Vulnerability Assessment of Aircraft A Review of the Department of Defense Live Fire Test and Evaluation Program (1993) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
1 Review of Current Methodologies Used to Assess Aircraft Vulnerability and Identification of Applications of the Results
1 Review of Current Methodologies Used to Assess Aircraft Vulnerability and Identification of Applications of the Results
Pages 11-25
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 11... ...
The AAA weapons the air. and the larger-caliber aircraft guns usually fire ballistic projectiles with a high-explosive (HE)
|
From page 12... ...
Two categories of The procedure used to determine all of the nonredundant kill are the attrition kill and the mission abort kill. There are several and redundant critical components on an aircraft is known as levels of attrition kill based upon the elapsed time of kill after the hit.
|
From page 13... ...
Reducing the vulnerability of an aircraft to the threat weapons and their damage mechanisms involves reducing Kill Modes. For many years, the aircraft vulnerability the likelihood the kill modes given in Table 1-1 will occur community has observed the results of live fire testing of when the aircraft is hit.
|
From page 14... ...
above, one undesirable event leading to an attrition kill is loss of lift. If loss of lift occurs due to an explosion inside the left A vulnerability assessment is broadly defined here as the wing fuel tank, a component A kill, OR if it occurs due to an systematic description, delineation, test and evaluation, explosion inside the right wing tank, a component B kill, both analysis, or quantification of the vulnerability of the individual wing fuel tanks are nonredundant critical components for the critical components and of the total aircraft.
|
From page 15... ...
aircraft's critical components is Pk/h, the probability the component is killed given a random hit on the component by a threat weapon or damage mechanism.11 The value of Pk/h What Are the Two Methodologies Used to depends upon the intensity of the terminal effects Assess Vulnerability? parameters associated with the damage mechanism, such as mass and impact velocity on the component for penetrators In general, there are two methodologies used to assess and fragments.
|
From page 16... ...
(BRL, 1978 and data base that contains the Pk/h or Av value for the component HEI Vulnerability Assessment Model (HEIVAM) (Datatec Inc., that is based upon the selected threat weapon or damage 1979)
|
From page 17... ...
Thus, random hit. For component vulnerable areas, each grid cell redundant critical components that are relatively close together containing a shotline that intersects a component has a can be killed by a single hit, causing a kill of the aircraft.
|
From page 18... ...
for the single hit by a penetrator or fragment typically consists contact-fuzed high-explosive warhead consist of the aircraft of predictions of the values of vulnerable area Av for all of the vulnerable area AV and the probability of kill given a random critical components, the aircraft vulnerable area AV, the hit on the aircraft PK/H. The results of an assessment for the probability the aircraft is killed given a hit within each grid externally detonating warhead consist of the probability of cell, and the probability the aircraft is killed given a random kill of the critical components intersected by the fragment hit PK/H.
|
From page 19... ...
All possible target in quantifying the vulnerability of the components and capabilities after the hit form the Capabilities Space, or Space subsystems for each of these kill modes, the use of combat 4, and the particular target capabilities remaining after the hit data21 and the results from controlled live fire22 tests have always represent one point in the Capabilities Space. 20 The been integral parts of vulnerability assessment.
|
From page 20... ...
The results or information obtained from selection of the number of shots, the shotline directions, the controlled live fire tests typically consists of a list of the impact locations, and any analytical methods that will be used. components that were damaged or killed, the nature and The test plan may contain a number of random shots as well as severity of the damage, the kill modes observed and any a number of selected shots.
|
From page 21... ...
. A major system is one that costs $75 million in Research partially empty fuel tank may not result in an internal Development, Testing, and Evaluation and/or $300 million in explosion on the first test shot, but the second shot may cause procurement, in 1980 dollars, and is determined by the and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted.
|
From page 22... ...
is conducted by the Service components, the approval of the Services' Live Fire Test strategy and test plans for each Vulnerability assessments are a part of the weapon system covered program, the review of the test results, and the acquisition process. This process is described in DoD performance of an independent assessment that is forwarded, Instruction (DODI)
|
From page 23... ...
As data from live fire tests on a variety of This is accomplished by providing timely information on the components and subsystems are gathered, qualitative vulnerability of the complete system to decision-making information on kill modes and cascading damage effects and bodies, such as the Defense Acquisition Board. quantitative information on individual component P k/h Table 1-4 presents a summary of the applications of the functions can be put into a data base and used to improve analysis/modeling methodology and the Live Fire Testing subsequent analytical assessments.
|
From page 24... ...
Although neither study specifically addressed the Live • Deitz, P.H., et al., 1990. Current Simulation Methods in Fire Test legislation and the DoD LFT&E program, and the Military Systems Vulnerability Assessment, Ballistic BAST study did not consider aircraft, both studies examined Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., BRL issues and arrived at conclusions that are pertinent here.
|
From page 25... ...
Congress, 1988. FY88–89 DoD Authorization Act Review of Army Vulnerability Assessment Methods, Board Conference Report, Live-Fire Testing (Sec.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.