1. Field of Invention
The present disclosure relates generally to a method of assessing a total threat for a flight path.
2. Description of Prior Art
Methods exist for assessing threats associated with a given flight path. One example of an assessment algorithm defines mission success using the formula—Mission Success =A0*Rm*S*Pk*Pd*Pc*Pe*Pwk.
The method requires the processing of a large amount of information, complex (hypothesis based) algorithm, special high speed computer resources, and on-board sensors. For real-time application, the algorithm will compute, update, and display the information of Pms (probability of mission success) assessment values. This can be a very complex and intensive mathematical operation.
Another example of an assessment algorithm uses time based position valves, such as azimuth, elevation, and altitude, to model radar threats as point sources. Point source evaluation however provides only a single position assessment which can provide error since a threat from a radar is typically part of a distributed threat system. Moreover, a full flight path threat assessment may become unnecessary if the flight path is altered or new threats are encountered. As such, single position value based threat assessments do not properly represent a realistic threat assessment that can in turn reduce ownship survivability and affect Pms.
Prior to aircraft take-off, a pilot is typically assigned a mission plan. having fly path waypoints (sometimes referred to as mission waypoints). Mission types include, deep air support (DAS), mission for special operations, reconnaissance, bombing, attack, and support. Typically an aircraft (herein refer also as ownship) follows a mission plan and flies its intended fly-path, passing predetermined waypoints. Waypoints are sometimes referred to as mission waypoints. The distance between two consecutive mission waypoints can often be relatively large. At the mission onset it is assumed the pilot will proceed on a mostly straight line path between adjacent mission waypoints. However this is subject to change due to the nature of the mission plan, terrain, and/or conditions that may be encountered.
Ownship vulnerability from ground based radar threats can be computed using current position data to compute the presented radar cross section (RCS) signature. Knowing the ownship radar receiver signal to noise minimum (SNR min) value, the maximum detectable free space range is computed while the slant range to the radar threat is computed from the positional data. If the slant range exceeds the SNR min range the probability of detection Pd is 0, otherwise the Pd value is set at its default, which is 1. Pd has been calculated using threat radar parameters and slant range, the total Pd is from all known threats is calculated from its current position and displayed to a pilot or mission planner. When the ownship reaches the next waypoint, the process can be repeated with new Pd values determined and displayed. The threat assessment however is only useful at the fixed positions and at the instantaneous ownship spatial orientations. RCS and Pd plots (polar plots) are typically displayed along the flight path with the radar threat positions.
Disclosed herein is a method of managing a flight path of an aircraft subject to a threat. In an embodiment the method includes receiving threat data, receiving flight path data, computing a dynamic waypoint along the flight path based on threat data, recomputing threat data based on the location of the dynamic waypoint, determining if values of the threat data exceed acceptable values of threat data, and indicating a flight path to the computed dynamic waypoint if the acceptable values of threat data exceed the values of the threat data. The method can include recalculating ownship position and recomputing the waypoints, threat data, and flight path. The method described herein includes an option of identifying individual threats from the threat data that can be represented by a single threat; forming a threat cluster with the individual identified threats, and using the formed threat cluster in repeated recalculations. The method can also include computing a centroid from the maximum and minimum values of the cluster threat data; and creating threat values for each threat based on centroid values and comparing the threat values to acceptable threat values. Recomputing waypoints can include generating candidate waypoints that vary within a range from the previous flight path. Threat values for each candidate waypoint can be assessed and the candidate waypoint having the lowest assessed threat value can be identified. In an embodiment, the candidate waypoints are generated from all combinations of the original waypoint coordinates, coordinates greater than the original waypoint coordinates, and coordinates less than the original waypoint coordinates. The greater than and the less than coordinates can vary from the original waypoint coordinates by a set amount. The can also include visually displaying threat data, where selected threat data is displayed.
Also disclosed is a system for managing a flight path of an aircraft subject to a threat In an example the system includes a processor configured to receive threat data, receive flight path data, compute a dynamic waypoint along the flight path based on threat data, recompute threat data based on location of dynamic waypoint, determine if the threat values exceed the acceptable threat values, and indicate a flight path to the computed dynamic waypoint if the acceptable threat values exceed the threat values.
Some of the features and benefits of the present invention having been stated, others will become apparent as the description proceeds when taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, in which:
While the invention will be described in connection with the preferred embodiments, it will be understood that it is not intended to limit the invention to that embodiment. On the contrary, it is intended to cover all alternatives, modifications, and equivalents, as may be included within the spirit and scope of the invention as defined by the appended claims.
The present invention will now be described more fully hereinafter with reference to the accompanying drawings in which embodiments of the invention are shown. This invention may, however, be embodied in many different forms and should not be construed as limited to the illustrated embodiments set forth herein; rather, these embodiments are provided so that this disclosure will be thorough and complete, and will fully convey the scope of the invention to those skilled in the art. Like numbers refer to like elements throughout. For the convenience in referring to the accompanying figures, directional terms are used for reference and illustration only. For example, the directional terms such as “upper”, “lower”, “above”, “below”, and the like are being used to illustrate a relational location.
It is to be understood that the invention is not limited to the exact details of construction, operation, exact materials, or embodiments shown and described, as modifications and equivalents will be apparent to one skilled in the art. In the drawings and specification, there have been disclosed illustrative embodiments of the invention and, although specific terms are employed, they are used in a generic and descriptive sense only and not for the purpose of limitation. Accordingly, the present disclosure is therefore to be limited only by the scope of the appended claims.
Disclosed herein is a method of performing threat assessment using a Threat Analysis Tool (TAT) algorithm. The algorithm can be included with a system and/or a method of detecting, recognizing and intercepting continuously, threat-radars' assessment along a mission flight path to an aircraft operator without cluttering the display. An advantage of the present disclosure provides a pilot the ability to recognize the presence of a threat's vulnerability based on ownship's detection by the threat-radar along the entire route, selected and even in the presence of terrain bounced jamming signals.
For the purposes of discussion herein, a cluster, in an embodiment, is a group of points defining an area of interest and as such indicates the number of individual objects contained within the outline. A cluster can have three values: (1) a centroid, as defined in an embodiment herein, is a geometric center of a plane figure, in other embodiments, the centroid can be an average or central tendency of a data set; (2) Maximum value, in an embodiment, is the largest distance from the centroid to a point on the cluster; and (3) Minimum value, in an embodiment, is the shortest distance from the centroid to a point on the cluster.
The distance between two mission waypoints can be estimated and computed using present aircraft-speed at the first waypoint and the coordinates of two waypoints. The TAT algorithm can also estimate the time it will take to react to a pop-up threat. In a default value, this time is equal to the average flight time to cover 10 miles of distance at current speed. The measured parameter values may depend on; aircraft-type, sensor-type, threat-type, terrain-type, environmental conditions, and mission-type.
In an embodiment, computation of free-space range defines ownship vulnerability from ground based radar threats and can be computed using current position data which presents radar cross section (RCS) signature to the threat. Knowing the ownship radar receiver signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and its minimum (SNRmin) value, the maximum detectable free-space range can be computed and using a line-of-sight (LOS) vector. The range of the radar threat can be computed from the ownship positional data and threat site location.
In one example, if the slant range exceeds the SNRmin free space range, the probability of detection Pd is set at 0, otherwise the Pd value is set to its default, 1. All slant ranges of every threat site having a Pd value of 1 are used for any future processing. This process can be conducted at each waypoint. This approach saves processing time. The pilot can select any threat site of interest, even a threat site that did not meet above described criteria. In such a case, that site is added to TAT's stored threat site data.
Threat site Pd values of all selected threat sites can be recalculated using threat radar parameters and the slant range from the ownship's current position. In one example this can be done for all known threats. The Pd values may be made available to an aircraft operator, pilot, and/or stored. Ownship's present position is a default position used by TAT in absence of a designated waypoint position. When the ownship reaches the next waypoint, the process can be repeated with new Pd values determined and available. The pilot can designate inside the TAT algorithm, the initiation and termination waypoints, which are defined as the ownship's current and final positions, respectively. The threat assessment however is only useful at the fixed positions and at the instantaneous. RCS and Pd plots (polar plots) may be displayed along the flight path with the radar threat positions.
Also included in the method in
In step 114 an initial computation can be performed, where in one embodiment a simulated waypoint is identified that is a distance from the first established waypoint. In this embodiment, the first established waypoint is the actual starting point of the mission. Thus, the first mission or simulated waypoint will be past the first actual waypoint. In one example, the first simulated waypoint is chosen so that it is reachable by the aircraft up to about 10 seconds from the time the first actual waypoint is reached. Simulated waypoints are computed (their quantity and location (latitude, longitude, altitude) which are added to mission waypoints. Also a threat site total number for TAT assessment is selected. An algorithm is provided in Appendix A illustrating an example of computing the number of waypoints K. Additionally, if the number of waypoints is found to be less than two, then the pilot will be alerted and a display is projected illustrating the respective positions of the aircraft and the threat.
Still referring to
Two computed values may be used when computing ground points, they include (1) LOS1—LOS vector of measured parameters and (2) LOS2—LOS vector of perturbed parameters. Values for the LOS2 parameters slant range, the ground distance between LOS1 and LOS2, and the LOS2 vector latitude and longitude can be found by applying trigonometric identities. A cubic-spline technique can be utilized to compute coefficients of the fitted polynomial and the altitude at LOS2 ground-point. In the example of step 116, the ground-point always lies proximate the threat site. In this example, there are six ground-points in the vicinity of threat site 401. All these ground points are treated as a part of the threat site entity.
When computing a cluster, the latitude, longitude, and altitude of all ground-points can be grouped together and depicted by a geometric shape that best fits the grouping shape; example geometric shapes include a triangle, square, circle, trapezoidal, ellipse, etc. The area of the shape can also be computed. In one example, an optimum shape has a minimum computed area when compared to the area of all other possible “shapes”. TAT stores this shape and associated ground-points designating the shape as a cluster. A centroid, minimum value, maximum value, and the area of the selected cluster can then be computed.
The threat to the waypoint Pd values can be calculated at step 118. In this example, SNR values are computed from LOS vectors and form SNR values. Also computed are LOS vector Pd values and cluster parameters (PdCentroid, PdMin, and PdMax). TAT stores Pd, LOS, threat site, cluster area, and the waypoint position data and uses PdMin, PdMax, and PdCentroid of cluster values to compute a new flight path.
In step 120, a maximum Pd value can be identified and compared to the PdHold value. If the PdMax is less than PdHold, no threat is posed by proceeding to the chosen simulated waypoint (step 122). If PdMax is about equal to or greater than PdHold, the LOS vector that contributes a maximum probability of detection is identified and a new flight path algorithm is performed (loop to step 116). An example of a new flight path algorithm is provided in Appendix A. Suggested waypoints are generated defining a new fly path having minimum deviations from the mission flight path and minimum Pd exposure. Also provided in Appendix A is a sample algorithm for computing each threat's Pd value. It should be pointed out however that the method described herein can be activated at any time, for any duration, and for any portion of a flight path. Activating the algorithm may be at the pilot's discretion.
With reference now to
An example of volumetric perturbation is illustrated in
A TAT display example shown in
The present invention described herein, therefore, is well adapted to carry out the objects and attain the ends and advantages mentioned, as well as others inherent therein. While a presently preferred embodiment of the invention has been given for purposes of disclosure, numerous changes exist in the details of procedures for accomplishing the desired results. For example, the method described herein can be applied to other craft and/or vehicles, such as automobiles, tanks, personnel carriers, water craft, such as boats, ships, and submarines, unmanned craft, such as drones, and the like. Thus a craft operator can be in the particular craft, or remote from the craft. These and other similar modifications will readily suggest themselves to those skilled in the art, and are intended to be encompassed within the spirit of the present invention disclosed herein and the scope of the appended claims.
Appendix A
Example Algorithm for Computing Number of Waypoints K.
Example Algorithm for Computing Number of Waypoints K.
Example Algorithm for Computing Threat Values.
Example Algorithm for Controlling Threshold Threat Value PdThrld.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4060830 | Woolfson | Nov 1977 | A |
| 4812990 | Adams et al. | Mar 1989 | A |
| 4947350 | Murray et al. | Aug 1990 | A |
| 5321406 | Bishop et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
| 5526260 | Kodet et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
| 5537119 | Poore, Jr. | Jul 1996 | A |
| 5594450 | Schober | Jan 1997 | A |
| 5631640 | Deis et al. | May 1997 | A |
| 5635662 | Robertson et al. | Jun 1997 | A |
| 5838262 | Kershner et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
| 6078849 | Brady et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
| 6097996 | Deker | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6172747 | Houlberg | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6182007 | Szczerba | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6196496 | Moskovitz et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
| 6204799 | Caputi, Jr. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
| 6222464 | Tinkel et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
| 6260759 | Nguyen et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
| 6317690 | Gia | Nov 2001 | B1 |
| 6347313 | Ma et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
| 6421603 | Pratt et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6424889 | Bonhoure et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6466158 | Munger | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6529821 | Tomasi et al. | Mar 2003 | B2 |
| 6577947 | Kronfeld et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
| 6694228 | Rios | Feb 2004 | B2 |
| 6784408 | Cheung et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
| 6801156 | Wasiewicz | Oct 2004 | B1 |
| 6845938 | Muravez | Jan 2005 | B2 |
| 6937746 | Schwartz | Aug 2005 | B2 |
| 7071867 | Wittenberg et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
| 7193557 | Kovacich et al. | Mar 2007 | B1 |
| 7194353 | Baldwin et al. | Mar 2007 | B1 |
| 7236121 | Caber | Jun 2007 | B2 |
| 7248952 | Ma et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
| 7280897 | Allstadt et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
| 7440588 | Kaneko et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
| 7447593 | Estkowski et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
| 7474332 | Byren | Jan 2009 | B2 |
| 7555383 | Siegel | Jun 2009 | B2 |
| 7589646 | Glover | Sep 2009 | B2 |
| 7693653 | Hussain et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
| 7734411 | Gremmert | Jun 2010 | B2 |
| 7848879 | Herman | Dec 2010 | B2 |
| 7970532 | Tehan et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
| 8010244 | Allstadt et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
| 8086351 | Gaudiano et al. | Dec 2011 | B2 |
| 8116527 | Sabol et al. | Feb 2012 | B2 |
| 8265337 | Yu et al. | Sep 2012 | B2 |
| 8527118 | Jones et al. | Sep 2013 | B2 |
| 20040068372 | Ybarra et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
| 20050216182 | Hussain et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20070139252 | Barry et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
| 20070198143 | Ybarra et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070253639 | Statter | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20090157233 | Kokkeby et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090282122 | Patel et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
| 20100195868 | Lu | Aug 2010 | A1 |
| 20100235088 | Li et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
| 20100274487 | Neff et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
| 20120290152 | Cheung et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20110029234 A1 | Feb 2011 | US |