Mission Effectiveness and European Airspace: U.S. Air Force CNS/ATM Planning for Future Years

Abstract

The U.S. Air Force (USAF) uses the term Communication Navigation Surveillance/Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM) for capabilities that allow its aircraft to use civil airspace and air traffic control services. The resulting ability to interoperate with air traffic control systems around the world supports the USAF's global, multi-faceted mission, but entails great expense in on-board equipage and training. It is important to understand the trade-offs that the USAF must make in assessing the value of specific CNS/ATM capabilities. In this paper, we describe a model-driven analysis to assess mission effectiveness. The analysis is accomplished via a five-step process involving military route generation, simulation of the civilian airspace activity, simulation of delay events for military flights, and evaluation of several figures of merit. The software modules used for these activities were a combination of existing packages and some newly-developed programs. The analysis accounts for planned USAF CNS/ATM capabilities by aircraft type, as well as any airspace and operational restrictions that might be encountered in specific geographic regions when the aircraft does not have the required capabilities. Two layers of interactions are investigated: first, within the USAF enterprise, specifically, between the fighter and tankers assets and, second, between the USAF and civilian ATM.

Keywords

Air Traffic Control Applications in Science and Engineering Aviation Avionics Military Applications

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

[1] Cable News Network. 1996. “Commerce Secretary Brown, 32 Others Confirmed Dead.” http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/04/brown_dead/.

[2] Cable News Network. 1996. “Pilot Error, Poor Equipment Blamed for Brown Plane Crash”. http://www.cnn.com/US/9606/07/brown.crash/.

[3] Air University, Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center web site: http://aulibrary.au.af.mil/lane.htm.

[4] Shlapk et al. 2002. A Global Access Strategy for the U.S. Air Force. RAND Corporation. Santa Monica, CA.

[5] Wang, Paul, Len Wojcik, Scott Mayer, 2005. Communications, Navigation, and Surveillance Events Simulation for the National Airspace System. Proceedings of the 2005 Winter Simulation Conference. Fort Lauderdale, FL.

[6] EUROCONTROL. 2005. Medium-Term Forecast Flight Movements (2005–2011), Volume 1, Edition 2.0.

[7] Langley AFB. 2005. Correspondence with Aircraft Systems Division ACCA89 at Langley AFB.

[8] Wright, Michael. 2005. Conversation with Michael Wright, The MITRE Corporation.

[9] Federation of American Scientists web site describing USAF planning systems: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/afmss.htm

10.

[10] Witucki, John. 2005. Conversation with John Witucki, The MITRE Corporation.

11.

[11] The MITRE Corporation, Center for Advanced Aviation System Development: http://www.mitre.org/news/digest/aviation/04_05/a_stormy_weather.html

12.

[12] A.S.A. Srl. 2005. Corporate web page: http://www.asalink.net/.

13.

[13] Flynn, Geraldine, Benhouar, A., Christian, R., 2003. Pessimistic Sector Capacity Estimation, EEC Note 21/03, EUROCONTROL, Brussels, Belgium.

14.

[14] Alshtein, Alexander et al. 2006. “Simulating Civilian and U.S. Military Use of European Airspace”, Proceedings for the 25th Digital Avionics Systems Conference, Portland, Oregon.

15.

[15] ATO Manpower Study. 2001. AFO Tactical Techniques and Procedures 3–2.2.

16.

[16] Wikipedia entry on Student's t-test: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student's_t-test

17.

[17] Hubbard and Bristol. 2005. Conversations with Richard Hubbard and Bruce Bristol, The MITRE Corporation.

18.

[18] Filipietz, Christopher. 2005. Conversation with USAF Major Christopher Filipietz, The MITRE Corporation.