Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:50:14.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A question of survival – military aircraft vs the electromagnetic environment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2016

M. Pywell
M. Pywell*
Affiliation:
BAE Systems – Air Systems Division, Warton, Lancashire, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Military aircraft, by definition, need to survive the onslaught of opposing forces to successfully complete their mission. From an aircraft perspective, the electromagnetic (EM) environment can be an enabler, via the use of navigation aids, radar, radio communications etc. – in fact mission success depends on its successful use. However, this environment is also potentially a disabler, as threat weapon systems and the environment itself can harm or destroy the aircraft. This paper discusses risks and hazards thus posed to aircraft survivability, partitioned into two classes – ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ EM threats. ‘Direct’ threats are those that occur as a result of direct coupling of EM energy to the airframe and systems within, e.g. lightning strike and directed energy weapons. ‘Indirect’ threats are those that utilise EM sensors to detect, track and target the aircraft, e.g. radar-guided surface-to-air missiles. Airframe intrinsic mechanical vulnerability is also an important part of survivability, although not addressed in this EM-related paper. It is shown that risk and hazard can be minimised by gaining a thorough understanding of operational scenarios, developing holistic system-of-systems solutions to military requirements, and using best practice design and development techniques.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 108 , Issue 1087 , September 2004 , pp. 453 - 464
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2004 

Access options

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

References

1. Ball, R.E. Fundamentals of Aircraft Combat Survivability Analysis and Design. ISBN 0-930403-02-9.Google Scholar
2. ARP 5412: Aircraft Lightning Environment and Related Test Waveforms Google Scholar
3. Schleher, D.C. Electronic Warfare in the Information Age. Ch.8 ‘Directed Energy Weapons and Stealth Technology’, pp 471–498. Artech House, 1999, ISBN 0-89006-526-8Google Scholar
4. Levien, F. Directed energy, J Electronic Defence, November 2000, pp 43–48.Google Scholar
5. US General Accounting Office Report: Non-Proliferation – Further Improvements Needed in US Efforts to Counter Threats from Man-Portable Air Defense Systems. GAO-04-519, May 2004.Google Scholar
6. Taylor, C.D. and Younan, N.H. Effects from HPM illumination. Microwave J., June 1992.Google Scholar
7. Pywell, M., Alonze, P.M., Hurricks, M.E. and Wellings, I.G. The new Enigma – Increased survivability with reduced cost? NATO RTO SCIP Symp. on Flight in a Hostile Environment, 1999. Conf Proc RTO-MP-47, AC/323(SCI)TP/22Google Scholar
8. Macdiarmid, I.P., Alonze, P.M. and Pywell, M. Survivability – a reward for integrated thinking. NATO R&T Organisation Symp on Combat Survivability of Air, Sea and Land Vehicles. September 2002. Proc RTO-MP-090.Google Scholar
9. Noonan, C.A. and Pywell, M. Aircraft sensor data fusion: An improved process and the impact of ESM enhancements. NATO AGARD Conf on Multi-sensor systems and Data Fusion for Telecommunications, Remote Sensing and Radar (1997). Proc AGARD-CP-595, pp 2–1 to 2–12.Google Scholar
10. Pywell, M., Macdiarmid, I.P. and Simpson, R.J. Improved analysis of airframe microwave attenuation measurement data. IEE Electronics Letters, 32, (18), August 1996, pp 1682–3.Google Scholar
11. Pywell, M. and Stubley, N. Environment models and threat simulators – high quality and lower cost validation of EW systems. NATO AGARD Conf. On Environmental Factors in EW related to Aerospace Systems. May 1995. Proc AGARD-CP-573.Google Scholar
12. Pywell, M. EW Threat simulators and environment modelling. J Electronic Defense, November 1997.Google Scholar
13. Campbell, S., Fowler, J.A. and Bell, N.C. One-stop shop, Aerospace Testing International, May 2003, pp 36–39.Google Scholar
14. Williams, Sqn Ldr T.B. (OC Countermeasures Sqn., EW Operational Support Element, Air Warfare Centre, UK RAF) Electronic Countermeasures. Air Clues, July 1995, pp 250–254.Google Scholar
15. Kuschel, H. VHF/UHF radar Part 1: Characteristics. IEE Electronics & Communication Engineering J, April 2002. pp 61–72.Google Scholar
16. Schoneberger, W.A. Backfitting stealth. J Electronic Defense, March 1998, pp 33–37.Google Scholar
17. Pywell, M. Military aircraft combat the electromagnetic environment. IEE Electronics Systems and Software, April 2003, pp 35–39.Google Scholar