This application is a National Stage Application, filed under 35 U.S.C. §371, of International Application No. PCT/SE2011/051533, filed Dec. 16, 2011; the contents of which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.
1. Related Field
The invention relates to a method for decision support of a combat object in a combat situation.
2. Description of Related Art
Document U.S. Pat. No. 7,525,448 B1 describes an aircraft optical display system for implementing an enhanced vision system based on weather conditions. The display system includes a plurality of imaging sensors configured to receive imaging input data and generate image data, where each imaging sensor is associated with one or more weather conditions.
Highly developed functions for human machine interface, HMI for short, and decision support as support functions for the pilot environment in combat aircraft do already exist. All solutions are based on combat situations where HMI and decision support together describe a current position and display the tools and solutions to the pilot.
Existing solutions are based on the aircraft itself and its available resources and tools. Sensors, such as radar, are operated by the pilot as the tool for close-range scanning or for scanning objects for identification and continued pursuit. Decision support supports the multiple use of sensors by merging objects detected by several different sensors and coordinating and correlating these objects in a situation picture.
However, when the complexity increases because more tools and sensors are supplied, the possibilities available to the pilot to control his tools/sensors in time are limited and made difficult. In time-critical situations, for instance in air combat, the pilot risks becoming the underdog in combat because of this. Another limitation is the fact that each tool and/or sensor has its own characteristics and peculiarities. Each sensor and/or tool therefore requires its own interface and control functions which the pilot needs to be able to understand and use correctly.
It is the object of the invention to provide a possibility for assisting a pilot on a target-oriented basis in decision support in a combat situation.
This object is achieved by the subject matter of independent claim 1. Preferred embodiments are defined in the sub claims.
According to an aspect of the invention, this object is achieved by a method for decision support of a combat object in a combat situation comprising the steps of: a) detecting an enemy object such that a plurality of characteristic parameters of the enemy object is determined, b) calculating at least one quality factor for at least one combat sensor of the combat object, wherein each quality factor is adapted for indicating identification ability of a combat sensor, and calculating at least one signature factor for at least one enemy sensor of the enemy object based on a predetermined model, wherein each signature factor is adapted for indicating identification ability of an enemy sensor, c) allocating each quality factor calculated in the previous step b) to each combat sensor and allocating each signature factor calculated in the previous step b) to each enemy sensor, and d) controlling each combat sensor against the enemy object based on the result of the previous step c). Preferably, identification ability of the combat sensor comprises detection ability of the combat sensor and identification ability of the enemy sensor comprises detection ability of the enemy sensor, respectively.
It is an idea of the invention that based on the knowledge of the different, previously calculated and allocated, signature factors of the enemy sensors and different quality factors of the own combat sensors, the positions of the own combat object and of the enemy object are determined. It is not necessary to go for the optimum in the controlling step d) since a trade-off between increasing the quality factor and decreasing the signature factor is already adequate, wherein both factors are independent from each other. According to other preferred embodiments of the invention the optimum is searched.
It is a further idea of the invention to use the radar principle with main and side lobes such that one can determine strong and weak points in the system. In order to serve as a decision support tool the aspect angle of the combat sensor and/or the emission control is/are changed such that the mode in the combat aircraft is adjustable. Preferably, the results are integrated over time. In this way, a matrix of predefined lists is obtained, wherein the combinations can be used in order to get discrete decisions and their number corresponds to a predefined number of possibilities. Hence, the sensors of the combat aircraft are not controlled by the pilot but on the basis of the expected enemy aircraft. Two parameters, quality Q and signature S, are introduced for sensor control. Q refers to sensor quality, in particular to the own sensor quality, when detecting an enemy object and S refers to the signature, in particular to the own signature, exposed to the same enemy object and its sensors, wherein the sensors can be assumed. It is thus an idea of the invention to provide a decision support system which evaluates detected and assumed objects in the situation picture and adapts the sensors of a pilot's own aircraft to these objects on the basis of Q and S. The assumptions are typically based on the current reports for the area or from expectation based on typical behaviour and doctrine. The purpose is to shift the focus to the detected and measured objects in order to perform the tasks needed on a target-oriented basis and not by micro-handling tools and/or sensors.
According to a preferred embodiment of the invention, the combat object comprises a combat aircraft and/or a combat station and the enemy object comprises at least one of an enemy combat aircraft, an enemy station and an obstacle, such as a mountain or a cloud. The plurality of characteristic parameters of the enemy object preferably comprise type, position, velocity and/or aspect angle. Preferably, the predetermined model in step b) comprises the characteristics of the at least one enemy sensor, an atmospheric model and/or a condition model. The atmospheric model preferably comprises a plurality of atmospheric parameters such as wind speed, rain, humidity, fog and/or clouds. The condition model is preferably frequency dependent and comprises at least one of a visual and an infrared frequency spectrum.
According to a preferred embodiment of the invention, the method further comprises the step of storing the at least one quality factor for the at least one combat sensor and storing the at least one signature factor for the at least one enemy sensor.
According to a preferred embodiment of the invention, the method further comprises the step of displaying the at least one quality factor for the at least one combat sensor and displaying the at least one signature factor for the at least one enemy sensor.
According to a preferred embodiment of the invention, the method further comprises the step of recording each quality factor out of a plurality of quality factors and each signature factor out of a plurality of signature factors, wherein the recorded data is adapted for generating a situation picture which is adapted for decision support of the combat object in the combat situation. The controlling step d) is preferably adapted for decision support of the combat object such that the combat object adjusts its appearance in the combat situation.
These and other aspects of the invention will be apparent from and elucidated with reference to the embodiments described hereinafter.
In the drawings:
Therefore, the pilot's focus is shifted from handling sensors to tactically working with objects in the situation picture which makes the pilot object-focused instead of tool-focused. In this way, sensors can be controlled automatically so that objects can be detected to the optimum degree without revealing the combat aircraft.
While the invention has been illustrated and described in detail in the drawings and foregoing description, such illustration and description are to be considered illustrative or exemplary and not restrictive and it is not intended to limit the invention to the disclosed embodiments. The mere fact that certain measures are recited in mutually different dependent claims does not indicate that a combination of these measures cannot be used advantageously.
Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind | 371c Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
PCT/SE2011/051533 | 12/16/2011 | WO | 00 | 6/18/2014 |
Publishing Document | Publishing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
WO2013/089606 | 6/20/2013 | WO | A |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5343212 | Rose et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
5457466 | Rose | Oct 1995 | A |
5870056 | Fowler | Feb 1999 | A |
5877998 | Aidala et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
6244536 | Cloutier | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6411249 | Rose | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6521430 | Orwar et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6525685 | Rose | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6535158 | Wilkerson et al. | Mar 2003 | B2 |
6714155 | Rose | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6791493 | Rose | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6801152 | Rose | Oct 2004 | B1 |
7026980 | Mavroudakis et al. | Apr 2006 | B1 |
7081849 | Collins et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7167127 | Collins et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7256729 | Bummerstede | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7394046 | Olsson et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
7525448 | Wilson et al. | Apr 2009 | B1 |
7764217 | Yannone | Jul 2010 | B2 |
7870816 | Willingham et al. | Jan 2011 | B1 |
8189938 | Hohenberger et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
8406162 | Haupt et al. | Mar 2013 | B2 |
8654005 | Christopher et al. | Feb 2014 | B2 |
8699781 | Bold | Apr 2014 | B1 |
8711220 | Tiana | Apr 2014 | B2 |
8896480 | Wilson et al. | Nov 2014 | B1 |
8909394 | Lundqvist et al. | Dec 2014 | B2 |
20050001759 | Khosla | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050074970 | Serina et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20090109082 | Rose | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090327542 | Lundqvist | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20140277852 | Lundqvist et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140288907 | Lundqvist et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
Entry |
---|
International Searching Authority, International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/SE2011/051533, Oct. 25, 2012, 10 pages, Swedish Patent and Registration Office, Sweden. |
Zacco Sweden AB, SAAB AB's Response to the Oct. 25, 2012 Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority for International Application No. PCT/SE2011/051533, Oct. 10, 2013, 14 pages, Sweden. |
International Preliminary Examining Authority, Written Opinion (Second) for International Application No. PCT/SE2011/051533, Feb. 12, 2014, 4 pages, Swedish Patent and Registration Office, Sweden. |
International Preliminary Examining Authority, International Preliminary Report on Patentability, including SAAB AB's Mar. 4, 2014 Response to the International Preliminary Examining Authority's Feb. 12, 2014 Written Opinion, for International Application No. PCT/SE2011/051533, Apr. 15, 2014, 7 pages, Swedish Patent and Registration Office, Sweden. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20140373705 A1 | Dec 2014 | US |