An Analysis of Engagement Algorithms for Real-Time Weapons Effects

Abstract

Performance and fidelity requirements are the main drivers when selecting algorithms for real-time weapons effects. In many cases, look-up tables are the method of choice for real-time applications. Look-up tables have had wide-spread use in trade studies, planning tools, training simulations, and other applications and have proven to be both extremely valuable for real-time casualty assessment and at times misunderstood in what capabilities they provide. Look-up tables facilitate fast retrieval of vulnerability data, with measurable trade-offs between memory requirements, computation requirements, and fidelity. As processing power has increased, higher-fidelity algorithms of casualty assessment have gained wider use, suggesting that look-up tables may eventually become obsolete. This paper describes the casualty assessment modeling spectrum from low fidelity to high fidelity, including look-up tables, curve fits, physics-based models, and finite element codes. Each type of model is examined, along with the advantages and disadvantages of each. Guidelines for how to determine what model type to select and what factors should be considered when selecting a model are discussed. Principles outlined in this paper are being used to support model selection for the OneTESS program, the Army's next generation tactical engagement simulation system.

Keywords

Weapons effects live training damage assessment vulnerability weapon lethality look-up tables physics-based models engineering models

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

1. OneTESS Operational Requirements Document. 2003. Available from: htp://www.peostri.army.mil/PRODUCTS/ONETESS/

2. Gordon, J. , S. Casey , J. Burns , and J. Cohn . “Addressing Realism in Determining Requirements for Simulation Based Learning Environments.” In Proceedings of the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation and Education Conference. 2001.

3. Sondheimer, K. , and N. Fagan-Blanch , eds. Test and Evaluation Management Guide. Fort Belvoir, VA: The Defense Acquisition University Press, 2001.

4. Mann, J. , A. York , and B. Shankle . “Integrating Physics-Based Damage Effects in Urban Simulations.” In Proceedings of the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation and Education Conference. 2004.

5. Lorey, D., and R. Swenson. “Hydrocodes Aid Weapon Testing.” Retrieved May 2, 2005. Available from: htp://www.afrlhorizons.com/Briefs/mar03/MN0211.html

6. LaPorte, L. J. Interview by P. Slayden Hollis. “Accurate, Responsive Enemy-Focused Fires: Interview with Lieutenant General Leon J. LaPorte.” 2001. Retrieved May 18, 2005. Available from: htp://www.fndarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IAU/is_5_6/ai_79807459

7. AMSAA. Physical Model Knowledge Acquisition Document. “Vulnerability from Direct Fire Weapons for Ground Vehicles.” Document number KEMA070001. 2004.

8. Modular UNIX-based Vulnerability Estimation Suite. Available from: htp://www.arl.army.mil/slad/Services/SL-Modeling.htm

9. Clark, S. “WARSIM Environment Damage Assessment Model.” Document number WRENV0001.00.00, Lockheed Martin Information Systems. January 12, 1999.

10.

10. Harman, W., and A. York. “Integrated Munitions Effects Assessment: A Weapons Effects and Collateral Effects Assessment Tool.” NBC Report, 30–37. Spring/Summer 2003.

11.

11. Davis, P. K. “An Introduction to Variable-Resolution Modeling.” In Warfare Modeling, edited by J. Bracken , M. Kress , and R. Rosenthal , 5–35. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1995.

12.

12. U.S. Department of the Army . “Combined Arms Operations in Urban Terrain.” FM 3-06.11. Washington, D.C.: Department of the Army. 2002.

13.

13. Park, F.

“Advanced Infantry Optics and Their Future in Armor.”

Armor (January–February 2005).

14.

14. PEO-STRI. “Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System (MILES) Communication Code (MCC) Standard.” 2005.

15.

15. Smith, P.

“Laser Engagement, Evolved.”

Military Training Technology 10(2) 2005.

16.

16. AMSAA . “The Compendium of Close Combat Tactical Trainer Algorithms, Data, Data Structures and Generic System Mappings.” Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: AMSAA. 2000.

17.

17. McKenna, T. “Shuting the Bomb Factory. eDefense.” Retrieved October 1, 2005. Available from: htp://www.edefenseonline.com/default.asp?func=article&aref=08_04_2005_IF_01

18.

18. Capobianco, J.

“IEDs: Enemy Steps Up Atacks Using Explosive Devices.”

Infantry Magazine (Winter 2003).

19.

19. Metz, C.

“Why Microchips Mater (Again).”

PC Magazine 25(15) 2006.

20.

20. Driels, Morris R. Weaponeering: Conventional Weapon System Effectiveness. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. 2004.