DISTRIBUTION
A:
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
Document created: 1 March 2008
Air & Space Power Journal - Spring 2008
|
|
PIREPs |
| Editor’s Note: PIREP is aviation shorthand for pilot report. It’s a means for one pilot to pass on current, potentially useful information to other pilots. In the same fashion, we use this department to let readers know about items of interest. |
In today’s rapidly evolving technology environment, new war-fighting capabilities often seem to emerge virtually overnight. Quick reaction capability (QRC) programs such as the massive ordnance air burst (MOAB) have generated substantial headlines, which would lead one to believe that only the briefest of planning horizons is necessary for the development of modern armament. However QRC programs are generally the tip of the iceberg, representing only the culminating step in a series of development efforts. As our war-fighting systems become increasingly complex and interconnected, the extensive effort required to “birth” a new capability continues to mandate a deliberate and systemic developmental-planning process.
Nearly four decades ago, the Air Development and Test Center at Eglin AFB, Florida, established the Developmental Planning Directorate (XR). Prior to the founding of this organization, developmental-planning efforts within the air-armament acquisition process were largely ad hoc and disjointed. XR was chartered with instituting and maintaining a disciplined process for defining and selecting new weapon-systems concepts for further development to satisfy the Air Force’s operational needs. Much of this process focused on the preparation of planning documents and justification for new armament systems based upon direct-analysis support to the weapon-systems development programs. However, the most challenging aspects involved the “matchmaking” process between requirements pull (such as the need to counter modern threats, the evolution of societal standards requiring minimization of collateral damage, and new concepts of warfare redefining close air support), technology push (such as advances in signal-processing technology, availability of the global positioning system [GPS], and miniaturization of modern electronic components), and the inevitable limitations of development funding. As the developmental-planning process for air-armament systems matured, XR’s scope of effort increased notably, spawning such successful major programs as the advanced medium-range air-to-air missile, combined-effects munition, and sensor-fuzed weapon.
Although the years brought about many changes in the designation of both the armament-acquisition activity at Eglin and the developmental-planning function therein (fig. 1), the basic function of defining and selecting new weapon-systems concepts for further development has remained at the core of armament developmental planning.
 |
One needs some historical perspective to appreciate the requirement for the often costly and time-consuming developmental-planning process, made evident by reviewing the development of an armament technology now taken for granted—autonomously guided air-to-ground munitions. In late 1984, Armament Division XR commissioned a study to demonstrate the utility of an inertial-aided munition for all-weather attack. This study was founded on the emerging technology opportunities provided by advances in inertial-navigation components and the common-reference grid provided by the GPS program. Target-based requirements for airfield-attack missions appeared well suited for this technology. Therefore the analysis was based upon attack of a representative Warsaw Pact airfield with more than 50 separate targets of interest (fig. 2).
 |
The operational concept under study entailed using high-altitude aircraft to deliver large payloads in an accurate manner from standoff ranges as opposed to dive-bombing or the use of laser-guided bombs (LGB), neither of which represented all-weather capabilities (fig. 3). The vision called for striking all of the important aim points, using fewer bombs than a single bomber could carry, while improving aircraft survivability by avoiding successive attacks on individual aim points and direct overflight of the target.
 |
As a result of the study, Air Force Systems Command’s Planning Directorate decided to spend its own discretionary funds on the proposed inertial-guided technology demonstration (IGTD). This proof-of-concept demonstration mated low-cost inertial-guidance kits with standard bombs and dispensers to create a system capable of guiding these “dumb” warheads to selected targets. The program commenced in December 1986 with dual contract awards to Boeing and Northrop to build and demonstrate conversion kits.
The kits used for this program had only inertial guidance since initial GPS-user equipment sets were far too large and expensive to employ within munitions. However, the GPS provided a common reference grid utilized to transfer navigation-alignment parameters from the appropriately equipped launch aircraft, initializing the inertial-guidance system within munitions. At the commencement of the IGTD program, GPS technology was so immature that we had no satellites in orbit, and initial testing had to take place at Yuma Proving Grounds using an “inverted” GPS-guided weapon-testing range with stationary pseudosatellites positioned on the ground. Later in the IGTD program, a minimal set of satellites became available to support testing. However, the simultaneous development of IGTD technology and the GPS satellite constellation often put the two at odds, as demonstrated when controllers of the GPS satellite constellation modified that constellation at the same time an IGTD flight test occurred, causing all munitions to miss their planned targets. However, even this test helped prove the efficacy of the technology since the average miss distance of a weapon precisely matched the magnitude of the GPS-constellation grid correction!
The IGTD program ended successfully, proving the feasibility of transferring alignment from the host aircraft to the weapon, of consistently dropping autonomously guided weapons with the specified accuracy, and of producing the resultant system at an acceptable price. However, due to continued reliance on maturer technologies, such as LGBs, the war fighters declined to establish a need statement for the new technology.
During Operation Desert Storm, coalition aircraft used LGBs with great effectiveness, but operational limitations made clear the need for an all-weather air-to-surface munition. As a result, in 1992 the Joint Requirements Oversight Council validated the requirement for such a capability, resulting in the initiation of the all-weather precision-guided munition (AWPGM) program, which moved guidance technology for autonomous weapons out of the developmental-planning venue and into the acquisition mainstream. The AWPGM effort eventually led to the highly successful Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) program. Finally, in October 2003, a B-2 bomber dropped 80 JDAM GBU-38 bombs, demonstrating the envisioned capability set forth in the XR utility study 17 years earlier.
The evolution of the JDAM program from developmental-planning efforts in the early 1980s to fruition nearly two decades later is not a unique case of technology transition. Historical records indicate that the current generation of autonomous area-denial systems likely stems from the “Wasp” study conducted by XR in 1978 as a component of the Wide Area Anti-Armor Guided Munition program.1 Similarly, one can trace current development efforts for directed energy (DE) weapons back to XR’s Battlefield Laser Implications Project of 1982 and can trace the Universal Armament Interface back to the Stores Integration Program of 1983.2 Despite the clear link between a robust developmental-planning function and the later achievements of the greater acquisition community, emphasis on developmental planning continues to vary cyclically, as one can see in figure 4, which depicts the varying manpower levels devoted to this function.
 |
The late 1970s and early 1980s saw tremendous emphasis on developmental planning as a component of the armament-acquisition process. As a result, a plethora of advanced weapon technologies emerged in the 1990s, including the JDAM, Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile, and Wind-Corrected Munition Dispenser. However, the diversion of manpower necessary to execute these highly successful programs had the effect of reducing the developmental-planning staff to a caretaking cadre in the early 1990s. Consequently, in the early twenty-first century, the only major new-start armament-acquisition program has been the Small-Diameter Bomb.
Continued emphasis on air-armament developmental planning is absolutely necessary in order to support the force planned for upcoming decades. The manner in which the emergence of DE weapons closely parallels historical armament-developmental efforts exemplifies this need.
As discussed in the previous case study, the development of autonomously guided weapons continued for years without instigating a weapon-acquisition program, largely due to the lack of a unique link between new capabilities and existing requirements, along with reliance upon maturer, more familiar technologies. Only when the experiences of Desert Storm provided a catalyzing function to meld technology push with war-fighter pull was the JDAM program finally born. Analogously, DE concepts have been in development for decades without fielding a substantial air-to-ground weapon. We have conducted DE development efforts without direct linkage to current war-fighter requirements and have focused ongoing weapon-acquisition efforts, designed to meet war-fighter requirements, on more conventional and familiar technologies. However, the ongoing experiences of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom have highlighted the limitations of traditional kinetically based armament in urban operations, emphasizing the need for a class of weapons with greater precision and less likelihood of causing collateral damage.
War fighters are unlikely to generate new and unique requirements to specifically leverage the capabilities of DE weapons. Rather, we will evaluate those weapons against other weapon options to determine the optimal solution for meeting existing requirements such as high precision, extremely short “time of flight,” scalable effects, and reduced collateral damage. This will require a significant paradigm shift in order to consider this new class of weapons within the context of centuries-old concepts for employing kinetic weapons. We will need an integrating function between scientists and war fighters in order to bridge this chasm. The requirement for this integrating function shows the need for armament developmental planning.
*Colonel Lettiere is a senior individual mobilization augmentee at the Air Armament Center, Eglin AFB, Florida, and Mr. Jenkins is a capability architect, also at the Air Armament Center.
[ Feedback? Email the Editor ]
Notes
1. Voncille Jones and Barry R. Barlow, History of the Air Development and Test Center, 1 October 1977–30 September 1978 (Eglin AFB, FL: Air Development and Test Center, 1978), 1:28. (For Official Use Only) Information extracted is not FOUO.
2. Voncille Jones and Barry R. Barlow, History of the Armament Division, 1 October 1981–30 September 1982 (Eglin AFB, FL: Armament Division, 1982), 1:46, 26. (FOUO) Information extracted is not FOUO.
Disclaimer
The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University
[ Home Page| Feedback? Email the Editor ]