1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates generally to combat identification systems for the dismounted soldier and more particularly to a secure covert identification as friend or foe (IFF) system for interrogating a dismounted soldier with a coded infrared (IR) signal that is selectively retroreflected and encoded by the target when recognized as a valid challenge.
2. Description of the Related Art
Dismounted Armed Forces have an interest in the remote and secure identification of a person as friend or foe, during combat training exercises and in armed conflicts. Identification as friend or foe (IFF) systems are well-known in the art for military aircraft and other weapons systems. Such systems are useful for preventing action against friendly forces. The military platform commanders on a modern battlefield must accurately identify potential targets as friend-or-foe (IFF) when detected within range of available weapon systems. Such target IFF presents a difficult decision for a military platform commander, who must decide whether to engage a detected target while avoiding accidental fratricide. This problem is even more difficult for the dismounted soldier who may be moving covertly through an unknown combat zone at night with limited visibility. Simple visual assessments of other dismounted soldiers is not a reliable IFF method for military platforms or dismounted infantry.
The art is replete with proposals for IFF systems for military platforms in modern land battlefields. But commanders often still rely on low-resolution visual and infrared images to identify detected targets. Commanders often must operate under radio silence to avoid detection by an enemy. With infrared (IR) imagers alone, the identification of individual dismounted soldiers is not feasible, although the IR signatures of land vehicles may have some use. IFF systems that require one or more radio signals are limited in channel-capacity and must bear the overhead of selecting and/or awaiting an available battlefield channel before completing the IFF task. Active-response systems require the emission of a signal by the unknown respondent in response to a verified challenge, which may compromise the security of both interrogator and respondent. Active transponders are subject to capture and may be used for spoofing by the enemy in a battlefield or a combat training environment. Passive response systems rely on the return of an echo (reflection) of a challenge signal to the interrogator, but simple reflection schemes are easily compromised and more elaborate passive reflection schemes are still subject to intercept, compromise or capture for use by the enemy in spoofing the interrogator.
As described in U.S. Pat. No. 4,851,849 by Otto Albersdoerfer, a typical active IFF technique for vehicles is to equip a military vehicle with a transponder that emits a coded return signal when an interrogating radar pulse is detected by its receiver. As described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,686,722 by Dobois et al., a more sophisticated active IFF technique for vehicles uses a selective wavelength optical coding system with tunable optical beacons mounted on each vehicle. By spreading the optical broadcast energy into frequency in a precise manner, the beacon identifies the host vehicle to friendly receivers while remaining covert to the enemy.
As described in U.S. Pat. No. 4,694,297 by Alan Sewards, a typical passive IFF technique for vehicles is to equip a military vehicle with a passive antenna that reflects an interrogatory radar beam while adding a distinctive modulation by varying the antenna termination impedance responsive to evaluation of the interrogatory beam. A more sophisticated passive electro-optical IFF system for vehicles is described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,274,379 by R. Carbonneau et al. wherein each friendly vehicle is provided with a narrow-beam laser transmitter and a panoramic detector. If a vehicle detects a coded interrogator laser beam and identifies the code as friendly, it opens a blocked rotating retro-reflector to clear a reflection path back to the source, where it can be identified by another narrow field-of-view detector. A further modulation is also added to the reflected beam to identify the reflecting vehicle as friendly. If an improperly coded beam is detected, the transmission path is not cleared, thereby preventing reflection of that beam and warning is sent to the vehicle commander of an unfriendly laser transmission. Others have proposed similar passive optical IFF systems for vehicles, including Wooton et al. in U.S. Pat. No. 5,459,470 and Sun et al. in U.S. Pat. No. 5,819,164.
The art is less populated with IFF proposals for the lone dismounted soldier (the infantryman on foot). Whether in actual combat or in a training exercise, the dismounted soldier operates with severe weight limits and little onboard electrical power. The friendly foot soldier has no distinctive acoustic, thermal or radar cross-section that may be used to assist in distinguishing friendlies from enemies. But some practitioners have proposing IFF solutions for the dismounted soldier, both active and passive. For example, in U.S. Pat. No. 6,097,330, Kiser proposes an active IFF system for identifying concentrations of ground troops (or individuals) from an aircraft by interrogating a (heavy) human-mounted radio transmitter carried by one of the group with a narrow-cast optical signal. As another example, in U.S. Pat. No. 5,299,277, Rose proposes a compact active IFF system to be carried by each individual dismounted soldier for use in combat exercises or on the battlefield. The system includes a clip-on beacon and a hand-held (flashlight-style) or weapon-mounted detector. The beacon radiates a spread-spectrum low-probability-of-intercept (LPI) signal at optical frequencies that are selected to be invisible to the usual detectors present in the battlefield. Rose doesn't consider the problem of spoofing with captured devices. As yet another example, in U.S. Pat. No. 5,648,862, Owen proposes an active IFF system implemented by adding provisions for coded two-way transmissions to the night-vision systems often worn by dismounted soldiers. As a final example, in U.S. Pat. No. 5,966,226, Gerber proposes an active combat IFF system for each dismounted soldier that includes a weapon-mounted laser projector for interrogating suspected targets and a harness including means for receiving the interrogatory signal and means for responding with an encoded radio, acoustic or optical signal. But these proposals do not resolve the spoofing problem (through capture of a beacon or harness, for example). and are not particularly covert because the responding target generally broadcasts an active signal either continuously or in response to interrogation. Any IFF proposal employing broadcast signals also faces a battlefield channel capacity (or channel availability delay) problem as well.
There is still a clearly-felt need in the art for an IFF system for the dismounted soldier that provides true passive covertness and that cannot be spoofed under any battlefield conditions. The desired IFF system requires little power and is adapted to prevent any use of captured equipment or intercepted signal codes. Finally, the system should be inexpensive enough to permit equipping every soldier with the necessary interrogation and response equipment for combat exercises or actual battlefield conditions. These unresolved problems and deficiencies are clearly felt in the art and are solved by this invention in the manner described below.
This invention solves the above-described problems by providing a system, for use in either a combat exercise or on the battlefield, that includes a passive helmet-mounted identification as friend or foe (IFF) response unit and a weapon-mounted IFF interrogatory unit for each soldier. Infrared (IR) signals are employed for both challenge and response. The IR response signal is a very narrowly-targeted reflection of the relatively narrow IR transmit signal, thereby minimizing interception opportunities. The transmit and response signals are encoded in a transaction that cannot be compromised even when either or both signals are intercepted and decoded by the enemy. The combat IFF system includes biometric security (anti-spoofing) features that prevent any use by an enemy soldier in possession of captured units. No military radio-frequency (RF) spectrum is used so there are no limitations on simultaneous IFF transactions in the battlefield. A combat IFF transaction is very brief and may be completed within the typical human reaction time interval.
It is a purpose of this invention to provide a secure covert combat IFF system adapted for use either in a combat exercise or on the battlefield. It is an advantage of this invention that the IFF transaction employs line-of-sight IR signals that are not likely to be surreptitiously intercepted. It is a feature of this invention that both transmit and response signals are encoded for security in a manner that prevents compromise even if one or both are intercepted and decoded by an enemy. It is another advantage of this invention that the response unit is entirely passive and cannot radiate any energy that may be intercepted.
It is another purpose of this invention to provide a combat IFF system having a reduced cost and weight without using any additional military RF spectrum. It is a feature of this invention that the response unit is integrated into the helmet of the dismounted soldier, adding little weight thereto. It is an advantage of this invention that the interrogatory unit and the response unit generally include commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) components available in quantity at relatively low cost and the response unit may be powered by a small lithium-ion battery for up to three years. It is another feature of this invention that the entire IFF transaction occurs in the optical spectrum, using no military RF spectrum.
It is yet another purpose of this invention to provide a combat IFF system that cannot be compromised by the enemy, whether by interception, spoofing or capture. It is a feature of this invention that the helmet-mounted response unit is automatically disabled upon doffing of the helmet and may be reactivated only by means of selected biometric data unique to the soldier fitted with the helmet; and similar provisions may be made for the interrogatory unit. It is an advantage of this invention that an IFF transaction cannot be compromised or spoofed even by an enemy in possession of both decoded signals together with captured interrogatory and response units.
In one aspect, the invention is a method for identifying as friend or foe a combat response unit having a helmet-mounted challenge receiver and a retroreflector obturator, including the steps of projecting an IR transmit signal including a transmitted code of the day (TCOD) onto the combat response unit from a combat interrogatory unit, receiving the IR transmit signal and TCOD at the challenge receiver, selectively reflecting the IR transmit signal by opening and closing the retroreflector obturator according to a response code of the day (RCOD), receiving the reflected IR transmit signal and RCOD at the combat interrogatory unit, and combining the received RCOD with the TCOD to identify the combat response unit as friend or foe.
In a preferred embodiment, the invention is a system for combat IFF communications including a combat interrogatory unit having projector means for projecting an IR transmit signal including a TCOD, receiver means for receiving a reflected IR transmit signal including a RCOD, and means for combining the received RCOD with the TCOD to identify the source of the reflected IR transmit signal as friend or foe; and a helmet-mounted combat response unit having sensor means for receiving a projected IR transmit signal including the TCOD, retroreflector means for reflecting an incoming IR transmit signal generally back along the incoming path thereof, obturator means for obstructing the retroreflector means to prevent reflection thereby, and means for opening and closing the obturator means according to the RCOD.
The foregoing, together with other objects, features and advantages of this invention, can be better appreciated with reference to the following specification, claims and the accompanying drawing.
For a more complete understanding of this invention, reference is now made to the following detailed description of the embodiments as illustrated in the accompanying drawing, in which like reference designations represent like features throughout the several views and wherein:
a)-(d) are sketches illustrating several examples of the means for accepting biometric data employed in the combat response unit of
Retroreflector/obturator 32 may employ any useful retroreflector device known in the art, such as, for example, one of the line of Tech Spec™. Corner Cube Retroreflectors (Trihedral Prisms) available from Edmond Industrial Optics, Barrington, N.J. The obturator portion of retroreflector/obturator 32 may include a mechanical shutter device capable of cycling open and closed within a few milliseconds, or more preferably, a liquid crystal device (LCD) disposed over the retroreflector portion, such as the LCD-CDS92106 available from Cubic Defense Systems, San Diego, Calif.
The two-way signal-to-noise budget for an IFF transaction may be appreciated with reference to the following example. A +44 dBm IR transmit signal level may be provided at 1540 nm by a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) class-1 laser (25 watts). At an exemplary 1000 meter range limit, IR transmit signal 24 arrives at response unit 22 with a power of −8 dBm, having lost, for example, 52 dB en route through spreading, absorption and scattering losses. IR transmit signal 24 is then reflected by the appropriate retroreflector/obturator 32 and returned to IR receiver 40 with a −24 dB spreading loss (less than simple spherical spreading because of the retroreflector properties), a −3 dB obturator insertion loss, and scattering and absorption losses of less than −1 dB, leaving about −36 dBm at IR receiver 40, which is perhaps 8-10 dB above the noise threshold of an exemplary COTS laser detector, such as the Analog Modules No. 754 available from Analog Modules, Inc., Longwood, Fla. Even in a battlefield smoke and haze condition, the 1540 nm laser signal suffers only an additional −7.4 dB of scattering loss over the 1000 meter two-way path, leaving perhaps 1-3 dB of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) margin in the IFF transaction of this example. The inventors have calculated link margins showing that IFF transactions are 99.5% successful in clear air at 1540 nm with a 5 dB margin (8 dB is needed for smoky haze).
After successfully completing a thumb scan and donning the helmet, biometric ID signal 56 is set to “enable” and obturator driver 50 is enabled so the soldier is thereafter equipped to passively respond to valid incoming interrogatory signals in the manner now described. When the soldier again doffs the helmet, the helmet-doffing sensor 68 immediately signals logic 64, which resets biometric ID signal 56 to “disable” and obturator driver 50 is again disabled, permanently shutting obturator 54 to prevent any retroreflection.
In use, response unit 22 first begins the IFF transaction upon the arrival of IR transmit signal 24 from interrogatory unit 20 (
As described above in connection with
After successfully completing a biometric scan, biometric ID signal 116 is set to “enable” and TCOD generator logic 86 is enabled so the soldier is thereafter equipped to actively interrogate targets in the manner described above. After a predetermined period of inactivity, established by, for example, a simple timer (not shown), logic 116 resets biometric ID signal 116 to “disable” and TCOD generator logic 86 is again disabled, permanently shutting down TCOD projector 96.
Thus, the duration of response pulse stream 136 cannot be spoofed without prior knowledge of COD 120 or interception of TCOD 122 and the duration of delay 134 cannot be spoofed without having both the prior knowledge of COD 120 and the successful interception of TCOD 122. Such spoofing also presumes prior knowledge of the decoding algorithms described above. Each IFF transaction is completed within 60 ms. An interrogator may repeat an interrogation as desired to reduce the probability of false negatives. Assuming that interrogation is repeated up to four times before accepting a negative (partial response) result, the entire IFF transaction is completed within 250 ms. This method of obtaining a response is necessary only under extreme scintillation and range conditions, at the limits of link performance.
a)-(d) show several examples of suitable means for accepting biometric data for helmet-mounted response unit 22 described above in connection with
b) shows another mounting arrangement suitable for print sensor 138, although the curved surface 142 is preferable.
d) demonstrates an exemplary arrangement for placing print sensor 138 within helmet-mounted response unit 22 so that the user may draw the thumb 146 over print sensor 138 while grasping helmet-mounted response unit 22 preparatory to donning same. Any useful audio and/or visual indicator means (not shown) may be provided to inform the user that helmet-mounted response unit 22 has been successfully activated, thereby affording the opportunity to retry activation by repeating the movement of thumb 146 across print sensor 138. If desired, a the repeated attempts may be accumulated against a limited number followed by self-destruction of all logic and data stored in helmet-mounted response unit 22.
In an alternative embodiment of helmet-mounted response unit 22, the biometric data necessary to identify several members of a combat unit may be stored in biometric ID storage 66 (
In the step 172, the RCOD is received and decoded at the interrogatory unit and validated in the step 174, which uses the locally-stored RGN and COD retrieved in the step 176 to duplicate the computations used to create the RCOD at the response unit and to compare the received RCOD with the locally-computed RCOD. In the step 178, the results of step 174 are evaluated to make a friend or foe decision, completing the IFF transaction initiated in step 148. If Friend, then the step 180 signals the interrogatory unit user in some useful manner, such as lighting up an LED for a short time. If Foe, then the step 182 initiates a repetition of the IFF transaction (with a new RGN) or does nothing, thereby indicating that the IFF transaction has failed to identify a friend.
Clearly, other embodiments and modifications of this invention may occur readily to those of ordinary skill in the art in view of these teachings. Therefore, this invention is to be limited only by the following claims, which include all such embodiments and modifications when viewed in conjunction with the above specification and accompanying drawing.
This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 10/066,099, filed Feb. 1, 2002, entitled SECURE COVERT COMBAT IDENTIFICATION FRIEND-OR-FOE (IFF) SYSTEM FOR THE DISMOUNTED SOLDIER, hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4097141 | Warner | Jun 1978 | A |
4143263 | Eichweber | Mar 1979 | A |
4777660 | Gould et al. | Oct 1988 | A |
4837575 | Conner, Jr. | Jun 1989 | A |
4866781 | Borken et al. | Sep 1989 | A |
4937795 | Motegi et al. | Jun 1990 | A |
4983021 | Fergason | Jan 1991 | A |
5015096 | Kowalski et al. | May 1991 | A |
5083866 | Dey | Jan 1992 | A |
5117305 | Dey | May 1992 | A |
5121242 | Kennedy | Jun 1992 | A |
5136602 | Sugawara | Aug 1992 | A |
5144397 | Tokuda et al. | Sep 1992 | A |
5173643 | Sullivan | Dec 1992 | A |
5274379 | Carbonneau et al. | Dec 1993 | A |
5299227 | Rose | Mar 1994 | A |
5306925 | Abe et al. | Apr 1994 | A |
5426295 | Parikh et al. | Jun 1995 | A |
5448045 | Clark | Sep 1995 | A |
5448847 | Teetzel | Sep 1995 | A |
5459470 | Wootton et al. | Oct 1995 | A |
5476385 | Parikh et al. | Dec 1995 | A |
5539565 | Waddoups et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5589981 | Kasser et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5648862 | Owen | Jul 1997 | A |
5668386 | Makiuchi et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5686722 | Dubois et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
5819164 | Sun et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5822430 | Doud | Oct 1998 | A |
5870215 | Milano et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5966226 | Gerber | Oct 1999 | A |
5966227 | Dubois et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
6005276 | Forrest et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6055087 | Kwon et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6097330 | Kiser | Aug 2000 | A |
6154299 | Gilbreath et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6229165 | Sakai et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6450816 | Gerber | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6493123 | Mansell et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6518572 | Kishii et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6545805 | He et al. | Apr 2003 | B2 |
6646292 | Steigerwald et al. | Nov 2003 | B2 |
6736518 | Belt et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6836351 | Livingston et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
7213942 | Jiang et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
7308202 | Roes et al. | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7333735 | Goorjian | Feb 2008 | B1 |
20010013967 | Tsumura | Aug 2001 | A1 |
20010035723 | Pelrine | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010035995 | Ruggiero | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20030048533 | Lyons, III | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030147651 | Roes et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030227681 | Currie | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040075880 | Pepper et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20060054899 | Takahashi et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060180830 | Kambiz et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20070127928 | Varshneya et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20080217602 | Kahen | Sep 2008 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1536401 | Jun 2005 | EP |
2366872 | Mar 2002 | GB |
4263475 | Sep 1992 | JP |
2000299489 | Oct 2000 | JP |
WO 9957789 | Nov 1999 | WO |
WO 03075493 | Sep 2003 | WO |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20090058712 A1 | Mar 2009 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 10066099 | Feb 2002 | US |
Child | 11953792 | US |