN
generator P:P ISL
64
Table UK-9. Electronic Computer Computation
CSSL Hybrid Number Of Number Of CSSL Type Hardware-In- Type Hardware Type
Lansuape Converts Converters Simulation HWIL Required
BAE ECSL, Yes 32 32 None Yes Actuators, Electronic,

Bristol ON IBM Man-Machine Hydraulic,
Division (In-House) Computer
BAE None No - - Yes

Hatfield
BAE CSMP, Yes 32 32 CSMP Yes Sensors, Electronic,

Stevenage ACSL ECSSL Actuator Mechanical,
Division Computers Computers
RAE Slang, No - - No -
Stevenage Company
Site "B" Developed
EMI (NO RETURNED QUESTIONNAIRE)

Wells
MSDS None Yes 48 24 None Receiver/ Electronic Electronic

(Marconi) Signal
Stanmore Processors
RAE DSL Yes Multiplexed 128 None Yes Radar Electronic,

Farnborough Homing Mechanical,
Head Hydraulic
Table UK-IO. System Simulation Development
COUTNRY United Kingdom
Implementation If Verification Validation
Analog or Digital
omputer
RAE In-house developed model Comparison betwe-n analog Model matching, fnring and
Bristol building procedures, or hybrid models with ligital Tomparison with actual trial
Division models. eata and experimental data.
BAE Write standard equations, Comparison with similar models, Comparison with hardware test.
Hatfield for aerodvnamics, seeker, comparison with anal','!ic3lresn"tt flrl-t trails, sutsvstem ccdelz
t
autopilot, productions of w erv possible. with sctual Fvrtem.
software specification
and test plan.
RAE Develop CSMP.model, hybrid ftep and frequency response, "dmpariscn tetween letaile!
^tevenage model and crosa check, patch stability anaIv513 and 3mal -up-Svstem model and real rv.tnm
Division and debug, run hybrid model, perturbation. -evelopment, post flicht r4.i
,nalvriz.
SAE
Stevenage
Site "N"
IMI (010 RETURNED QUESTIONNAIRE)

Wells
MSDS Model analysis used to Frequency and step response -ompare model against laboratory
(Marconi) organize distribution of comparison with digital model. tests/wind tunnel results,
rtanmor- model among analog telemetry data with post firing
and ligital. trails simulation results.
RAE OFF line digital modeling, Comparison of histories from Extensive trails and compaisons.
Farnbrough use of realtime software real svstems.
with radar hardware.
65
Table UK-lI. System Simulation
Facility Procedure for Are Digital Programa Procedures for Availability Of

BAE Use assembler Yes Analog scaling.,

Bristol language, develop block diagrams.
Division modular form and
replace modules
with hardware.
BAE
Hatfield
BAE Develop CS4P program Yes Use uwn in-hcuOe

Stevenage as host model, sub- procelur-.
'ivision system with HWIL
simulation.
BAE
Stevenage
Site "H"
EMI (00 RETURNED QUESTIONNAIRE)

Wells
MSDS Describe the system Yes Detailed model Facilities ir. vvaiiable,
(Marconi) hV nathematlcal equa- descrlptions, support fCr icip. nz anl
Stanmore tions and/or transfer patchina diagrams inalvsis are vlso available.
functions. up dates with
listings.
PAE, Method varies according Yes nder levelopment. Yach -as carefly vnsidered.
Farnbrough to problem studied.
66
-- 7
Table UK-12. Simulation Utilization
Facility Are Simulations Major Uses of Simulation Are Simulations Any Standard Standard
Cooperative Use Investigatlon, Product Support Testing of Procedures in Published for
With Outside Improvements, Other) of Hardware - i.e. Simulation Major
Groups? Plight Tests? Development Simulations
BAE Yes, digital Analysis, exploratory Testing of seeker In general attempts Distribution
Bristol simulation investigation, product heads, or IR are made to use Iependents
Division Rerospace systems, improvement, physical effects standards, standards such
simulator, as DRIC 1000
are used.
PAP Yes, Sub contrac- doteffective analysis Instrumnted 1o, hut attempts Technical notes
qatfield tors, government programs for hardware Laboratory and have been made. as per lepart-
establishments, develonment, system flight testing mental procedure
RAE, a SWE. perforv-nce analysis, and system per- detailing data
product improvement. formance eval- units and
uatian. operations.
PAE Yes, digital Analysis, exploratory HWIL simulation Software Describtior of

Stevenage analog, hvbrid investigation, Product for pre- and post- terminolorv and digital, ,vbrid
Division HWIL. improvement, reducing flight trial mathematical and mathleati'll
the number of trail analysis. symbols in models.
experiments. company
communication.
BAE
Stevenage
Site "B"
_MI (NO RETURNED QUESTIONNAIRE)

Wells
'SDS Assistance to Analysli,exploratory Simulations for nre- Multi-post use Full model
(Marconi) engineers in design investigation, Ppoduct and post-firing of hybrid results descriptions
Stanmore optimization, signal improvement, involving MSDS in Consistent meeting UK and
processing and HWIL. seekers, terminology. EEC require-
ments.
RAE, Depends on Analysis, exploratory Partially None None

Farnbrough provisions of investigation, Product
simulation improvement.
languages.
67
9. . . I I
7. UNITED STATES
7.1. COMPANY CR ORGANIZATION
Air Force Armament Laboratory

Guidance Weapon Division
AFATL/DLMA
Eglin Air Force Base, FL 32542
USA
POINT OF CONTACT
Technical Director
AFATL/DLM
Telephone: (904) 882-4032
The major purpose of the simulation facilities at Eglin Air Force Base
is to evaluate guided weapon systems and subsystems as related to flight test
support and HWIL operations. The armament laboratory, in which the simulation
laboratory is located, has a mission of missile technology development. The
major function of the simulation facilities is to support the armament labora-
tory in its mission. The simulation facilities include a RF SEE, an infrared
SEE capability and an EO capability. A hybrid computer complex is the basis
of performing simulation in all the technological hardware areas that use the
SEES. Shown in Figure EAFB-I is a physical layout of the Radio Frequency
Target Simulation System (RFTS) Facility.
The RF facilities has a simulated free space environment in a shield

anechoic chamber 4.6 meters high, 6.1 meters wide and 7.6 meters long from
sensor to array centroid. A steel liner provides 100 dB for 1 MHz to 18 MHz
plane waves. The antenna target array consists of seven antenna assemblies,
either vertical or horizontal polarization selectable providing an approximate
5 degrees field-of-view. An assembly includes a broad band antenna horn
operating from 8 to 18 GHz, orthogonally polarized with a 100 milliwatts
amplifier. Target positions on the RF array are updated every 200 milli-
seconds intervals with errors less than 1.5 milliradians. An eighth antenna on
the array is used for ,alibration purposes. A three-axes table with
interchangable gimbals, that can be operated outside the chamber, provides for
closed loop hardware seeker operations in a realtime environment. Additional
HWIL capabilities include actuators and on-board micro-corputer processors.
The precision hydraulic flight table is aligned along the chamber

center line 25 feet from the target array, during simulations development.
During simulation operation, the table holds the sensors and projects the sen-
sor package through the aperture into the anechoic chamber for interfacing
with the target array via RF radiation, active or semiactive. Because the
target position is confined to the array, the chamber center line corresponds
to the "Real World" line-of-sight. The flight table rotates in a way which
preserves the angular relationships between the missile center line and the
line-of-sight. However, in doing so, the missile body and the head gyros,
which are mounted on the flight table, generate angular measurements which
68
differ from their in-flight values. As a result, correction signals must be
added to the tracking and guidance loop. The nature of these correction
signals and the test points at which they are injected depends on the par-
ticular seeker being tested. This simulation technique is referred to as a
synthetic line-of-sight.
The IR facilities include a five axes table, of which the outer gimbel
has attached a point IR source with a spectral range of 3 to 5 micrometers and
a point source laser. The EO scene generation is comparable to a 35 milli-
meter slide projection with a zoom capability and is used to change contrast
ratios. Dynamic HWIL for IR operation can include, seekers, actuators and on-
board processors. Inertial functions are modeled and aerodynamic functions
are simulated using digital computations and function generators.
The computing complex supporting the facility operation includes two

EAI 680 and two EAI 681 analog computers, an EAI 693 interface unit, two EAI
pacer 100 digital computers and an EAI 640 digital computer. A PDP 11/60 is
available for data processing and simulation support. The PDP 11/60 timeshare
computer controls access to a full selection of peripherals. Software func-
tions available with the PDP 11/60 include: calibration of the RP target
generator, system performance verification, and realtime control, including
the synthetic line-of-sight algorithm.
The simulation facilities are used for support to a variety of the Air
Force's programs. The Air Force maintains and uses the facilities for analy-
sis and data generation. Consequently, the facilities are not available,
directly for data generation by other groups, unless coordinated through the
appropriate channels through the Department of Defense.
2 r ANECHOIC CHAMBERS I 03
CONTROL ROOM
"I i"E I ,oai .

ar ~AEATL IIYR
Figure EAFB-l. Radio Frequency Target Simulator Layout.
69
i I I - I il. i
Conceptually, simulation development in the Eglin facilities is viewed

as a multi-level operation. Prior to a simulation development or implemen-
tation activity, the task is to determine the appropriate level of simulation
for the specific task. Level 1 is defined as purely functional or a baseline
for an all analytical program to get the flow in simulation activity started.
This typically would entail just implementing the models or block diagrams as
presented. The idea here is not to make updates in the design of the system
as given, or make updates on what will possibly later be an update. This
level of simulation would apply to weapon system fairly mature in the design.
The actual mechanization at this level may be either digital or hybrid com-
puting. Level 2 is identified as the simulation and model configuration that
results either after HWIL is finished or with HWIL if models are not
available. Level 2 simulations uses outside results to start developing con-
fidence in the model. HWIL operation is just one activity to obtain data for
comparing with the subsystem models. Level 2 is characterized as subsystem
models being validated to the extent that is feasible and practical based on
the data base available. The actual simulation could be a HWIL or an analyti-
cal simulation that results from the validation effort. Level 3 simulation is
a continuation of the validation efforts initiated in Level 2. The difference
is that the validation is based on full scale flight test results. This level
may continue to include HWIL simulation, but the focus is on supporting flight
test operation.
The objectives in using this particular multilevel process is to

minimize the effort and difficulties frequently encountered with updating
updates in a large-scale simulation. Throughout the process a digital com-
puter program is developed, even if the final requirement is for a hybrid com-
puter simulation or HWIL.
Verification is defined as the effort directed toward insuring that

which is coded is actually what is desired to be coded relative to the model.
This process includes verifying expected model response and logical sequence
of operations. Correspondingly, validation is defined as showing that the
model is reflecting the performance of the real world, both operationally and
procedurally. This is accomplished in part by driving subsystem models and
hardware with identical inputs and comparing responses (the methods of com-
paring outputs were not defined). The subsystems are viewed as elements in a
building block process and standard sets of tests are used to characterize
models and hardware subsystems as part of the validation effort.
Effort is directed toward matching kinematics and dynamic conditions

as close as possible, using flight test results and identifying any problem at
the subsystem level. The general philosophy of flight tests is one of evalu-
ation and checking out combinations of hardware subsystem operations.
Numerous factors not related to simulation, per se, prevents conducting flight
tests strictly for simulation model validation purposes.
4 70
Name: US Army Missile Command

Systems Simulation and Development Directorate
Advanced Simulation Center
DRSMI-RD
Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898
USA
POINT OF CONTACT
Mr. Rex B. Powell

Dr. Kelly V. Grider
Telephone: (205) 876-4271
The mission of the US Army Missile Command is the development of

missile weapon systems responding to threats to national security. The
Command's Missile Laboratory includes scientific and technology based direc-
torates to support the Missile Command's mission. The System Simulation and
Development Directorate's Advanced Simulation Center (ASC) was established to
perform large scaled, realtime, full 6-DOF simulation of air launched and
ground launched missile systems. The ASC includes three SEE cells for opera-
tion of Electro-Optical Simulation Systems (EOSS), Infrared Simulation Systems
(IRSS) and the Radio Frequency Simulation System (RFSS). Each SEE cell has a
substantial stand along digital computer capability. The three cells are in
turn connected to a hybrid computing complex with an expanded CDC 6600 digital
computer and two EAI pacer 700's and two AD4 analog computers with individual
and multicell operational capability.
The Electro-Optical Simulation System (EOSS): The EOSS - SEE shown in

Figure MICOM-1 provides realistic and precisely controlled environments for
the non-destructive testing of a wide variety of ultraviolet, visible and near
infrared sensor systems, including thermal imaging and laser designator
systems. Actual sensors are hybrid-computer controlled in 6-DOF while viewing
targets in an indoor simulation chamber, and under ambient conditions of an
outdoor test range. The three dimensional target simulation is provided by a
32 x 32 foot terrain model/transporter which features a variety of topographi-
cal and man-made complexes at 600:1 and 300:1 scales, removal model sections
and fixed and-movlig targets at any desirable scale. Selected terrain targets
can be programmed to simulate thermal signatures for various imaging sensors,
laser designated targets can be simulated with low level lasers and fiber
optics. The moving targets provide dynamic tracking capability against
changing background scenes. The target model can be tilted to an infinite
number of positions from 0 to 30 degrees from the horizontal so that various
geometries and altitudes can be accommodated. In addition to the EOSS SEE
operativ- with the Central Hybrid Computer Complex, the EOSS facility includes
two PDPll digital and one AD4 analog computers.
4 71
. . ..... .. ..... . .
ENVIRONMENTAL LIGHTING SYSTEM
EOSS CONTROL ROOM
3-AXIS SENSOR COMM
ENVIRONMENTAL SIMULATION CI4AMBER
2.0 INEAR TRANSPORTER
Figure MICOM-l. Electro-Optical Simulation System SEE.
The Infrared Simulation System (IRSS): A pictorial representation of

the IRSS - SEE is shown in Figure HICOM-2. This SEE simulator is a tool for
the design, development and evaluation of Infrared Sensor Systems applicable
to surface-to-air missiles. Sensors in the 0.3 to 0.7 and 1.0 to 5.0 micron
bands are hybrid-computer controlled in 6-DOF during the target engagement
sequence. A gimbaled flight table provides pitch, roll and yaw movements to
the sensor's airframes. A target generator simulates a variety of
target/background combinations which includes tailpipes, plumes, flares, and
fuselages in single or multiple displays against clear sky, dark clouds, over-
cast sky, and sunlit cloud backgrounds. These are then displayed in azimuth,
elevation, range and aspect to the target projection system through a
mirror/lens network, a display arm, and a display mirror. Simulation capabil-
ity ranges from open loop component testing, using either a rate table with
static actuator loaders or the three axis flight table, to closed loop total
system simulation.--
The target generation system is non-imaging and consists of an

assembly of equipment and components, which provide for generation of simu-
lated aircraft targets, backgrounds, and countermeasures. The purposes of
this assembly are to present to the guidance unit under test, suitable
radiation sources to simulate the physical, radiometric and dynamic charac-
teristics of targets, backgrounds, and countermeasures. These characteristics
are designed to be manually or automatically controlled - local instrumen-
tation provides manual control - while automatic programmed control is pro-
vided through either the local hybrid computer consisting of EAI 9800 digital
computer or from the central hybrid computer facility.
Radio Frequency Simulation System (RFSS): The RFSS - SEE shown in

Figure MICO(-3 simulates a missile's total mission from launch to intercept in
72
_____________ .
FOLDED OPTICS
FLIGHT TABLEIMG
(3AXIS)
PSOESTAL
INTIERFACEi
CONTROL.CONSOLE .
Figure MICOM-2. Infrared Simulation System SEE.
RF and ECM environments, and is designated to enhance capabilities in all

phases of missile system research, design., development, and engineering. The
primary application is evaluation of RF active, semiactive, passive, and com-
mand terminal guidance systems for surface-to-surface, air-to-air, and
surface-to-air missiles. Guidance sensors and flight control systems will
perform in an environment where aerodynamic moments, angular motions, and
electromagnetic signals are realistically produced. The RFSS is a multilevel
facility comprising a number of closely integrated rooms. A shielded anechoic
chamber simulates.a free space environment for the radiation of signals from
an array of 550 antennas to a guidance sensor projected through an aperture at
the opposite end of the chamber. The guidance sensor is mounted on a
Three-Axis Rotational Flight Simulator (TARFS-1). A second TARFS simulates
angular motions for the autopilot gyros and a Control System Aerodynamic
Loader (CSAL) simulates aerodynamic moments on control surface shafts.
The RF generation equipment consists of four target generators, a

reference generator, two denial ECM sources and fuze selection and attenua-
tion. The equipment operates in the 2- to 19-GHz spectrum and provides for
the control and generation of RF signals suitable for stimulating the electro-
magnetic characteristics of airborne targets and environments to be encoun-
tered by a wide variety of advanced guidance systems. Control of the RF
target generator is performed by an array of seven mini-computers which may
473
--- - i- - - ............................ a|q -

IT
ECM wlKAI
LOWPR RI I10RM
V DIGITAl.
LOWE-M
RF R :,
ARRAY SERVICE AREA 95 (1
NICROWAVE CIIAMBER • /
FLIGHlT E:'QUIPNIENT ROONI CONTROL ROOM
HYDRAULIC ROM 32 ... ,A
MI SILE READY ROOM
Figure MICOM-3. Radio Fr'quency Simulation System SEE.
operate in a stand-alone mode, or on-line to the central hybrid computer.

Communications with the central hybrid computer are available through conven-
tional analog and discrete channels and also via direct memory transfer. The
latter mode is known as Direct Cell.
Facility expansion capability is in progress for an Interim Millimeter

Simulation System (IMSS) SEE. The associated anechoic chamber will be capable
of operating from 15 GHz to 150 GHz with an environmental display array
operating in the 94 GHz. The facility will be capable of supporting guidance
modes of the active, passive, beam rider and imaging type. Sources on the RF
array will be position controlled to 1 milliradian or less with an up date
rate of not more than 1 kHz for sensor-in-the-loop realtime operation. The
IMSS operational data is scheduled for September 1984.
A summary of the capabilities of the three operational cells are shown

in Table MICOM-1.
74
Table MICOM-l. Sensor Exposure Environment (SEE) Summary
PARAMETER IRSS Eoss APFS
WAVELENGTHS 0.2 TO 0.4o. 1 TO So. VISUAL. 2 TO 14. ULTRAVIOLET 1.7 TO 1S CM

MAX SEEKER DIAMETER 10 INCH 14 INCH 16 INCH
.. AX SEEKER WEIGHT 2S LBS 150 LBS 150 LBS
PLIGHT TABLE FREOUENCY RESPONSE IS TO 22 Hz 10 TO 23 Hr 13 TO 30 Hs
PHYSiCAL EFFECTS SMULATOR SIZE 27 X 12 X 1B FT CHAMBER: 38 X 40 X 120 FT CHAMBER: 46 X 48 X 40 PT
(HIGH. WIDE. LONG) (HIGH. WIDE. LONG) (HIGH. WIOF LONG)
PLUS 240 FT OUTDOOR
EXTENSION
TARGET RANGE 160 TO 16,000 FT 1.500 TO 144,000 PT 400 FT TO 94.000 FT
(ACTIVE COHERENT)
40 FT TO MISSILE
SENSITIVITY (OTHER)
MAX CLOSING VELOCITY 4.600 FTiSC 1.000 FT/SEC E.000 FT/SEC
(ACTIVE COHERENT)
. 20.000 FT/SEC (OTHER)
0
MAX TARGET ANGULAR RATE 100°/SEC 2004 /SEC 21.000OISEC
TARGET DYNAMIC RANGE 3. 6 X j4 Tq3.BX 10 TO 103 F'TCANOLES MISSILE SENSIPIVITY
10-2 Witrt s_ to .17 :m/m'
UPDATE RATE I TO 2 MSEC ANALOG I TO S 161SEC
FIELD Of VIEW :900 Az. :300 El "120* . :400 y 420 CONICAL SECTOR
TARGETICLUTTER TYPES TAILPIPEFLARE GROUND TARGETS GROUND RADAR
PLUME , TERRAIN AIRBORNE TARGETS
FUSELAGE THERMAL TERRAIN CLUTTER
BACKGROUND ECM
COUNTERMEASURES MULTIPATH
JET ENGINE MODULATION
RP IMAGING
Central Hybrid Computer: A CDC 6600 digital computer with 131K words
of 60-bit core memory and 20 peripheral processors comprises the digital com-
puter portion of the hybrid system. A pool of analog computers is provided
for assignment to any of the simulator systems. Two EAI pacer 700's and two
AD-41's are currently available. The ASC hybrid computing system Figure
MICOM-4, provides realtime computing support for operation of the Center's
three environmental simulators. The system's design permits assignment of
needed computing hardware to individual simulators in a manner that allows
easy reconfiguration for changing requirements. The digital computer's multi-
processing capability provides simultaneous operation of simulators where
software memory requirements and hardware timing are compatible with the
computer's capabilities. Ports for Direct Discrete/Analog Input/Output
(PDDAIO) are the operating system for executive control of the realtime simu-
lations. A unique-feature is the direct digital/digital links between the CDC
6600 computer and the dedicated digital computers in the simulator cells.
These direct links allow digital word transmission at rates up to 1 MHz.
475
- *~=-r-
ATOS 1 AIQAOa COMPUTER Room WJTAL COMPUtR
I I
IeS ANALOG ANA
AIGITAL
IPUTIN
mom
DIRECT DIGITAL DATA SINK
I
II u
Figure MICOM-4. Central Hybrid Computer Complex.
7.2.2. SIMULATION OETHODOL(IY
The Systems Simulation and Development Directorate has developed simu-

lations and conducted test and evaluation programs for all elements of the
military; Army, Nkvy and Air Force. The methodology of simulation development
and utilization in the Advanced Simulation Center is focused on imalti-user
utilization of the ASC capabilities. The development of a typical simulation
for customer outside the simulation center can be identified in five phases.
These phases are depicted in Figure MICOM-5. The length of time required in
each phase depends on the size and complexity of the simulation developed and
the applicability of previously developed modular programs. The emphasis is
on customer participation in the definition of objectives and the simulation
development process-to the extent feasible. A point of emphasis is that the
verifiction and validation phases are integral to the simulation development
and data generation-process. Program and model documentation is emphasized
throughout the various phases and the development of the system and subsystem
simulations; i.e. subsystem models, digital, and hybrid computer implemen-
tation and configuration for HWIL operations.
A methodology that allows for an efficient flow of activities during

the development process is required in order to minimize false starts and
reduce lead time in developing large scaled realtime simulations. A higher
order simulation language approach is used to develop simulation in the ASC.
The Adanced Continuous Simulation Language (ACSL) is the language used for
all phases of simulation development unless specific needs dictate other
choices. The flexibility associated with a higher order language allows a
somewhat improved procedure for simulation development and documentation.
76
p--.-
INOOIAL CATTAN
TDEFITIONOFCSOE
EC GfT
INACOLSTMESTIPMATE
FEASIBILITY N
COORDINATION
AND YES
SPLLAIONAGEEEN
ESRTS
TAK
DEVALCOENTLMIENTILAN
PLANFIIG
& PRCEDURE
SIMULATIO INSIULATIONF EEESTCNGTIO
MODEDEELOMEL VERI IONMN
SIMULATION SOTAIMP IMULTATIONCRS INEFAE

FIN DATAME
A COUISITIONS
VERATION BEALIE TSTINAGYD
- --- - --------
VIMULATION. OWCKLOOIC
S REPNTS
AN AL DOCUENTION
DOPENATION REMEAIDTOJ
FINAL REPORT
Figure MICOM-5. Typical ASC Simulation Program.
4 77
Figure MICOG-6 depicts the general functional flow of operational elements in
the ASC. Simulation objectives are carefully defined in conjunction with the
simulation users. Following the mathematical modeling and simulation design
implementation takes place along three paths which are not necessarily con-
current in time; the three paths consist of an all digital, an analytical
hybrid (i.e. all software and in realtime or better), and HWIL time critical
simulation. Typically a digital computer program is developed for all simula-
tions, pure analog, combined analog-digital hybrid or hybrid with HWIL opera-
tions. Given that a hybrid computer simulation is part of the simulation
objectives, the all digital will be structured to partition the model between
the digital and analog computers. An open loop test is required for all hard-
ware to be associated with a HWIL simulation. This hierarchy of simulation
development provides a coherent basis for simulation model verification and
validation.
A modular approach to system modeling and simulation development and

the use of a higher order simulation language provides the needed flexibility
to be responsive to customer needs for large scale system simulation.
IGITAL
SIMU LATI ON
SMuLa
119ICAH
DEL
A
MTOlgATA
~im
AtLSSAALYSP'I
SSIMUINLATION j tOP[ ATO
PAR YJIONNft FO onNI

R A
SIMULATION MODLSOOO
Caalpa PRTO
- ~~~ n, ~ .. ~ RFN FOIIR
CLOS90 LOO
-HROR as$ HOEL COEDLO
78
7.3. COMPANY CR CRGANIZATION
Name: Boeing Aerospace Company
Terminal Guidance Laboratory

P. 0. Box 3999
Seattle, Washington 98124
USA
POINT OF CONTACT
Mr. A. James Witsmeer

Telephone (206) 773-2819
The Boeing Terminal Guidance Laboratory (TGL) is described as

including several chambers, each designed to accommodate a prescribed portion
of the frequency spectrum and all are connected to a central computer complex
capable of supporting realtime operations. The physical facilities for
missile systems related simulation and tests include: a radio frequency
chamber, millimeter wave chamber and an electro-opticalilaser/IR chamber.
These facilities are supported by a combination of computers associated with
each individual chamber and a central digital computer complex for realtime
HWIL operations. In addition, the physical facilities also include an out-
door radar range for measuring target radar cross sections and an antenna
range, most of which is indoors, for testing and measuring antenna patterns.
The chambers in the TGL are viewed for the most part as a technology
development facility, this is particulary true for the radio frequency and
microwave facility. The TGL has developed an advanced technology base in the
RF SEE. The effectiveness of this technology development is indicated by the
fact that Boeing has developed and installed RF Simulator facilities for the
Army, Navy and Air Force. The present RF SEE was made to evaluate both active
and semiactive seeker systems. The generation of two separate targets is
achieved with a 16 x 16 element array with a frequency range of 2 GHz to 12
GHz, housed in an anechoic chamber approximately 7 meters wide, 7 meters high
and 20 meters long. Separate array elements are used for clutter generation.
A three axes flight table provides for a 6-DOF HWIL simulation capability.
The major strength of these facilities is in the test and evaluation as
applied to tactical missile systems. The millimeter wave facility represents
an area of technology outside the RP facility. This technological capability
is viewed as the major strength of the TGL and is considered to be the only
simulator of this type to exist. The facility has been passively operating
for a year to test millimeter wave seekers and is expected to be fully opera-
tional by the end of 1982. The present chamber is designed for an operating
range of 30 GHz to 300 0Hz. Equipment testing has occurred only in the bands
of 30 GHz to 50 GHz and 90 GHz to 100 GHz. Equipment is not presently
available to test outside these bands. The distance from the seeker to the
array is approximately 20 feet. Targets are generated by individually
controlling elements in a 32 by 40 or 1280 element array. With an update rate
of 10 milliseconds, the millimeter wave energy is generated by ordinary
florescent bulbs mounted in an ordinary household funnel with each bulb or
element individually computer controlled. Eight lamps are used to represent a
79
!____________________________________
target. Developers believe this technique of producing millimeter wave energy
provides usable frequencies up to 300 GHz. A UAX computer system controls the
array elements, generates and updates the target.
Simulations developed in the terminal guidance simulation laboratory

with HWIL operations typically have two objectives. First, test the ability
of the system to determine if a target exists and then to accomplish target
acquisition. Second, evaluate the ability of the terminal guidance system to
steer the missile into the target. This mode of test and evaluation implies a
realistic modeling of the real world target and associated environments. For
RF environments, testing of target acquisition in a clutter environment is not
the main goal of test and evaluation in the TGL. While this can be achieved
to some degree, the target and clutter are simulated and the real world
clutter environment is the most desireable for hardware evaluation. Infrared
seeker HWIL operation in a simulated clutter type environment is typically
more readily achievable than in the RF simulated environments.
Simulation development in the TGL is initiated by developing an all

digital computational program with relative simple models. The subsystem
models and system level complexity is increased as necessary to accomplish
simulation objectives. The non-realtime all computational programs are
usually developed on a different digital computer that is used for HWIL opera-
tion. As the simulation evolves toward realtime operation, the simulation
models are transferred to the computers associated with realtime HWIL opera-
tion. The interchange of models for subsystem hardware is accomplished during
HWIL integration and checkout. The simulation development process does not
involve a higher order simulation language but uses FORTRAN and assembly
language programming. A combined analog/digital hybrid computer operation is
typically not used in simulation developed in the TGL. The hybrid computer is
located in another facility and is generally dedicated to aircraft studies.
These facilities are used by the terminal guidance laboratory only in very
special cases, e.g., the study of high frequency dynamics associated with body
bending modes, etc. In the event that system simulation models and HWIL
operation should require high speed capabilities that make the present facil-
ity limited, then a hardware link would be developed to connect the two
groups.
Formal procedures are not available for accomplishing model verification

and validation. The non-realtime all digital computation program is ,rsed for
operational checks-on the realtime implemented program and HWIL, which is
viewed as a type of verification. Each simulation is considered a special
case for validation. The initial step that is viewed as part of the valida-
tion process is open loop testing of hardware based on some defined test pro-
cedures. The test procedure is predicated on the basis that certain outputs
from the test will validate the analytical models. The open loop test data
and the analytical model results are compared. The interplay between the
model and hardware may result in two versions of the all computational simula-
tion programs. First, a more detailed system and subsystem models to closer
approximate the hardware subsystems, and second, a less complex model to
correlate with the realtime models used with HWIL operation. Flight test
results are not given a high priority in the procedure of model validation.
While the simulation is used for preflight analysis to predict perlormance,
80
ADA29 500 SURVEY0F MISSIL ESIMULATIONAND FLGHT MECHANICS
FACILTES IN NAT0 U) ARMYMISSILE COMMAND REDSTONE
ARSENALAL SYSTEMSSIMULATIONA. W M HOLMES
MAY 83
mmhmmhhmhhlm
mhhhhhhmmmm
IllMEoommo
1.0'
11 5~1
IIIII _ '-
11111
111 .1. 2
1.2
MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART

NATIONALBUREAU OF STANDARDS1963-A
iu
oJJE6 .06 .
postflight analysis is a significant factor only if the flight is not complete-
ly successful. Only then is an ad hoc effort made to diagnose the problem
and to verify that the diagnosis of the flight tester is correct. Flight
tests are used predominantly as a demonstration that the systems integrated
hardware works correctly. This view of flight test data is attributed
somewhat to the carry over from the developmant and testing of strategic
missile systems compared to tactical missiles. As pointed out, the larger
strategic missiles cost more to flight test, greater media attention is
focused on the flights and the tests are designed more for success, so a dif-
ferent philosophy is involved in total system testing. Some of this philoso-
phy is reflected in flight testing tactical missile systems. This in turn
emphasizes that the general purpose of flight tests is to evaluate the
integrated performance of the system hardware. Simulation is viewed predomi-
nantly as an analytical tool.
7.4. CaKPANY OR (RGANIZATION
Name: HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY
8433 Fallbrook
Building 265, MS P35
Canoga Park, CA 91304
USA
POINT OF CONTACT
Mr. J. A. Baker
Telephone: (213) 702-2387
The missile system simulation facilities at Hughes Aircraft Company

are centered around a hybrid computer capability. EO simulation is the focus
of operational simulation capabilities. The EO facilities here include tele-
vision guidanc&, infrared and Laser SEE. At the time of this survey, the
development and installation of a RF factlity is in progress and operation is
expected in the next 12 to 15 months. The background of experience with EO
physical facilities dates back to the mid and late 1960's in the development
of the television guided avrick missile, later changed to a laser guided
system. The effort to install a RP guided missile development using other
resources has been going on since before developing the Phoenix Missile in the
1960's. The-facilities that presently exist and are under development have
been established with the main purpose of having simulation capabilities to
use for company products. This in turn states that the use of these facili-
ties by any group outside the company in the foreseeable future would require
special circumstances, this is especially applicable to the RF facilities.
The concept embodied in the simulation facilities development is that of a
supplemental capability to other larger simulation capabilities that exist.
Specifically, the facilities as planned and developed are expected to satisfy
approximately 90 percent of Hughes' anticipated simulation need in the fore-
seeable future. The remaining 10 percent of need is expected to be satisfied
by larger existing simulation facilities that presently exist at Governaent
facilities.
81
The hybrid laboratory, while the focal point for simulation develop-
ment, is a separate facility in the complex of simulation operation. The
hybrid facilities provide the capability for testing of EO related seekers
with HWIL operation. Implementing the simulation program from models and
block diagrams is the responsibility of the hybrid laboratory. Tactical soft-
ware development that may be required in the total simulation is provided by
other departments within the company. The Guidance and Control and the
Missile System Development departments are the major areas in the company that
provide inputs in terms of models and criteria for simulation development.
The design goals of the RF SEE include three target channels operating in the
2 GHz to 12 GHz range. The radiation targets are inclosed in an anechoic
chamber, 40 feet long, 32 feet wide and 32 feet high, with quite zones greater
than 50 dB at frequencies greater than 8 GHz and 45 dB at 4 GHz. The target
positioning accuracy is 2.5 milliradians with an update rate of 1 kHz. A
three axes motion table for mounting the seeker permits a 6-DOF HWIL opera-
tion. The facility is used for active, semiactive and passive-missile
guidance engagement studies.
The major strength of the hybrid simulation laboratory, as identified

during this survey, is that of developing guidance simulations in the IR, EO
and laser areas. The simulation development process is initiated by a set of
clearly stated objectives of the intended simulation, as defined between the
simulation developer and user of the data to be generated. An all digital
simulation is developed using data provided by the customer. An all digital
program is also developed for hybrid computations and HWIL operations as part
of the general process of silbulation development. This program is used as a
reference to compare the effects of model updates prior to incorporating
changes into the hybrid or realtime simulations. Simulation development pro-
ceeds by programming the subsystem models obtained from the responsible engi-
neering activity. The hybrid simulation laboratory does not develop models,
but has the responsibility for actually translating the models into a simula-
tion to accomplish specific steps toward achieving tests and data base
generating objectives.
A written formal procedure to accomplish simulation model verification

or validation is not presently available. Verification primarily consists of
insuring that the implemented model will perform certain functions consistent
with the purpose of the model. Validation of simulation models starts with
hardware at the subsystem level. A set of test procedures are established and
software drivirs are developed to drive the digital algorithm and the hard-
ware subsystem it represents. Dynamic characteristics of the model and hard-
ware are obtained for data comparison. Included in such a data base would be
the frequency response characteristic for open and closed loop operation where
such resting is feasible. The subsystem operation would be expanded to
include hardware that generates outputs that drive other subsystems, i.e.,
inertial reference units. The particular methods and techniques for comparing
model and hardware output data are not identified formally. During UWIL
operation, the subsystems are integrated into the simulations, replacing the
software models. As a further step in the validation, applicable hardware
subsystems are included in captive carry tests aboard aircraft. The equipment
is flown through specific flight schemes to obtain additional data for com-
paring models and hardware.
82
Missile flight test program support is viewed as a further step in.
checking hardware operations and obtaining data for model validation. The
duel importance of obtaining data on hardware operations- and data for model
validation is demostrated by obtaining data on hardware operations and data
for model validation by obtaining a reasonable mix of telementry variables
during flight tests. The testing of the Phoenix missile system is an example.
The analyst selected nearly one-half the telementry variables during the
flight test program. This provided for increased effectiveness in model veri-
fication and integrated hardware operations. Typical of the missile flight
and simulation variables are: time of flight, trajectory shape, commanded and
achieved accelerations. Miss distance is used but is not considered a strong
point in model validation. Missile flight test operations are typically con-
ducted by Government owned test sites since Hughes does not own ranges suf-
ficient of full scale flight tests.
Martin-Marietta Aerospace
Orlando Division
Post Office Box 5837
Orlando, FL 32855
USA
POINT OF CONTACT
Mr. Joseph M. Verlander

Mr. Don 3. Rose
Telephone: (305) 352-2000
7.5.1. BACKGROUND AN) COMMENTS
Martin's simulation and test capabilities are functionally organized

into two separate areas: the Simulation and Test Laboratory (STL) and the
Hybrid Simulation Laboratory. The STL operationally consists of a complex of
five areas within the STL: Man-in-the-loop simulation system, ground laser
laboratory, radar guidance laboratory, all-weather test laboratory and ranges,
and the heliport flight laboratory. A common computer complex controls opera-
tion in these areas to provide a capability for system design, evaluation,
component integration, verification and flight testing. Typical integrated
operations between the simulation and test laboratory and the ground based
laboratory are-depicted in Figure M4-1.
The Hybrid Computer Simulation Laboratory is basically a computational

sciences laboratory established for quick response problem solving in simula-
tion and computation. The hybrid laboratory is oriented to accept tasks from
both company sponsored projects as well as customers from outside the company.
This is a different operating philosophy compared to the STL which is com-
mitted almost entirely to the development of company projects. The general
view in the STL is that simulation is only a step in the process of acquiring
hardware production contracts.
j
83
- - ~61
Experience with other WTO countries includes the ATLIS program with
the French government, and switchology studies for the Royal Aircraft'
Establishment in the United Kingdom. - Areas ot interest -for achieving an
increased capability include developing improved terrain models for gaming,
trainers for rotor and fixed wing air-to-ground weapons delivery, and digital
radar land mass displays. Advances in computer generated immagery could
replace the terrain model in the near future.
af &AUD LASINAYM UISLAION 0 Myl~ UASOatOY
fl S~LA* ..
MOUNT £0C
rMit < O~kld4100114 OCOPCew
,&sL^ -....- '.---

III "M ATION l,
NNNmasO~t Va Irlxmp
COPTER DA'A Sa
Figre1*11.Typca Misin IInegateL B SIVAfoS oa
7.5.2.A METHOOLOG
SIMLAIO
CThT ani-theloo simulton ytmicueAeri olwn
Figure -1. Typical Mission Integrates oBL and STL for Total
System Test.
7.5.2. SIMULATION METRODOLOGY
The STL man-in-tho-loop simulation system includes a terrain following

EO system with aircraft cockpit operation. The total operation includes:
three aircraft cockpits interchangeably mounted on a 6-DOF notion base and an
80 by 40 foot three dimensional surface terrain model with scales changeable
from 1200:1 for fixed wing simulation to 225:1 for rotary-wing application.
The terrain model is equipped with a variety of tactical targets and optical
probes that transmit visual and symbolic scenes to the cockpits. The three
aircraft cockpits available for simulation studies are an A-10, P-16, and
YAH-64. Scheimpflug corrected optical probes mounted on a transporting beam
over the terrain model provide pitch, roll and yaw DOF to the cockpit. Other
84
• - ... .: .4 1
capabilities of the EO facility include special effects television generator,
1.5 to 20 degree field-of-view sensor probe, heads-up display symbology stroke
or raster format.
The Ground Based Laboratory (GBL) provides follow-on to full simula-

tion by integrating both actual and simulated avionics component for checkout
and flight testing within mission parameters. The avionics system checkout
capability includes: airborne computers, laser spot trackers using the outdoor
range, cockpit controls and displays and helmet mounted displays. The GBL
interfaces completely with the standardized aircraft avionics interfaces.
The Radar Guidance Laboratory (RCL) has the capability to test both
point and correlator radar seeker guidance system acquisition, tracking and
discrimination. The central computer complex provides simulation of the
flight vehicles aerodynamics, autopilots and kinematics. The simulation area
is located in a 25 by 25 by 30 foot deep anechoic chamber. A full 6-DOF capa-
bility is provided by a three axis flight table to simulate pitch, roll and
yaw of an inflight sensor. Two sets of RF generation equipment are used to
provide operating frequencies for point tracker simulations; one includes a
range from 0.5 to 12.4 GHz and the other from 12.4 to 18.0 GIz, which is also
used for area correlator simulations. Four distinct RF emitters can be simu-
lated simultaneously in the 8.0 to 12.4 G~z frequency. Each of these emitters
can independently simulate surveillance radars, surface-to-air-missile radars,
search and early warning radars or radar returns from illuminated targets.
Both jamming and deception electronic countermeasures (ECM) can be simulated.
Specific jamming techniques include spot, barrage, and sweep Jamming, also
chaff. Other radar simulation capabilities include; active and semiactive,
coherent, non-coherent and passive. Four simultaneous independent targets can
be simulated including decoys, standoff, onboard ECM, clutter and multipath.
Total field of view is 45 degrees with targets angular rates up to 28 degrees
per second.
The All-Weather Test Laboratory (AWTL) permits full-scale functional

testing of lasers, radars, EO, microwave and infrared seekers. Three surveyed
ranges converge at the AWTL housed in a fully enclosed facility located 50
feet above ground level. A three axis gimbaled system simulates dynamic
motion for system testing on one of the ranges. The radar range is 1.6 kilo-
meters long, enabling radar performance measurements against targets with low-
clutter background. The range is 10 degrees wide. An additional shorter
range is 1/2 kilometer long and covers an area 18 degrees wide. A laser range
is 1 kilometer long and 10 meters wide.
The Heliport Flight Laboratory permits flight testing of helicopter-

mounted laser, radar, infrared and EO devices. This facility provides for in-
field evaluation of system hardware development through simulation technology.
Specific features include: a department of transportation licensed facility; a
70 by 75 by 19 foot aircraft hanger; two 250 foot sod runways with paved ramp,
taxiway and landing pads; and ground and air VHF communications. The computer
system linking these laboratories together include: three signs 5'8 digital
computers, two of which run in parallel with a common 64K memory; an array
processor; PDPlI digital computer; and six EAI 231-RV analog computers.
85
• ii ii - ....
The Hybrid Computer Simulation Laboratory (or Computational Science
Laboratory) supports the company and outside contractors that require analyti-
cal and computational assistance. Physical facilities include FAI 8812 and
781 analog computers and 8900 digital computer with 7800 hybrid computer
interfaces, a Perking-Elmer 8/32 digital computer with company developed
multifunction table processors. The computational science laboratory develops
and delivers programs to the customer facilities. In the event that a hybrid
facility is not available, then a remote hybrid terminal can be used which
will assess and control a simulation from off-site locations using telephone
lines. Using digitized frequency modulation techniques, communications have
been effectively conducted with countries in Europe. The computational
laboratory does not have a three axis table for RWIL operation, however, such
facilities exist in other locations in the company and have been used on occa-
sion when required. The in-depth experience and computational facilities for
conducting sensitivity studies are considered a major strength of this labora-
tory.
7.6. COUNTRY OR ORGANIZATION

Name: McDonnell Douglas
5301 Bolsa Avenue
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
POINT OF CONTACT
Mr. Don Van Winkle
Telephone: (714) 896-7575
7.6.1. BACKGROUND AND CGMMENTS
The McDonnell Douglas Corporation began as two separate companies;

Douglas Company over 50 years ago and McDonnell more than 40 years ago. The
merger of the two companies occurred in 1967. The merger accounts for the
three locations of facilities; St. Louis, MO; Titusville, FL; and Longbeach,
CA. The Titusville plant is the high production plant to produce the DRAGON
Missile, the St. Louis plant's principle weapon system is the HARPOON Missile
Weapon System; and the Longbeach facilities, in addition to missile develop-
ment, also produce aircraft including DC8, DC9 and DCIO's, (military and
civilian versions).
The physical simulation facilities located at Longbeach includes com-

puter driven-laser and IR SEE with a three-axis table permitting sensor HWIL
operation. The methodology of operation in the physical facilities is indi-
cated in Figure MDAC-1. A spherical projection dome is mounted concentrically
with the gimbal center of the cargo flight table. The IR target generator
includes sources of circular and simple continuous shapes projected on the
servo driven mirror system. An advanced target generation capability includes
a video camera/target physical model combination with attitude controls
coupled to a lamp or emitter matrix to generate IR target parameters. The
stated major strengths of the McDonnell Douglas Longbeach facility in tactical
missile related capabilities lie in: System level engineering and system
integration, with sensor capabilities in IR, laser and EO areas. The capabil-
ities include facilities to perform independent software checkout of flight
computers operation and software verifications.
86
.
* *FLO* *""...... .
ZND FLOUK
' PROJECTOR DOME
c€f , TARGET
PROJECTOR,
CARCO S-N5RSERVOED
Figure MDAC-l. Target Simulator and Flight Table.
The philosophy of simulation development is based on the "MDAC three-

tier simulation" that couples technology characteristic to missile require-
ments. This hierarchial approach is depicted in Figure MDAC-2. This approach
has mission effectiveness simulation with "many on some number N" war gaming
results that produce a flow of requirements into an intercept simulation.
One-on-one studies -in turn generates inputs to subsystem design and analysis
simulation. Subsystem performance requirements are generated as an end pro-
duct from this third level simulation. Within this hierarchy -of simulation,
the requirements flow from top down with performance flowing upward for final
analysis in mission effectiveness and cost analysis.
Supporting the hierarchical approach to simulation are system analysis

and synthesis tool developed maintained and updated through independent
research and development. Primary analysis tools that have been developed
include: MOSES (Modular System for Event Simulation) and GVPAT (Guidance and
Vehicle Performance Analysis Tool) and TABTOP (Three-Dimensional Atmospheric
Branched Trajectory Optimization Program). MOSES is the primary tool for
mission effectiveness simulation studies. MOSES is a discrete event based
simulation with application options using mission requirements or threat
characteristics as input data. MOSES is a versatile building block tool for
87
4
-a 4 S . f uel~
£iFIX.TI
V It SS REQU'IREMENTS : EmIV4
E1VUS
SIMULATI0 COST
t ,
UTNESU
PERFORMANCE FFELTA RQUIREMENTS
ALULATION
(ONE-,ON,(M£)
SUBSiY
ST'EM
DESIGNLAND
N
L_
tJ~
11 i PERFORMANCE ANLYSIS
lRLIABILITY
Figure MDAC-2. The MDAC Three-Tire Simulation Approach to

Achieving Mission Requirements.
developing system simulations for study and analysis of: Command, Control and
Communications (C3 ), Ballistic Missile Defense, Antitank Battlefield
Effectiveness, Ship Point Defense and Area Defense Fleet Combat Simulations.
The primary tool for performing one-on-one guidance analysis, per-

forming analysis and control vehicle design and analysis studies is GVPAT.
The GVPAT library includes tactical missile models for 3-, 5-, and 6-DOF simu-
lations for air-to-air, surface-to-air and air-to-surface missile system analy-
sis. The GVPAT simulation and analysis outputs provide requirements for
missile subsystems.
A third analysis tool frequently used in weapon system development is

TABTOP. This is a program used for mission optimization studies for endo-and
exo-atmospheric vehicles studies. This includes maximiziag vehicle payload
and ranges and minimizing time of flight. TABTOP is best used when the form
of the control law is unknown. The methodology of TABTOP is essentially a
closed loop steepset descent method used to converge to the approximate solu-
tion. The output form of the control law can be used to initialize other
parts of the program using Quasi-Linearization algorithms to converge to
Euler-Lagrange calculus-of-variation solutions.
88
" .....
- .. . . + a -- k _ __ - - ..
Name: Central Target Simulator Facility

Naval Research Laboratory
Washington, D. C.
POINT OF CONTACT
Dr. C. E. Dunham
Telephone: (202) 767-5931
7.7.1. BACKGROUND AND CGMMENTS
The simulation laboratory facilities at the Naval Research laboratory

(NRL) include the RF Central Target Simulator (CTS), the RF Simulation
Laboratory and the IR Laboratory. The CTS is a laboratory simulation facility
which consists of a centrally located modern computer complex and an RF SEP
facility. The facility is instrumented for emphasis on testing and evaluating
electronic warfare, i.e., ECK systems and ECM harden missile seekers under
simulated tactical conditions utilizing HWIL operation. The CTS RF array is a
matrix of up to 1024 computer controlled antennas. Presently, the matrix con-
sist of 128 antenna elements. Radiated RF emissions represent multiple moving
targets, ECM and environmental phenomena are accurately simulated and can be
used to exercise missile seeker hardware using one-on-many tactical engage-
ments. The RF environment can dynamically test EW equipment or techniques
using simulated tactical conditions of multi-point radar signatures of a
single ship or multi-ship scenario, each with different target charac-
teristics. The CTS SEE includes an RF shielded anechoic chamber which serves
as the free space enviroment, optimized for operation in the 8 to 18 GHz fre-
quency bands. Shielding is obtained via an all-welded enclosure and varies
from 60 dB at 14 kHZ to greater than 100 dB throughout the microwave region.
The matrix array is mounted on a quasi-spherical structure a distance of 75
feet (22.9 meters) from the chamber focal point. Dynamic positioning and
motion of targets on the array are achieved by selecting a specific four-
element quadrangle within the matrix and accurately varying the radiated power
from each element while simultaneously maintaining a balanced phase differen-
tial between different radiating path. The net effect as observed at the
focal point is an apparent point of radiation whose accuracy is on the order
of 1 illiradian. The signal generator and modulator portions of the sub-
systems are used t generate the specific electromagnetics environments. This
environment, which_includes targets, propagation effects and ECH is controlled
by the post processor/controller. Figure NRL-l shows the division of the
various CTS functions.
The CTS system capabilities are shown in Table NRL-l through Table
1
M~L-4
1I Information in these tables extracted from Reference 3.
89
DAETAeR cM
RECORDSING~dO
UOFIWANANC MISILOMDE
ARROY SIGNCS
FigureR C AXIl
S Close-Loo GiEiNeERASTIlOton
ACE TalLIG -SI. SysemCaabliie COTAND
'A'~ PFigESh Poe ChannelO
AU21.8O urad CoarCeULATION

EAciERDA PowerMRORA
S
ArEa . GE32 TRYpus/C
~
High ~ ~ PoMPUer
UTWR 7 de uY Fco
MEMOR
SimulationIMLATON
RaS a)RdrCERo eIOn
2
CONTROL I
AT.ORi
35 OPER083
ArrayRO 3.0 nAi. 0. nTf
Arrayd Ar paiayt
Array Feed It 20 Fin Posit0iP

I0Hligh Power Channel
PoaiainHrzna rVria
Eah4e
TaretPoifonAccray wd ) in Ps9io
21. Coars Postio.a

Table NRL-2. CTS System Capabilities
Three Axis Flight Table (TAFT) Capability
ROLL PITCH YAW

2 2
Acceleration 30,0000/Sec 10,0000/Sec2 10,0000/Sea
0
Velocity 5000/Sec 200 /Seo 20OO/So
0
Velocity Resolution 0.022 /Sec 0.0110/Sec 0.01IO/Seo
Displacement Z 1000 *400 + 500
Accuracy 0.050 0.0050 0.0050
Maximum Load 150 lb (250 lb with reduced
performance)
TAFT Test Article Ph'ysical Limits
Characteristics Standard Maximum
Size (Cylindrical) (Stepped Cylinder)

Diameter 16 in. 18/22 in.
Length 60 in. 60 in.
Roll Plate to Gimbal 14 in. 24 in.
Axes Intersection
Weight 150 lb 250 lb
Moments of Inertia
About Roll Axis 1.5 slug ft22
About Pitch Axis 1!5.0slug ft
2
About Yaw Axis 15.0 slug ft
91
ECM Generation Capability
Programmable Frequency Range 8-18 GHz

FM Modulation Techniques
Frequency Resolution 1 M4Hz(8-10 GHz; 15-18 GHz)
25 MHz (10-12 GHz; 12-15 GHz)
Residual FM 50 kHz (8-18 GHz)
Progr amable Swept Center Frequency
RF Deviation (Swept Noise) 10 to 1000 MHz
(10 MHz steps with tolerance of + 10 M z)
Linear Sawtooth Sweep 0.1 Hz to 100 kHz in following steps
Rates (flyback time of less
than 1% of period)
0.01 Hz 0.1 to I Hz
0.1 Hz 1 to 10 Hz
1 Hz 10 to 100 Kz
10 Hz 100 to 1000 Hz
100 Hz 1 to 10 kHz
1 kHz 10 to 100 kHz
Progr atmable FM Noise (Spot Noise)

RF Deviation 5 50 200 MHz (in 5 MHz steps)
Special Power Density Uniform to within + 2 dB of average
(Gaussian riltered noise) noise power within any I 14Hzbandwidth
AM Modulation TechniQues
Programmable AM Noise
Amplitude Deviation 0-45 dB
(dynamic range)
3 dB AM Noise Bandwidth 10 Hz to 10 14Hz
(noise spectra to have at
least 80% of spectral power
in the 3 dB bandwidth and be
flat to within 2.0 dB in any
1 MHz sample)
EQ0 Tactics
Chaff Computer model
Cover Pulse,
RGPO, Individual parmeters
Blinking and are computer
Cooperative Jamming programmable
92
. . .. . .
Target Generation Capability
Programmable Frequency Range 8-18 GHz

Frequency Resolution 100 kHz
Frequency Stability I x 10- 9 /day
Waveforms Pulse, CW
Programable Pulse Width 0.1 to 6.5 sec in 50 nsea steps
(5% accuracy)
ON/OFF Ratio 65 dB min in 10 MHz instantaneous
bandwidth
Pulse Jitter 5 nseC'maximum
Programming Response Time
o Frequency (full-band), 100 msec maximum
o RF Pulse (at output) 2 see maAimum from receipt of
data to 10% point on leading ed
Simultaneous Target I Fine Position and 4 Coarse or
2 Fine Position
Calibration Reference Lines 1 RF, 2 IF
Radar Cross Section, Statistical models
Amplitude Scintillation and via computer
Angle Glint
Computer Update Rate 5 mseo/target (typical)
Three general classes of simulation techniques are used to establish

the validity of ECM against various threat systems. These include: mathemat-
ical simulation (via digital or analog computers), realtime HWIL simulation
(laboratory simulation) and field test and evaluation. The real-time hardware
is the major function and purpose of the CTS. Utilization of the facility
capabilities is based on the recognized gap that exists between the utility
capability of purely mathematical simulation and the cost associated with
field testing. The evolutionary process involved in planning and conducting
an effective test and evaluation, utilizing the Central Target Facility
involves five separate phases. They are: (1) Coordination and planning, (2)
development (hardware and software), (3) integration and checkout
(installation of test configuration and hardware/software readiness test), (4)
test (test procedures and verification), and (5) documentation (data assembly,
analysis, an& forrating). Each phase is designed to prepare the user of the
simulation with generated results and to help the simulation developer prepare
for a more efficient and effective use of the facility's resources.
The CTS is primarily a UWIL simulation facility where equipment such

as ECM techniques generators and missile seekers and guidance sensors can be
physically positioned in the facility and dynamically exercised using a
variety of test conditions. These conditions can include realtime closed-loop
operation featuring simulated tactical scenarios or open-loop test where
control of key parameters are maintained by the user.
93
" :Al l i -:l'l-i

7.8. COMPANY OR CRGANIZATION
Name: Raytheon Company

Missile System Division
Hartwell Road
Bedford, MA 01730
POINT OF CONTACT
Mr. William C. Morton

Telephone: (617) 274-7100 Ext. 2948
Mr. Mitchell E. Sisle

Telephone: (617) 274-7100 Ext. 4453
Raytheon's Missile System Division's philosophy for missile system

simulation is to develop a Ground Test Simulation Facility (GTSF) or a spe-
cialized facility for each major missile system developed by the company.
This approach to large scale simulation has produced RF operational facilities
for the HAWK/SPARROW, PATRIOT and a New Missile Facility. The Missile System
Division's physical facility capabilities include IR systems test and evalua-
tion, however, the major strength is in the RF area. These facilities are
used for the design, development and test evaluation of RF seekers for par-
ticular missile systems. Each facility includes at least one three axes
flight table permitting a 6-DOF, and HWIL operation. The more recently
completed ew Missile Facility is designed to minimize the time required for
changeover from one seeker system to another. This facility includes the
capability to test and evaluate missile guidance systems with active seeker.
The RIF environment in the ew Missile Facility includes operation in the X
band frequencies. The target generation is achieved with a horn array con-
sisting of a spherical dish on which are mounted 103 radiating elements,
twelve TRIAD steering controllers and the necessary switching to direct the
target to the correct elements. The array is controlled so that four targets
can be simultaneously represented. Supporting the ew Missile Facility simu-
lation operation is a software evaluation facility used to evaluate and size
programs for on board missile computers.
7 . 8.2. SIMULATIO M-ETHODOLOGY
A wide-spectrum of analysis and synthesis tools have been developed,

in addition to the physical facilities, during the 10 to 15 years. The
design/simulation development process, as shown in Figure lAY-1 and used by
the Missile System Division, is initiated at the systems concept level using
linear models, progressing to the systems analytical design phase using com-
bination of linear and non-linear model. The systems analytical tools provide
requirements and specifications for hardware and software Aesign implemen-
tation. Hardware and software design validation is typically directed toward
a flyable system. The GTSF are used for preflight check and subsystem design
model validation and post flight analysis. System performance evaluation
uses the physical facilities of the GTSIf with 6-DOF, hybrid computer simula-
tion with HWIL operation.
94
917
SYSTElM CONCEPT LINEARt
. MODELS
SYSTEM A14ALYT ICAL

DESIGN
NONLINMM
"--'--"-" 00OLS
SO TWAItt
SOF MA $1rr N O
VDIAUODTI
WtAKtE SYSTEM /
PI|FLIGI CIIECKOUT GS
POSnTFLIGHT ANALYSIS
FU9141 DATA
E.VALUA ION
6 DOF
,. IIYIRID
SYSILM
CAPAIILIIY
Figure RAY-I. Design/Simulation Process.
A simulation model hiearchy, as depicted in Figure RAY-2, typically

provides analysis and synthesis tools for use at all levels of missile system
design and test arid evaluation. Operating from a top down viewpoint, starting
with threat definitions, and using combinations of deterministic and statisti-
cal programs, mission analysis is performed studying force-on-force, and one-
on-one engagement. After establishing measures of performance for a total
system, subsystem requirements, such as seekers, autopilots, actuators, and
engagement profiles are determined. Missile system and subsystem model vali-
dation efforts continue throughout the test and development cycles, using
results from laboratory test data, HWIL operation, culminating with flight
test data and post flight data analysis. The majority of the programs and
performance models would be available for use on a joint or cooperative
program for missile system tests and evaluation. Typical of such programs
are:
95
The Tactical War Simulation Program (TWSP) is a force-on-force model
that allows the study and analysis of combination of defense weapon
systems.
URGENCY is a program that includes simplified models of ground based

systems to identify specific ranges that certain events have to occur
in order to fire a specified number of shots.
MSFIMS program involves a different level of modeling which includes

engagement logic functions that takes place in a PATRIOT type radar
regarding allocation of search sectors, weapon allocations to a par-
ticular target, and establishing track files.
The Infrared Acqusition (IRACQ) model indicates operations that takes

place at the subsystem level in art infrared guided missile. The com-
puter model is Monte Carlo in nature and has been used in analysis and
development of antitank missiles.
Terrain Following/Terrain Avoidance (TF/TA) program includes models

coupled with simulations of terrain in various parts of the world
which can generate shadow and other data to assist in deciding when a
missile could be most effectively fired from a surface based system.
These programs are only an indication of the analytical tools available to

establish design requirements, conduct system analysis, and performance evalua-
tion on tactical missile systems.
GUIDANCE
SYSTEM
NONLINEAR
LINEAR AND SPECIAL 6 DOF
MODELS PURPOSE SIMULATIONS
MODELS
-SIMPLE FORWARD
MODEL
-SEEKER
TRANFERLINEAR DYNAMICS HSRESGS
TRANSFER DIFFERENTIAL CLUTTER H SERIES GrS?
FUNCTIONS EQUATIONS SPECTRUM (HYBRIo)
r SNAP
AOPOTMISS
AUTOPILOT LADJOINT LETHALITY
UFUZ/ -HID
Ml
GUIDANa miss
LOOP
Figure RAY-2. Simulation Model Hierarchy.
96
mow",N.l
Table US-i. Infrared Faciities

COUNTRYUnited States

Waelength EneRV _ Sensor Inputs By Sensor (Degrees)
C(Micro- Broad Narrow Simul- Instan- Totld
2 AZ EL
me:ters) Band Band (WATTS/CM ) taneously Shapes taneous
Facility (Lsrs) -
Army's I to 5 Broad 10-13 1.3 x 10-4 Circular 7 ±90 ±30

Advanced (0.2 to 0.4) to 10-13 watts/ Triangular
S imulation (ultraviolet) CM 2/SR
Boeing 300 to 14 Narrow -1 Circular Laser ?0.5 30.5

(5 and 10.6) spot
(Laser) function
or sensor
obtics
Eglin 3 to 5 Broad -1Point £4

Air Force (1.06 Laser)
Hughes 3-5, 8-14 Broad Variable Various Point, bar, 6 6 6

(laser target
1.064) imago,
MArtin (NO INFRARED FACILITIES) - -- p
Mc Donnel11 1 to 5 Broad &Narrow -2 Circular, 5 350 200

Douglas (laser 1.06) Simple
(10.6) Continuous
shapes
Raytheon 1 to 14 Broad -1Circle, 3 8 3

(laser 10.6) Manual
Iris,
Square
Naval 3-5. 8-14i Broad 0 to 10-r All Ship Decoys N/A 60 20

Research Targets
Laboratory
97
Table US-2. Infrared Facilities
COUNTRY
United States
Angular Subterae'of Sensor Motion Counter- Type Facility

Targets as Viewed PaPosition (Degrees) measures Simulated Used To
Facility by Sensor (Milliradians) VaVelocity (Deg/Sec) Simulated Engagement Evaluate
A.Air-to-Air
____________________________________________ .03-to-Air
Mx Min Pitch Roll Yaw C.Air-to-Gnd
Army's 21.0 0.3 P..80 Pa.360 Pa±90 Flares. CW A, C 0ev and

Advanced V.100 V.7200 VW1O and pUlse Prod HW, 13
Simulation jawer3 Guidance
Center Systems
Boeing 00.0 3.0 P..65 P..180 P.ei45 Flares A, B, C 0ev HW,

V.200 P.700 V.600 In Cuil
Eglin - - Px.5 Px*360 P-45S - A, P 0ev MW,

Air Force V.200 V.700 Vx4100 Production
IF Oullance
Hughes 120 6 P..45 P..175 P.+120 - A, B, C Dev HW,

V.310 V.7750 V-900 Production,
IF 'uian"e
Martin (NO INFRARED FACILITIES) - - - ---
McDonnell 200 0.2 Pz.1 20 P..360 Pz.120 CW Jammers A, 8, C Dev HW,

Douglas V.1000 VZOO Pulse Jammers IF Guidance
SSst ems
Raytheon 8 eg5rees 8 degrees P..120 P-e120 P..1;0 Flares A, C Develop

V.300 V.600 V.700 Hardware
Naval 100 2,8 P..90 - P..90 Flares C Counter-

Research V.700 - V.200 measures
Laboratory
Table US-3. Radio Frequency Facilities

COUNTRY United States
ANECHOICCHAMBER
Frequency Sensor
Generated Simulation Size (Meters) Number Of are Motion
Reflection Separa te From Center
Facility 1112 BAND. INJECT -RADIATE L w H CoeFFicient Radiatin Line of Array
I (Decibels) Channels (Degrees)
Army's 2-18 S,C,I - Radiate 12.2 14.6 16.6 R~7*2

Advanced GHZ Ku
Simulation
Center
Boeing 2to SIE - Radiate 19.8 7.12 '.32 2 CHZ 'If1 2
Eai 8 to - Inject Radiate 8.2 6.1 6.f _6 *

Air Force 12 0HZ
Hughes 8 to - - Radiate 12 10 '6) -1,0dB Quiet *12

12 GHZ Zone -8 ;HZ
Martin 0.1 to - - Radiate 8 6 6 -40 .4

_180HfZ
McDonnell (NO RADIO FREQUENCY

FACILITIES)
Douglas
Raytheon - C - Radiate 8 a.q 4.r -60 *210

(Three - I - Radiate In 6 II -00 12 *16
Faclites) - X - Radiate 6 1.6 2.6 _F0 4 :17
!level 8-18 -- Radiate 14 li 11 -60 22C .4.37 EL

Research GHZ Antennas .9.17 AZ
Laboratories
4 98
COUNTY United Stat..
Targets Waveform
NU a Number of Targets Generation
&CC a Position Accuracy Array C-Chirp Model
(Nilliradiana) Eftective Frequency Polarization P-Pulsed i
Update Radiated Diversity Diversity C-Continuous clutter
Facility Rate Power Vay.
NU ACC (HZ) (Matta) YES NO yeS NO O-Other YES NO
ArmY's 6 .3 to 1000 30 dBm Y - Y C, P, V, y -
Advanced 1 .5 Various pulse
Simulation codes
Center
Boeing 2 +2.0 100 1 watt Y - - N C, P, CW
Eglin t 1.5 2500 2.5 watts Y - - N C, P, CW

Air Force ooherent/
non eent
Hughes 3 2.5 1000 .05 watts Y - Y - C, P, CM -

coded wavetor
Martin 6 approx 50 10 dEN I - - P,CN - N
1.0
McDonnell (NO RADIO FREQUENCY FACILITIES) - - -
Raytheon 4 0.2 100 .010 Y - Y C, P, C Y -

(Three 4 0.2 65 .001 - - N C, P, CW Y -
Facilities) 4 1.0 C , .010 - N - - I, "
Naval 8 1.0 50 *1.0 N N P, Cm N

Resesrach OunAIPH
Laboratories Noia." RGPO
99
i___
~ . -
Sensor
Sensor Motion Accomodation Engagement Simulated Planned
P. Position (Deg) L a Length (CM) A.Active Guidance Facility Used Improvements
Vvelocity D - Diameter (04) P.Passive Guidance for Evaluation Or
Facility (De/Seoc) WY. Veiht (KG) S.Semi-Active Of: Development Modification
Countermeasure
Army's P'.*50 Pz+50 Pz+50 152 4? 68 A P 3 Dev HW, Increase array

Advanced Vv200 VJO0 V200 Production, effective
Simulation 04, R&D radiated power,
RF modeling
Boeing P-15 P*+180 P2+45 39.6 50.8 550 A P S Dev HW None

V.2O V.700 C200 (limited) 04, R and D
Eglin P-+55 P-.175 P-+55 127 20.3 33.3 A - S Dev HW ECM capability,
Air Force VZOO V10 V700 Production Multiple
R&D targets, Freq
down 2 GHZ
Hughes P-+60 P:1170 P.+45 145 38 77 A P S Dev, CM Growth to 2-

VJlO0 V 400 V='00 Production, 18 GHZ,
R&D planned 35 GHZ
and 34 GHZ
Martin P-+45 Pu+360 P.+45 70 350 25 A P 3 Dev HW, CM Software for

VJ2500 V.900 V=.500 R&D generation of
clutter
McDonnell (NO RADIO FREQUENCY

FACILITIES) - - - - -
Douglas
Raytheon P2+50 P..50 P*±50 150 41 68 - - S Dev, CM, R&D ECM Exist
(Three =2OO V.S0 V.200 -..-
Facilities) P+60 P2+180 P+90 125 41 68 A Dev, CM, R&D Impv. E04
VJ75 V.700 V-220 - - -
- P+150 - 50 50 30 P S Dev, CM, R&D Impv. ECM
V.150 - - - - - --
Naval P.0l P-+100 P.50 152 40 68 A P 5 Dev, CM, R&D To incl

Research VW200 V.500 VW200 Production Doppler
Laboratories Hardware Sensing,
ECM Tech.
100
Table US-6. Electro-Optical Facilities
Facility Method oF Target Spectral Range Scale Target Scene

Scene Generation Of Target Scee Factors Illumination
Visible IR Visible IR Visual Mid Near Far Incan- Floree-
Army's Yes Yes Yea - 0.45 1.5 0.72 8 to 600: 1 200 FC 600 FC
0
Advanced to to to 14 300: 1 28000K 7500 K
Simulation 0.72 5.6 1.5 IR:500:1
Center
Boeing - Yea Yes 0.4 - 1.06 T FC -

to 50000K
0.7
Eglin - Yes - 0.45 - 0-400 -

Air Force to (4100oK)
0.7
Hughes - - Yes 0.14 1.064 - 600: 1 - 400 0

to (4800 K)
0.7
Martin Yes Yes - 1200: 1 200 500

240:1
McDonnell - - Yes Yes 0.4 0.5 - - 0.1
Douglas to to Solar
0.65 5.0 (32000K)
Raytheon (NO EO FACILITIES)
Naval (NO EO FACILITIES)

Research
Laboratory
101
Table US-7. Electro-Optical Facilities
Facility Image to Sensor Collimating Minimum Sensor Motion Translation Laser Type of
AU-AUTO- Optics Altitude PaPoaltion (Deg) V=Vertical Cape- Engarement
Collimate Lanse R=Reractive Simulated V-Velocity (Deg/ L=Lateral bility Simulated
OT-Other REReflective (Meters) See) LOLonKitudinal Yes/No
FOVxPield of View (Meters)
Facility AU OT /8E Focus Pitch Roll Yaw V L LO ArAir to Air

(FOY) Range PsCround to Air
(Deal (Meters) CzAir to ,round
Army's AU - R 1. - 125 P..35 P..80 P..90 P.10.6 P=10.8 P=36. No C

Advanced (FOV.3O) 48 Vj20 V.2000 V=200 V.1.8 V=1.2 V.4.V
Center
Boeini - Project - - ?-40 P..5 P=..80 P,.45 - - - Yes A, 8. C

Zoom V.700 V=00 VJoo - - -
Lenle
Eglin - Zoom R/RE 0 to - P=..5 P-1360 Pr..5 - - - Yes A, B. C

Air Force Lense (FOV:i) Infrinty V=200 V=700 V.100
Hughes AU R 0 to 61 P.. A P..175 P=.120 - - - Yes C

(POVP7.5) 8.000 V=310 V=T750 V:60O
Martin - Optical - - 8.0 P..25 P=.160 P-.360 P=7 P-11.S Pf2h No C

Probes to -90
38.0 V2100 V2100 V=100 V-1.5 V21.2 V=3
McDonnell AU - - 100 - P..120 P=.160 Ps=120 Yes A, , C

Douglas (FOV.5)' V.100 V.1000 V=,O0
Raytheon (NO £0 FACILITY)
Naval
Research (NO E0 FACILITY)
Laboratory
102
---. -"' ," ,'A,,,'.

*1
" ...- .. . . .... .. . . ."--,-.. ..- - ,." - -T-- ' :, ' -
Table US-8. Electro-Optical Computation
Facility Analog Computers Method of Digital Computers

Number ber Operational Generating Number Largest Cathode Software
And Of Ampifiers Funotion" Of And Memory Ray Tube package
Model Hltiplers one. Two, Model Available Terminals Used
Variables
Army's 3-AD 162 960 Hybrid parallel CDC 131K 5 Scope

Simulation 1-EAI Multi-variable 6600 (60 BIT) Modifted for
Center 781 PCT generators Fealtine
Boeing A 160 120 DIODE F.G. 1, Vax, One Mega- Vax, 05, Varian
Beckman Varian Byte Vortex II
Eglin 9 125 625 Digital Function 11; HP, 06K 2 EAD. DOS, DEC,
Air Force EAT, Generation PPP, DEC RKS-liM,
MINIAC Pacer PTI-A8. 4P
Hughes 5 214 576 Special Purpose ;, PIP, TCOK 10 BPM, VMS,

EAT Micro Dec, Vax Fortran, FL-1
Beckman Processor Sigra P1scl. VAX-
Martin 10 460 ?040 Pipeline I18K 8 'mapped
EAD Processor ri.va 'PP
McDonnell 2 160 512 Digital 30, CDC 4 Mega More Standard for
Douglas AD-A XDS, DEC Bytes Than Computers
Interdata lCD
Raytheon 3 38,48,60 16,136,136 Digital in 1, 600K 5 IMSL

CI-5000 Hybrid CYBER 8 DISPIA
Configuratlon 175
Naval (NONE) - 10 192K 12 RSX-11M

Research DEC PDP
Laboratory 11/21, lu,
115,5r. 70
103
Table US-9. Electro-Computer Computation
COUNTRYUnited Stas
C3% Hybrid Number Of Number Of C8L Type Herdvwro-In. Type Hardwre Type
Type Computer Analog-To- Digital-To Package For The-LooW Typically Inter aoes
Facility SiLLation Operatliot Digital Analog Hybrid Simulatlon Included Typically
Lafaupas Converts Coertr. Simultion , HL Renuired
Ai. a Advaned Tee 64 64 &CUM Too Ft computers Electronic,
Advanced Cotinuous ge Autopilots. Hydraulic.
Simulation Eimlatinc Actuators Computr
Center Laguage Seekers
Boeing None Tea 82 502 Noe Yee Tactical Electronic
Missiles A-D, D-A
Wimn No Yea 110 110 BAY- Yes Seekers/Auto- Electronic,

Air Force ELSSL-II Pilots. inertial Pneumatic
Hughes in-House Yes 80 80 No Yes Seeker, digital Electronio,

sin lang autopilot, Mechanically,
(3AD.),- actuators computer
Martin No yes 128 128 No Yes TV Optical

Tracker, cockpits,
syambol. eneration
MoDomeli Yes yen 1 512 No Yes Gyros, seekers All

Douglas C&L, ACSL digital control
• .. systetm
Raytheon ACSL 3 system 32, 32, 32 56. 64, 64 None Yes Missile borne Electronic,
computer, Mechanical,
seekers, auto- Computers
pilots
Naval NO NO Yee Seekers, Electronic,
Research guidance units, Mechanical
Laboratory ECHJamers,
receivers
104
Table US-lO. System Simulation Development
COOTHIT United State*
Facility ProcedUre. forModel Procedures tar Model Procedures for Model

implementation or Verification Validation
Analog or Digital
Computer
ArysAll digital ACSLprogram, ECCSL Overlay ties histories, tin* Compare simulation resulta
Advanced for anlog, develop program serie analysis, hypothesis with hardware data, post flight
Simulation modules for maJor sub arsem testing, data analysis.
Center-
%*eIng Use Of good engineering Direot comparison Iwith test data All computational models
Judgesent WA best available and continual cmarison at HVIL built along with the hardware
methods. results against all computational In the loop testing and output
Models both detailed and simplified. overjoyed to validate.
zglin Frequency response model Set of forcing functions drive Model outputs compared to
Air Force analysis, sub elements hybrid computer and all digital test data, open and closed
simplified,* implewmted simulations.*Outputs are loop Operations, flight teat
on di it 1 or aa-. onrd*daaoiaios
Hughes Math models developed, division Digital siftulaLiO02 often used to Hardware in the loop studies,
of cod* between digital verify hybrid simulation model results from captive flight
Rnalce computers. resoones. toots.
Martin Problem dependent Simulation dependent, test pilot flight test data. simulation
Partitioning problem analysis subjective evaluation, specification teat plan.
for subsystem allocation to
Umacuters.
McDonnell As required by model and Broad speetrum of validation Broad spectrum of validation
Douglas operationa2 requ irement,%. techniques are used if funds are are used if fuds Are available.
available.
Raytheon Total system is divided into All digital Simulation Of each Comparison with subsystemt tests
modules for mejor subsystem hybrid simulation is used to and flight teat data. Extensive
that can be developed generate comparison results, processing of simulation and
individually. Modules are submitted to step and actual system teat. Limited
frequency response tests, statistical tests is sometime
&nalytic results compared with used.
testa.
Naya1 Models partitioned for Perfect flight profiles Comparison of H'dIL results with
Research subsystem, check with compared with OVIL-ideal -field toot data. Requires use of
Laboratory ideal inputs tArgets compared realistic target with HWIL.
105
Table US-if. System Simulation Development
COUNrRY United States
facility Procedure for Are Digital Program Procedures for Availability Of

Partitionin? Durina Development
Army's Digital module for Yes No systematic Department of Defense

Advanced major subsystems, procedures for docu- funding for operations and
Simulation run all digital for semtation during maintenance
Center benehsmaf simulation development
Boeing Start with basic 6 Yes Documented software Facilities are availab.
DOF equation In and flow diagram for test and evaluation
closed loop 3ophisti- support
cat* sore sophisti-
cated aoro and hard-
ware models
Eglin Model up dates prior Yer Yes, functional models Availability based in
Air Force to HWtests, use of are documented prior facility loading and priori-
functional models to implementation, ties.
verification process
is also documented
Hughes Hybrid simulation Yes Yes, simulation Available and sake known to
developed, hardware models are documented NATO Nations full
is'substituted for as validated capabilities of seiphysical
simulated code, facility
data ccoe red
Martin Partitioning of Yes Simulation test and In general, the facilities

problem between specification plan is used to support company
analog-digital, required. check out products and missions
problem dependent
McDonnell Procedure, methqa Yes, sometimes None Limited Conditions
DOuglas and approaches depend
on requirements and
funding
Raytheon An all digital Yes A standard nomnelature Only under very special
is used and extensive circumances
to
simulation is used
emulate the HWIL conenting of codes is
configuration of used. A simulation
computers and hardware document is develoPed
Naval N/A N/A Requires user manual, Briefings have been given
Research flow charts, acceptance to some NATO members -
Laboratory test plan. official request by NATO
members.
106
Table US-12. Simulation Utilization
United States
COUNTRY
Facility Are Simulations Major Uses of Simulation Are Simulations Any Standard Standards
Deeloped for (Analysis, Exploratory Developed to Terminology or Reports
Cooperative Use Investigation, Product Support Testing Procedures in rubliahed for
With Outside Improvements, Other) of Hardware - I.e. Simulation Major
Idntiy (Describe) (Describe)
Army's Yes, Project Analysis, Exploratory Yes, Pre- and Post- Yea, Digital Yes. [escribes
Advanced Offices for investigation, product flight test support, problem as ob. eetives,
Simulation Army, Navy, improvement, subsystem open loop, closed benchmark, models, results,
Center Air Force and model development, loop, model dcv. detailed test validation
Contractors foreign mterial procedures to efforts
exploitation validate
Boeing Yes, HHIL testing Analysis, product Yes, HRIL to verify

of terminal guid- improvement, pre- and closed loop systems
ance system for post-flight test performance
various cust omer
organizations
Eglin No Analysis, exploratory Yes, flight test Procedures are No

Air Force development support fairly standard
termlnologles
minimally standard
HughO. No Analysis, exploratory Yes, missile flight Yes, Hughes Yes, formt
investigation, product tests, flight hard- memorandum 2338/12, flexible, but
Improvement ware validation 11May67 - Notation simulations must
Conventions be documented
Martin Yes, Groups Analysis, exploratory Yes, Man-In-The loop Yes, Comon vari- Tea, Digital
internal to company investigation, product and development of able names, listing are
and outside improvement weapon delivery functional modules, alorofilsed,
organizatlons systems structured code hardware drawings
bound, simula-
tion model
documented
McDonnell Yes, 3DOP and 6D0P Analysls, exploratory Yes, check Partly, some yes, most have
Douglas digital simulations investigation, product sensitivity of symbols and termi- one or more
for airborne improvements, post systems to various nology become manuals which
system flight parameters expected environ standard with document
reconstruction ments uso features and use
Raytheon Yes, separate Analysis, exploratory Yes, pre- and post- Yes, all terms Io standard
groups within investigation, product flight system are built up documentation.
company and Improvement, flight tests analysis, plan test using standard but required
related program predictions, system matrix preflight notation and that all
office integration software readiness review letters programs be
verification documented.
Naval Yes, missile models, Analysis exploratory NO Yes, FORTN14 Yes - Us&-
Research digital simulations, product improvement programing menusoua.A 4..
Laboratory real time simulation standards report
107
___________l
REFERENCES
1. Cram, L. A., and S. C. Woolcock, "Review of Two Decades of Experiences

Between 30 GHz and 900 GHz in the Development of Model Radar Systems,"
E(I Electronics Limited, Wells, Somerset, England.
2. Woolcock, S. X., "Use of Radio Modeling Data, "HI Electronics Limited,

Wells, Somerset, England.
3. "Central Target Simulator Facility User Guide, "Naval Research Laboratory,

Washington, D. C., 15 August 1980.
109
APPENDIX A
FACILITY SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
THE ATTACHED SURVEY INSTRUMENr WAS USED TO OBTAIN
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PHYSICAL
FACILITIES OF THE ORGANIZATION PARTICIPATING IN SURVEY
4 111
NATOAGARD
MISSILE SYSTEM SIMULATION FACILITY
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
COMMENT
The NkTO Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development (AGARD) has
initiated a study on Missile Systems Simulation Facilities in NATO countries.
One objective of this study is to survey simulation facilities, either in use
or development, that would be available for cooperative use in missile systems
simulation, and testing and evaluating the effectiveness of candidate missile
systems. Information on simulation facilities as related to missile system
simulation is needed for all methods of simulation. (Analog computation,
digital computer, hybrid computers, hardware-in-the-loop operations and
related software capability). The information requested will be compiled in a
report with other missile related simulation data. A follow-up on this infor-
mation will be a request to visit selected facilities for additional infor-
mation. In such an event, the request will be initiated through the NATO
AGARD Panel.
The final report will be unclassified and a copy will be furnished to each
facility that completes and returns the attached questionnaire within the speci-
fied time period of 6 weeks. Please answer the questions that apply to your
facility. Please indicate questions not applicable to your facility.
Return your completed questionnaire to:
Commander
US Army Missile Command
ATTN: DRSMI-RDW (Willard M. Holmes)
Redstone Arsenal, Alabama 35898
USA
Provide the name, telephone number and address of a point of contact for
additional information about your facility.
bkme:
Telephone:
Address:
1. PHYSICAL FACILITIES
Special hardware systems or physical effects simulators are used to create

an environment to stimulate or activate missile sensors or seekers to approxi-
mate the real world environments. These physical effects simulators have been
112
used to simulate infrared targets, radar and radio frequency targets charac-
teristics, and electro-optical or optical/television imaging for missile sen-
sors. The use of these physical effects simulators involves the use of actual
missile system hardware (seeker, autopilot, actuators, etc.) in the simula-
tion.
a. Do you have an infrared physical effects simulator in your facility?
( ) NO ( ) YES (If yes please answer the following.)
(1) Infrared target simulators are designed to radiate in various bands.

Check the appropriate characteristics that describes your facility:
(a) Radiation wave length
( ) 1 to 3 micrometers
( ) Others (indicate)
(b) Radiated energy is:
( ) Broad band ( ) Narrow band ( ) Both
(c) Can intensity be changed dynamically under computer control?
( ) YES ( ) NO
(d) Specify the range of radiation available at the sensor input.

(watts/square centimeters)
(2) How many sources can be viewed?
By a sensor simultaneously
What are their shapes
(3) Displays --
(a) What is the instantaneous display field size? (degrees)
(b) What is the total display field size: (degrees) Azimuth

Elevation
(c) What is the maximum and minimum angular subtense of target as viewed
by the sensor? (milliradians)
Maximum Minimum
113
(4) Which of the following sensor motions are possible? (Check those
applicable.)
Position Range Velocity Range Acceleration Range

(degrees) (degrees/sec.) (degrees/sec.)
() Roll
() Pitch
( ) Yaw
(5) Please check the following applicable to your facility.
(a) The following infrared countermeasures can be simulated.
( ) Flares ( ) Continuous wave jammers ( ) Pulse jammers
(b) The facility is used to simulate what type of engagements?
( ) Air-to-air ( ) Ground-to-air ( ) Air-to-ground
(c) The facility is used for evaluation of:
( ) Developmental hardware
( ) Production hardware
( ) Countermeasure devices
C) Infrared guidance systems
( ) Threat warning sensors
(6) Do you have a laser in your facility?
( ) NO ( ) YES (If yes answer the following.)
(a) What is the wavelength (micrometers)?
(b) Method of projection (collimated, screen projection, etc.)
(c) What waveforms can be produced (pulse, continuous, etc.)?
(7) Briefly describe any improvements or modifications planned or under

consideration.
114
_______._____
(8) Briefly describe any procedure that could be put into operation that
might encourage the cooperative use of your physical facilities with the NkTO
nations.
b. Do you have a radio frequency physical effects simulator in your
facility?
( ) NO ( ) YES (If yes answer the following.)
(1) Radio frequency characteristics
(a) Radio frequency (Hz)
(b) Bands
(c) Method of sensor stimulation ( ) Injection C) Radiation
(d) Size of anechoic chamber (meters) Length Width

Height
(e) What is the anechoic chamber's reflection coefficient? (dB)
(f) How many separate radiation channels does your system have?
(g) What is the angle coverage for target motion from centerline of the
RF target array?
degrees
(h) How many simultaneous radio frequency targets can you simulate?
(i) What is the target positioning accuracy? (milliradians)
(j) What is the target up-date rate? (hertk)
(k) What is array effective radiated power? (watts)
(1) Frequency diversity ( ) NO ( ) YES
(m) Polarization diversity ( ) NO ( ) YES
(n) What is your waveform generation capacity? ( ) Chirp ( ) Pulse ( )

Continuous Wave
( ) Other (identify)
(o) Do you model RF clutter: ( ) NO ( ) YES
(2) Sensor motion and size
115
... . _-_- ______b ., -... * -,. ,

(a) Which of the following sensor motions are possible?

2
(degrees) (degrees/sec) (degrees/sec )
()Roll
( ) Pitch
( ) Yaw
(b) What size sensor can be accommodated: Length (cm) Weight

(kgs) Diameter (cm)
(3) Facility utilization
(a) The facility is used to simulate what type of engagements?
( ) Active missile guidance
( ) Passive missile guidance
( ) Semiactive missile guidance
(b) The facility is used for evaluation of:
( ) Development hardware ( ) Production hardware ( ) Countermeasure

devices
( ) Research and development
(c) Describe any additional capabilities and operating features that

would further help characterize your radio frequency physical effects simula-
to r.
(d) Briefly describe any improvements or modifications planned or under

consideration.
might encourage the cooperative use of your physical facilities within the
IMTO nations.
116
E ' i | I - --..-
c. Do you have an electro-optical (EO) or optical/television physical
effects simulator in your facility? (Including laser capability)
( ) NO ( ) YES (If yes answer following questions.)
(1) Which of the following describes the method(s) used in your facility:
(a) Present the target scene to the sensor.
( ) Visible terrain model ( ) Visible projection
( ) Infrared terrain model ( ) Infrared projection ( ) Other
(b) Spectral range of the target scene (micrometers).
Visual Near IR Mid R1 _ Far IR
(c) What are the simulation scale factors?
(2) Target scene illumination and collimating:
(a) What is the target scene illumination:
Foot candles Color Temperature

on model (degrees Kelvin)
Incandescent
Fluorescent
(b) How is a collimated image presented to the sensors?
( ) Autocollimating lens ( ) Other (Describe)
(c) Collimating optics
( ) Refractive ( ) Reflective
Field of view (degrees)
Focus range (meters)
Spectral Bandpass (micrometers)
(3) Do you have a laser in your facility?
( ) NO ( ) YES (If yes please answer the following.)
(a) What is the wavelength (micrometers)?
117
(b) Method of projection (collimated, screen projection, etc.)
(c) What waveforms can be produced? (pulse, continuous, etc.).
(4) Sensor motion and size
(a) Which of the following sensor motions are possible?

(Degrees) (Degrees/Sec) (Degrees/Sec 2 )
() Roll
( ) Pitch
( )Yaw
(b) Which of the following translation motions are possible?

2
(meters) (meter/sec) (meters/sec
( ) Verticle
() Lateral
( ) Longitudinal
(c) What size sensors can be accommodated?
Length (cm) Weight (kg) Diameter (cm)
(d) Is there a moving target capability?
()NO ()YES
(e) What Is the approximate minimum altitude that can be simulated

(meters) ?-
(5) Please check the following applicable to your facility:
(a) The facility is used to simulate what types of engagements?
( )Air-to-air, ( )Ground-to-air, ( )Air-to-ground
(b) The facility is used for evaluation of:
( ) Developmental hardware, ( ) Production hardware
Countermeasure devices, ( ) Television imaging guidance systems
( ) Infrared imaging guidance systems.
118
(c) Please describe any additional capabilities and operating features
that would further help characterize your electro-optical physical effects
simulator.
(6) Please briefly describe any improvements or modifications planned or

under consideration.
might encourage the cooperative use of your physical facilities within the NTO
Nations.
2. Electronic Computer Computation
Computer systems involving a diversity in operating capability are used in

developing missile systems related simulations. Typical simulations may
include analog computers, electronic digital computers, combined analog and
digital to achieve hybrid computer simulation with hardware-in-the-loop opera-
tion. The variety of differ6nt simulation tasks necessary to support a
complex missile simulation can involve computer systems with varying degrees
of simulation capability. It is within this context of requirements for
accomplishing missile system simulation that the following information about
your facility is requested.
a. Do you have general purpose analog computers in your facility.
( ) NO, ( ) YES - Please answer the following:
(1) Number of computers
(2) Manufacture/Model
(3) Number of computers operationally tied together
(4) Typical bandwidth (Hertz)
(5) Number of multipliers
(6) Number of operational amplifiers
(7) Method of hardware implementation of a function of one, two,

three and four variables?
119
b. Do you have general purpose digital computers in your facility?
(1) Number of computers
(2) Manufacture/Model
(3) Largest single memory available.
Bytes , Words__
(4) Number of cathode ray tube terminals
(5) What software package or systems do you use with your computers?
(6) Does your software capability include any Continuous System
Simulation Languages (CSSL) or higher order simulation languages?
( ) NO, ( ) YES -What packages?
c. Do you have hybrid computer operation in your facility?
(1) What analog and digital computer do you have operating together?
(2) Number of analog-to-digital converters
(3) Number of digital-to-analog converters
(4) Do you use a CSSL type simulation language for your hybrid com-
puter simulation development and operations? If so, what packages?
(5) What compatibility exists between your simulation languages

(CSSL) and hybrid computer simulation software?
d. Do you perform hardwgre-in-the-loop (UWIL) simulation in your
facility?
(1) What types of hardware is typically included in the simulation?
(2) What types of interface systems have been required in the past to
accomplish HWIL operation? (Electronic, mechanical, hydraulic, computer,
etc.).
120
e. Briefly describe any procedure that could be put into operation that
might encourage the cooperative use of your physical facilities within the
?1TO Nations.
3. System Simulation Development
Simulation as applied here may include the development of mathematical

models to aid in the evaluation of concepts and the study of dynamic systems
or situations as related to missile systems. In some instances, the concept
of simulation development allows a systematic or methodological approach to
mathematical model development, model implementation on the desired computers,
followed by a model verification step and finally, a model validation phase
involving the total simulation. In some situations, such a methodological
approach may not be applicable when the models are developed experimentally or
with actual hardware development. However, verification as implied here
involves the steps of showing that the behavior of the implemented model is
compatible with that intended by the initial mathematical or symbolic model.
One technique of model verification that has been used is to develop digital
simulation programs of models to be implemented on analog computers and
verified by overlaying digital continuous plots with analog outputs. This
entails determining where the error exists, when the plots do not agree,
however, this technique has been shown to significantly improve model verifi-
cation when used. Using the verified model, the final step in this process of
simulation development is model validation. This entails using a variety of
methods and techniques to establish the degree of comparability between the
model and the system it represents. In addition to extensive statistical anal-
ysis techniques for model validation, one method that has been shown to have
significant merit for model validation purposes and system studies is
hardware-in-the-loop operation supported by bench tests and subsystem testing.
This usually entails a modular approach to simulation development and as such
each software module can be related to a major hardware subsystem to be
included in the simulation. This is a basis for reducing the uncertainty in
the simulation by accomplishing subsystem model validation.
a. What procedure do you use for model implementation on appropriate ana-

log or digital computers?
b. What method or process do you use in your facility to accomplish model

verification?
c. Describe the typical procedure used to achieve confidence in the devel-

oped models or to achieve model validation?
d. If you perform hybrid or HWIL simulation, what is the general approach

in developing the intended simulation?
121
- ~~ it
(1) Do you develop an all digital program to assist in verifying the
hybrid computer partitioning and implementation of your model.
( ) NO, ( )YES
(2i Do you use any established procedures for systematically

accomplishing simulation documentation during the simulation development?
( ) NO, ( )YES - Describe briefly.
e. Briefly describe any procedure that could be put into operation to

help achieve the cooperative use of your capability for missile system simula-
tion and testing within the NkTO Nations.
4. Simulation Utilization
Frequertly, a simulation is developed in a facility for use in support of

projects outside the particular facility organization, but the simulation
developer may continue to operate the simulator and provide results to other
groups. In other cases, the simulation may be used for exploratory develop-
ment or preliminary analysis in the developer organization.
a. Does your facility develop simulations for cooperative or separate use

outside the group that develops the simulation?
( ) NO, ( )YES
If yes, would you identify some of the cooperative efforts and related
groups, and the type simulation programs provided (analog, digital, HWIL,
etc.).
b. The use of simulations in the development and analysis of large scale

systems such as missile systems are viewed in a variety of ways. An example,
simulation may be used to define the flight test scenarios of a missile test
program or the simulation models may be updated only after the test is
completed and the test scenarios determined by other means. The simulation
models may be used to define particular hardware subsystem characteristics as
opposed to the model being developed from the developed hardware, while other
simulation utilization is directly related to product improvement in the
system being simulated.
What ire the major purposes of simulations developed in your facility?
( ) Analysis, ( ) Exploratory Investigation, ( ) Product Improvement
( ) Other
122
-71
c. Are simulations generally developed to support the testing phase of
any hardware devices such as flight testing of missiles or missile subsystems?
( ) NO, ( )YES - Describe briefly.
5. Simulation Program Development Standards and Procedures
A basis for effective communication between a simulation developer and a

second party user or joint user of simulation results are standard procedures
in simulation implementation and documentation. A wide variety of oppor-
tunities exist for standardization or systematic procedures in simulation
development and program documentation. An example of a systematic approach to
documentation is the practice of embedding definition and extensive comments
directly in a digital program. Depending on the programming language being
used, it is not unusual to average one or more lines of comments and defini-
tions for each line of program code. A second area that improves com-
munication between users of simulation programs and results is a comprehensive
nomenclature system that is readily learned and extendable. An example is the
assigning of names to simulation variables. Consider the Greek symbols used
as variable names. As a first step, all Greek symbols are translated into
two-character mnemonics, the alphabet being shown in Table 1. A further
example, usually the symbol ALPHA is used for a. Five characters to start -
then ALPHAP could describe the pitch angle-of attack. But what happens when
the pitch angle-of-attack of the missile is to be described as distinct from
the target? The original ALPhA must be contracted - further modifiers produce
further contractions. The basic approach is to start off with a standard two
character mnemonic and leave room for modifiers. Letters can have standard
meanings when used as prefixes and suffixes, most are described in Table 1.
123
__________________________________________________________
TABLE 1. EXAMPLES OF STANDARD DEFINITIONS
Greek Symbols Letter Combination*
Greek Program
Symbol Symbols Letter Use
a AL A Acceleration
BE C Cosine (prefix)
y GA D Dot
6 DL E Earth of Ref Frame
EP F Force
ZE IC Initial Condition
ET M Missile Frame
e TH R Range
10 T Target Frame
K KA W Angular Velocity
*Modifier letters are assumed to be suffixes unless explicitly stated to be

prefixes.
a. Does your facility use any standard terminology or procedures in

developing simulation programs?
( ) NO, ( ) YES - Describe briefly.
b. Does ypur facility use any standard procedures in documenting

simulation programs?
( ) NO, ( ) YES- Describe briefly.
4124
c. Do you have standard reports published or permanent documentation
available for your major simulations?
( ) NO, ( ) YES - Describe briefly.
d. Does your facility have a preferred axes system for missile

models?
( ) NO, ( ) YES - Describe.
125
- .4
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACSL Advanced Continuous Simulation Language

AGARD Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development
ASC Advanced Simulation Center
AWTL All-Weather Test Laboratory
BA3 British Aerospace
C Command, Control and Communications
CDC Control Data Corporation
CSAL Control System Aerodynamic Loader
CSMP Continuous Systems Modeling Package
CSSL Continuous System Simulation Language
CTS Central Target Simulator
DEC Digital Equipment Corporation
DOF Degree-of-Freedom
DSL Digital Simulation Language
EAI Electronic Associations, Inc.
ECM Electronic Countermeasures
EO Electro-Optical
EOSS Electro-Optical Simulation System
FMP Flight Mechanics Panel
GBL Ground Based Laboratory
GTSF Ground Test Simulation Facility
GVPAT Guidance and Vehicle Performance Analysis Tool
HIPO Hiearchical Input Process-Output
HST High Speed Tunnel
IWIL Hardware-In-The-Loop
IBM International Business Machines
IMSS Interim Millimeter Simulation System
IR Infrared
IRACQ Infrared Acquisition
IRSS Infrared Simulation System
LTR Language, Time, Real
MOSES Modulator System for Event Simulation
N&TO National Atlantic Treaty Organization
PAWS Program for Assessment of a Weapon System
PDDAIO Ports of Direct Discrete/Analog Input/Output
RF Radio Frequency
RFSS Radio Frequency Simulation System
RFTS Radio Frequency Target Simulation System
RGL Radar Guidance Laboratory
SDS Scientific Data Systems
SEE Sensors Exposure Enviornment
STL Simulation and Test Laboratory
TABTOPS Three-Dimentional Atmospheric Branched Trajectory
Optimization Program
TARFS Three-Axis Rotational Flight Simulator
TGL Terminal Guidance Laboratory
TWSP Tactical War Simulation Program
127
..........
DISTRIBUTION
No. Cys
US Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity 1

ATTN: DRXSY-MP
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21005
DRSMI-LP, Mr. Voigt I

DRSMI-RD, Dr. Holmes 25
DRSMI-RPT (Record) 1
DRSMI-RPR 5
-- '

Ada 129500

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ada 129500

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ada 129500

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AD-A129 500 SURVE OFMISSILE SIMULATION AND FLIOHT MECHANICS/2

FACIIE IN N NAT0 U ARMY MISSIE COMMAND REDSTONE

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TESTCHART

vt SURVEY OF MISSILE SIMULATION AND FLIGHT

Dr. Willard M. Holmes

The contents of this Report have been published as AGARD's Rlight

F~ademtcon'e Areeremi, A~imatam 35009

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

DESTROY THIS REPORT WHEN IT IS NO LONGER NEEDED. DO NOT

THE FINDINGS IN THIS REPORT ARE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS AN

USE OF TRADE NAMES OR MANUFACTURERS IN THIS REPORT DOES

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFORE COSEPLETIG FORM

RD-83-4 Wki-A 429 ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

4. TITLE (ad Subtitle) 5. TYPE OF REPORT A PERIOD COVERED

7. AUTNOR(a) 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBERfa)

Dr. Williard M. Holmes

150. DECL ASSI IlCATION/ DOWNG-RADING

1S. DISTRIBUTION STATEMEN4T (of this Report)

1S. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

M~ ASTRACr (006ae M vmm egs anwed d #~& Air Nybock mnMba)

JA,N 72 m~uO By65OSLT UNCT,4SSIFIE

AGARD's Flight Mechanics Panel is investigating the feasibility of the

The major objectives of this study was to conduct a survey of missile

First - The combined capability of Just a few of these facilities could

Second - Notably missing from a vast majority of facilities were any

Third - Only a very limited number of facilities had formal documentation

Fourth - While a wide range of missile simulation capability exists,

Relative to the cooperative use of missile simulation facilities and capa-

a. A "hierachy" or frame of reference for simulation development should

b. Theoretical and practical methods and techniques should be identified

c. A general procedure should be identified for specifically

d. A benchmark simulation model should be identified that can be used to

Accefm C01l rThr

LIST OFILLUSTONSI.I... .. .. .. . .... ... .. .. ix

LIST OF TABLES .. ................ ...... . .. x

SECTION I. SURVEY TASK

1. Objective of Survey .. ........... . . . . . . . . . I

1.1 Survey Methodology. .. ............ .. ..... I

SECTION II. FACILITIES SURVEYED

2.1 SNIAS. . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. ... . . 11

2.1.1 Background and Comments o . . o. o. .I 11

2.2 Celar Bruz... ....... .. .. ...... . . 12

2.2.1 Background and Comments.........

2.3 MATRA.o............... .............. 15

2.3.1 Background and Comments. . . . . . .. . .. . 15

2.4 Facilities Survey Data .. ..... ..... . . . . . 17

3. The Federal Republic of Germany. . . . . . . . . . 23

3.1 Bodenseeverk Geratetescnik Gmbli . . . o ... 23

3.1.1 Background and Comments......

3.2.1 Background and Comments . . . * . . . 24

3. Dornier GmbH ........... . .. .. . . 25

3.3.1 Background and Comments .... .. . .. 25

3.4.1 Background and Comments. .. ............. 27

3.5.1 Background and Comments. .. ....... . . . . 29

3.6 Facilities Survey Data .. . ............ . . 30

4.1 Oto Melaro .. ................ ......... 36

4.1.1 Background and Comments. .. ............. 36

4.2.1 Background and Comments . . .. .. .. .. .. . .37

4.2.2 Simulation Methodology .. ............... 37

5. The Netherlands .. ........................ 43

6.3.1 Background and Comments. . . . #. . . o. . 57