You are here

System-level Post Intercept Assessment

Description:

 
 

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Battlespace, Information Systems, Sensors, Space Platforms, Weapons

The technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services. Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals, their country of origin, and what tasks each would accomplish in the statement of work in accordance with section 5.4.c.(8) of the solicitation.

OBJECTIVE: Develop innovative techniques to provide greater robustness assessing success of intercept across multiple sensors and phenomenologies.

DESCRIPTION: To enable shoot-assess-shoot engagements within missile defense applications, a very high confidence must be established for kill assessment, or post-intercept assessment. A successful intercept can prevent the need for follow-on shots and reduce cost. This assessment must include determination of effectiveness of the intercept to determine how well the observed phenomenology matched the predicted physics of the interaction.

Consider a missile defense intercept as a physics interaction among objects under varying conditions, such as strike angle, closing velocity, and range. Various sensing phenomenologies need to be considered from radar to electro-optic, visual as well as parameterizations in frame rates and wavebands. With multiple diverse sensor contributions, the system must determine whether some voting scheme is adequate or whether a better understanding of the physics response by the sensors are expressing common information, or reflecting independent phenomena.

The researcher should consider a radar and an electro-optic or a visual sensor observing the intercept simultaneously and sending a report to the system. Design messages from the sensors to the system that will enable optimal assessment by the system. The developed technique(s) should calculate and report overall confidence in intercept with estimates of effectiveness. Corresponding metrics should be defined and demonstrated.

PHASE I: Develop and demonstrate through analysis, technique(s) to combine intercept information from multiple sensors which accurately assess effectiveness of intercept at the system level. The technique(s) should degrade gracefully when not all sensors are available and a metric should be developed to provide an accurate measure of effectiveness.

PHASE II: Refine and update technique(s) developed in Phase I and demonstrate capability with realistic data from flight tests and physics modeling. A heavy emphasis will be on robustness and reliability of measured results. Messages will need to be defined and worked with the program office to insure adequate information is available to enable the assessment.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Demonstrate the technology operationally as part of an element, or a system level test bed. Market technologies to relevant missile defense elements and other DoD entities.

REFERENCES:

  • Retrieved from http:/www.smdc.army.mil/FactSheets/archive/Kill Assessment.
  • U.S. Missile Defense Agency. November 3, 2015. Ballistic Missile Defense System. Retrieved from http://www.mda.mil/index.html.
  • U.S. Department of Defense. Undated. Ballistic Missile Defense Review. Retrieved from http://www.defense.gov/bmdr.

KEYWORDS: kill assessment, hit assessment, post-intercept assessment

 

US Flag An Official Website of the United States Government