Scribd
Upload
56 views9 pages

Mbda SMD Bvraam Meteor Program MFM: Cara Williamson Sunil Karadia

Uploaded by

Cara Van

This 9-page document discusses MBDA's Meteor BVRAAM missile program. It aims to verify the Fast Fly Out Model (FFOM) against the Dynamic Model 1 (DM1) using MBDA's Meteor Fly Out Model (MFM) interface. Over 8,000 tests from BAE Systems need processing. The problems to address are reducing the number of tests, adapting MFM to use both missile models, and improving data handling and visualization of results. Experimental details describe the test variables and parameters. The results show agreement levels between the FOM and DM1 models. The conclusion discusses modeling needs for user interfaces, test harnesses, and skills like problem solving, planning, communication and numeracy.

Copyright:

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as ppt, pdf, or txt

Mbda SMD Bvraam Meteor Program MFM: Cara Williamson Sunil Karadia

Uploaded by

Cara Van
56 views9 pages
This 9-page document discusses MBDA's Meteor BVRAAM missile program. It aims to verify the Fast Fly Out Model (FFOM) against the Dynamic Model 1 (DM1) using MBDA's Meteor Fly Out Model (MFM) interface. Over 8,000 tests from BAE Systems need processing. The problems to address are reducing the number of tests, adapting MFM to use both missile models, and improving data handling and visualization of results. Experimental details describe the test variables and parameters. The results show agreement levels between the FOM and DM1 models. The conclusion discusses modeling needs for user interfaces, test harnesses, and skills like problem solving, planning, communication and numeracy.

Original Title

Presentation

Copyright

© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

Available Formats

PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

This 9-page document discusses MBDA's Meteor BVRAAM missile program. It aims to verify the Fast Fly Out Model (FFOM) against the Dynamic Model 1 (DM1) using MBDA's Meteor Fly Out Model (MFM) interface. Over 8,000 tests from BAE Systems need processing. The problems to address are reducing the number of tests, adapting MFM to use both missile models, and improving data handling and visualization of results. Experimental details describe the test variables and parameters. The results show agreement levels between the FOM and DM1 models. The conclusion discusses modeling needs for user interfaces, test harnesses, and skills like problem solving, planning, communication and numeracy.

Copyright:

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
56 views9 pages

Mbda SMD Bvraam Meteor Program MFM: Cara Williamson Sunil Karadia

Uploaded by

Cara Van
This 9-page document discusses MBDA's Meteor BVRAAM missile program. It aims to verify the Fast Fly Out Model (FFOM) against the Dynamic Model 1 (DM1) using MBDA's Meteor Fly Out Model (MFM) interface. Over 8,000 tests from BAE Systems need processing. The problems to address are reducing the number of tests, adapting MFM to use both missile models, and improving data handling and visualization of results. Experimental details describe the test variables and parameters. The results show agreement levels between the FOM and DM1 models. The conclusion discusses modeling needs for user interfaces, test harnesses, and skills like problem solving, planning, communication and numeracy.

Copyright:

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 9

MBDA SMD BVRAAM METEOR PROGRAM MFM

Cara Williamson Sunil Karadia

Ref.: Page 1 - 07/02/2013


This document and the information contained herein is proprietary information of MBDA and shall not be disclosed or reproduced without the prior authorisation of MBDA. MBDA 2008.

Presentation Content

Project Aims and Objectives..1


Introduction to the Problem2

Problem Formulation...3
Outline Theory..4 Experimental Details5 Results and Discussion...6 Conclusion.7

Ref.: Page 2 - 07/02/2013


This document and the information contained herein is proprietary information of MBDA and shall not be disclosed or reproduced without the prior authorisation of MBDA. MBDA 2008.

Project Aims and Objectives


Meteor BVRAAM Cost MP Dynamic Model Euro Fighter
BAE Systems

Launch A/C

Environment

Missile

Additional

Slow
Closed Source

Meteor Fly Out Model

Fast Fly Out Model

Verifying the FFOM against the DM1 using the MFM user interface with tests supplied by BAE Systems.
Ref.: Page 3 - 07/02/2013
This document and the information contained herein is proprietary information of MBDA and shall not be disclosed or reproduced without the prior authorisation of MBDA. MBDA 2008.

Introduction to the Problem

1.

BAE Systems supply over 8,000 tests for validation


Number of Simulations (Scientific) Number of Performance Statement Models Average Engagement Time (s) Average Simulation Time (s) Processor Hours 8,784 3 100 600 4,392 MFM DM1

2. 3.

Test Input Formatting MFM currently uses FFOM only

FFOM .txt .sdf

.out

4.

Data Handling and Presentation

Ref.: Page 4 - 07/02/2013


This document and the information contained herein is proprietary information of MBDA and shall not be disclosed or reproduced without the prior authorisation of MBDA. MBDA 2008.

Problem Formulation

1.
2.

Reduce Number of Tests (17% 747 Processor Hours)


a.) Unrealistic Engagements Test Input Conversion and Filtration b.) High Correlation Generator Seg1 textscan Print_Doc inputs IF filter
Miss CA No CA

3.

.txt .bat

Adapt MFM to use both missile models Seg2 Seg3


MFM DM1

Seg4
FFOM DM1 Hit Hit FT Near Miss Miss

Calc_Param

FFOM .txt .sdf .out

Hit

Hit FT

Near Miss

4.

Colour code system to display results

CA

No CA
Ref.: Page 5 - 07/02/2013
This document and the information contained herein is proprietary information of MBDA and shall not be disclosed or reproduced without the prior authorisation of MBDA. MBDA 2008.

Outline Theory

1. 2. 3. 4.

Off Bore-sight Angle vs. Ownship Elevation Angle (Pitch) Line Of Sight Target Azimuth vs. Ownship Elevation Angle (Pitch) Target Altitude vs. Target Velocity Ownship Altitude vs. Ownship Velocity

Increasing Altitude

OBS LOS

OTA

LOS = Line of Sight OBS = Off Bore-sight


Ref.: Page 6 - 07/02/2013
This document and the information contained herein is proprietary information of MBDA and shall not be disclosed or reproduced without the prior authorisation of MBDA. MBDA 2008.

Missile OTA = Off Tail

Launch Aircraft Target Aircraft

Experimental Details
Test Variable Slant Range OTA A/C Pitch 1 Slant Range LOS A/C Pitch 2 Slant Range TGT Height TGT Velocity 3 0 x x x x x x x x 0 0 x x x x x x 0.285599 min value 0 0 x max value x 5.71198 x step value x 0.571198 0.285599 no. points 23 11 12 3036 23 6 12 1656 31 11 4 1364 S.Rl (LV) | S.R m (HV) Hn (LV) | Ho (HV) LV p | HV q g S.R h LOS i |j| < < |k| suggest test aS.Rb & cS.Rd steps of 1.142 |e| < < |f| no. points 10 6 6 300 18 3 6 324 9+20 6+5 3+3 462

Slant Range A/C Height


A/C Velocity 4
Ref.: Page 7 - 07/02/2013

0 x
x

x x
x

x x
x

31 11
8 2728

r S.R s & t S.R u v H w & x H y


zVa

17 8
6 816

This document and the information contained herein is proprietary information of MBDA and shall not be disclosed or reproduced without the prior authorisation of MBDA. MBDA 2008.

Results and Discussion


Green -- Go ahead with firing

Outcome Exact Match Go ahead with firing (FFOM over DM1) Go ahead with firing (FFOM under DM1) No Engagement (FFOM over DM1) No Engagement (FFOM under DM1) Miss < 100m (FFOM over DM1) High Disagreement (FFOM over DM1) High Disagreement (FFOM under DM1)

Number --of not engage failure to intercept Percentage Total Blue Do Cases (360) (%) Red -- Missed opportunity 303 2 3 11 1 6 30 12 84.167 0.556 0.833 3.056 0.278 1.961 8.333 3.333 90.556 11.667 88.889

Ref.: Page 8 - 07/02/2013


This document and the information contained herein is proprietary information of MBDA and shall not be disclosed or reproduced without the prior authorisation of MBDA. MBDA 2008.

Conclusion

Industry needs for Modelling

User Interfaces and Test Harnesses


1. Analytical Problem Solving

2. Planning and Time Management


3. Communication 4. IT Literacy
Ref.: Page 9 - 07/02/2013

5. Numeracy

This document and the information contained herein is proprietary information of MBDA and shall not be disclosed or reproduced without the prior authorisation of MBDA. MBDA 2008.

You might also like