I

Defence Scielx:e JoW1lal, Vo147~ No 3, July 1997. W. 317-326

~ 1997, DESIDOC I

Simulation .of Fighter Aircraft Weapon Syste~s for Design &

Performance Evaluation

p .S. Subramanyam

Aeronautical Development Agency, Ban~alore-560 017

ABSTRACT

Simulation fonns an ~ssential toel in the system design a 00 perfonnance evaluation of fighter
aircraft .JIeapon systems. The various guidance strategies used for weapons like guns. missiles. bombs
in the air-to-air or air-to-giound missions. for aiding the pilot for an effective delivery have been
studied through extensive 4ff-Iine and pilot-in-loop simulation. The pilot workload analysis carried
out in tlie high fidelity cockpit simulator at the Aeronautical Development Agency .Bangalore.
provides the system designer an effective means to tune the various subsystems for better perfonnance.
The paper focuses on all these aspects to bring out the importance of simulation in the overall fighter
aircraft weapon systein design. I

NOMEN,cLATURE mission, the pilot plays a pivotal tole. This means

design .of a complex system corlsisting of man,
A. Leadjangle vector
machine and man-machine interface. Hence,
Va LCA true airspeed
I modelling and simulation are essential to carry out
Vm Bullet muzzle vellocity
the design of such weapon systems and
VI Target velocity vect~r
subsequently their performance evaluat~<?nthrough
R Present ~ange to target
pilot-in-loop studies.
Rf Bullet d\stance travelled
This paper describes the typical weapon
(I) Line of sigl\t angular rate
systelm of a fighter aircraft. Off-line and real-time
To Initial time (pilot-in-loop) simulation studies' which are used in
Tf Time df fight of bullet the ~esign and performance evaluation of fighter
I
dV/dt Target ac~eleration vqctor aircraft weapon systems are brought out.
Mathematical models, block diagrams and
I.
numerical techniques used in simulation are
I
touched upon briefly. Computation of the errors of
a weapon system in terms of its subsystem errors is
discussed for a particular case. Pilot-in-loop
simullllion III Ihe Acronlluliclll Development
Agency (ADA) used in the design and evaluation
of weapon systems ---
is Idescribed.
ROCdved
03 January1991

317
 DFF SO J, VOL 47, NO 3, JULY 1997

2. MATIIEMATICAL M()J)I~LS,
model is a benchmark
tor the rcal-time
NUMERICAL TECIINIQUES &
NATURE OF SIMULATION pilot-in-loop simulation.!

t2.3.2 PiJot-in-,Loop ReaJ-1Ime Simulation

2.1 Mathematical Models
f l)ifol-in-loop rcal-time simulation, is used for
Mathematical models form the base of
evaluating the pilot-vehicle interface. Emphasis
simulation. The complexity and structure of
here is on pilol workload analysis during the
mathematical models are to be decided upon based I
mission, related to weapon delivery. The severity
on the purpose of simulation. The mod'els are
of pilot workloa~ adversely irfluences the
influenced by requirements like off-line
performanc, of the weapon system. The pilot
simulation, pilot-in-loop real-time simylation,
workload i~ influenced by the operations of the
sensitivity analysis, etc. Simulation of weapon IPilot in the cockpit and dynal'nics of the weapon
systems involves the model of sensors, control and
sy~tem. The reaction of the pilot to\a threat scenario
guidance computation sys.tems, data latencies, ,and the tim'e taken for action to m~et the threat are
display symbol dynamics, etc. In addition, t o
ensured through pilot-;n-loop simulation. With the
modeJIing the pilot for off-line analysis is also
multi~le roles the fighier aircraft have to perform,
important.
feedback of pilot worklo~d analysis to the overall

2.2 Numerical Techniques system design is mandatoJ-y for efficient delivery

of the weapon system. Hence, th~ simulation
Selection bf appropriate numerical techniques demands a high fidelity cockpit envirpnment and
is also very ~mportant. Weapon systems being
weapon system dynamicsl.
dynamic in nature demand solution of non-linear
I ,
differential equations which have to be solved 3. FIGHTER AIRCRAFT WEAPO~ SYSTEM

simultaneously. The time constants of various SIMULATION I

elements of the system may bel widely varying. In
such situations', the accuracy of solution and the 3.1 DescriptiTn
available computational time influence the method To suppo~t the pilot in making an effective
of solution, selection of different integration step delivery of th~ weapons, the 'aircraft is equipped
sizes, etc. with various selnsors like radars, inertial navigation
systems, air
. d uta sensors, I ra d IO
' a tlmeters,
., aser
I I
I ,
2.3 System Design rangers, Infrared's~arch and track sys,em, etc. The
System design and performance evaluhtion of measurements and the processed outputs from these
units are acquired by the mission computer and
fighter weapon system are carried out through two ,
modes of simulation. processed to generate the cockpit display symbols
I
for steering the aircraft and commands to the
2.3.1 Off-Line Simulation weapon system for preparation and delivery. The
, r , pilot steers t,he aircraft on the basis of these
Off-line simulation is normally used during
symbols, makes decisions to deliver the weapon on
the critical design phase wherein accuracy of the
the basis of the information provided to him on
results and sensitivity analysis assume prime ,
various cockpit displays and fi,nally commands the
importance. Mathematical models which form the
release of weapon. at fhe correct instant. The
backbone of simulation, accommodate most of the
weapon system is a pilot-in-~oop feedback control
parameters which influence the system. This
system which has to be designed for accuracy and
analysis is augmented by including the pilot model
dynamic r~sponses acceptable to the pilot. A
and evaluating the performance of the design. The
typical block diagram iof fighter weapon system is
off-line simulation model along with the pilot
shown in Fig. r .

318
 i SUBRAMANYAM : SIMULA110N OF FIGHTER AIRCRAFf WFAPON SYSTEMS

STORES MANAGEMENT WEAPON FUNCTIONS

SENSORS
SYSTEM COMPUTERS
FIGHTER- TARGET .RADARS
.SAFETY AIR-TO-AIR MISSION .LASER RANGER
.SEQUENCING C~OSE COMBAT RELATIVE
.INS
MISSILE BEYOND KINEMATICS
VISUAL RANGE, .RADIO AlTIMETER

MISSILES, GUNS .INFRARED SENSOR

WEAPON RELEASE
SYSTEM . AIR- TO-GROUND
MISSION
.GUNS BOMBS, GUNS,
.ROCKETS ROCKETS,MI~SILES
.MISSILES AIR-TO-SEA MISSION
MISSILES'
.BOMBS

COCKPIT DISPLAYS
.HUD TARGET
PILOT,
.MFD'S

STEERING ,AIRCRAFT FLIGHT

FLIGHTo

Figure I. Block diagram or fighter aircrar~ weapon system

3.2 Air-to-A ir M ission which are'released from 'the aircraft at a specified

I
time inter,:,al between ~hem, The CfTL is a line
3.2.1 Gunnery
connecting a fixed number of blJl11et positions
The gen~ral air-to-,air gunnery fire control corresponding to a set of predetermined bullet
problem is to fire projectiles
I
at a moving target flight times (Fig, 2(a». The trace ofbullet.points is
from a moving platform' (like the LCA) so las to mechanised in HUD. These positions are displayed
score hits on the target. The ,un fire c6ntrol system
as a synthetic trajectory that enables the pilot to
provides the pilCj>t with head-1,1p display (HVD) to
steer the aircraft and fire the gun at the cCj>rrecttime. , observe the relationship between the path of the
bullet and the target as if he had been firing
1\vo popular me\hods of gun fire control systebs I
are described here. 1 continuously. The bullet positions are computed by
using b\Jllet ballistics taking into consideration the
\

3.2.1.1 Contin~ous Computatiqn of TrAcer Line aircraft velocities, body rates, normal acceleration,
Concept etc.

A snapshoot giunsight mo~e is incorporated, so Real-time computation of bullet positions by

that the gun can be used tor highl.y dynamic solving non-linear differential equations for
situations 1n which there are relatively short displaying the tri1CCr li'ne on HOD Vr'ith smooth
I
transient target trucking opportunities. Thel animation is nol feasible because of high
I
Continuous Computation' of Tracer Line (CCTL) periodicity at which these tasks have to be carried
.,
conccpt (Fig. 2) compu~es. positions of bullets out. Therefore, the focus is on developing empirical

3}9
 DFJ" sa J, VOL 47, NO 3, JULY 1997

'to. t1 t2 tJ
~ ~j ~C\O~'(
Ii' I -I ,..\~c~~~ \ GU~
-~
HORIZON

.!--

-
--

- -
SHELL 1 -
-8!-
t1 SHELL 1 --1-
--
~ SHELL 1
t2 1--
t'J

, A
to: ORIGIN OF COMPUTATIONS, FICTITIOUS A,B,C : PROJECTIONS OF SHELL 1 ,2,3
SHELL 1 FIRING TIME POSITIONS IN AIRCRAFT
t 1 = t~+ At: FICTITIOUS SHELL 2,3
SYMMETRY PLANE AT TIME tJ I
t2 = tb+ 2At : FIRING TIMES
tJ = tb+ 3At : FICTITIOUS SHELL 4
FIRING TIME

~.B~C1 : PROJECTIONS OF SHELL

, .2.3 POSITION~ IN THE
PLANE PERPENblCULAR TO
AIRCRAFT SYMMETRY PLANE
AT, tJ I

Figure 2. Tracer line generation principle

I
relations which enable faster computations of the correct time. The empitical relationships are
bullet positions to generate the guidance cues on evolved on the basis of the results obtained from
,
HUD and assist in issuing the firing commands at extensive off-line simula,tion ,studies. The

320
 ~ GR~
TRAJECTORY DROP
Figure 3. LCOS solution polygon

analysis.
 DFF sa J, VOL 47, NO 3, JULY 1997

simplified case of planar head-on/tail chase llle IIUD us firing envclupe'. derived from
, ,
encounters, lead angle computation algorithms are empirical relationSihips. These I empirical
evolved. These algorithms will be subsequently relationships ate evolved based on the larp;e dntn-
cvllllllllcd ill l)il()I-ill-I()op Nillllll,llioll Ilavill~ Iligll bllNes of Illi~sile-lllrget illlerception trajeclory
, I ' I
fidelity cockpit nnd LCA flying 4l1ulitics. V.lrious SIII1U ullons.
target manoeuvres will be tried out.
A simulation package for ~issile target
I
3.2.1.3 Sensitivity analysis interception based on Ipoint mass '.equations of
motion, including the I models of propulsion,
Performance of the weapon systems under
aerodynamics, guidance an~ IR seeker has been
various parameter perturbations is a very important developed, This has been " used extensively in
input to the sys,em designer during the design
ge~erating firing envelopes for various I encounter
process. Sensitivity of system performance to the
geometries. Sensitivity of launch success ranges
inaccuracies in ~arameters like velocity of the and kill probability to the e'lcounter para~eter like
target/aircraft, height, fighter-target range, etc. is relative position and velqcities is determined.
being studied.
Empirical equations I are 'bein'g generated for
computing the launch success ranges wit~ respect
3.2.2 Air-to-Air Missiles
to dominant encounter parameters. I
The LCA darries two types of air-to-air I
...
missiles for combat purposes. 3.2.2.2 Beyond vIsual Range Missile
1
3.2.2.1 Close Combat Missile For medium. range target' interception, the
fighter aircraft cahies a be(ond visual range (BVR)
In an air-to-air close combat role. with missile
air-to-air missilel with all-weather capabilities. A
as the weapon. the pilot nee.ds real-time decision ,
dual mode guidance consisting of a mid-course
support (i.e. symbology in HUD) for launching the
phase and a terminal phase is adoptJd for the
missile. which would ensure the best I kill
missile. The inertial navigation system provides
probability with the given aircraft system. weapon ,
guidance in the mid-course, ph'ase with two or three
capability and the operational situation
updates from the fighter aircraft. Once the active
encountered.
radar seeker takes over in the terminal phase, the
Simulation helps to evolve guidance, systems missile homes o~ to the designated target. Updates
that assist the pilot in steering the aircraft to arrive to the: 'missile from the fighter aircraft in the
at the best launch success range for a missile iq a mid-cou~se phase a(e esse,ntial because of the
given encounter. The simulation package considers incapability of the missile to get the information
the target parameters (i.e. closing speed. direction. about the target motion in this' phase. Extensive
I
manoeuvrability). weapon characteristics modelling and simulation wor~ is being ~.arried out
(aerodynamic. propulsion. guidance. control and to study the effec.iveness of BVR missile combats
structural limits). the launch parameters (launch and to evolve! guidance schemes for pre-guidance
velocity and direction of launch). relative geometry and autonomous guidanqe phases.
between the interceptor and the target aircraft. and I

a host of other parameters. 3.3 Air-to-Ground Weap~n Syste"m

As mentioned earlier. with multiple tasks the The air-to-ground weapons a~e required to
onboard computer performs. solving the equations deliver weapons using visual and blind attack
of motion for generating the firing envelopes in techniques against predesignpted, in-flight
real-time is not feasible and the need for an designated or undesignated targets'. The algorithms
empirical relationship again becomes critical. The employed in air-to-ground nl.ission include
best launch success range is depicted to the pilot in computation of weapon trajectories, ,positioning of

322
 Su:aRAMANYAM ,: SIMULA1l0N OF FIGI-n"ER AIRCRAFT WEAroN SYSTEMS

on HOD is such that the bomb range computed is

found equal to or greater than the target range. This
~
-"-- ~;::: ~ ~ -= is the CCRP mode r~lease authorisation.
-1--
P
A computational scheme for determining the
P: POINT OF REi.FJ.SE
AU11-IORISA1l ON
instant of issue of authorisation in the CCRP mode
--1- has been developed. The scheme has two parts, one
T
Figure 4. Div,e toss mbde for determining the aircraft position relative to the
target location based on the sensor information.
display symbols on Hub, generation of release
The other part determines whether the weapon can
authorisation cues correspCj)nding Ito the weapon
reach the designated target if the dive-toss
time to go, release at thejcJrrect instant, etc.
j manoeuvre is initiated from the current position.
The fighter aircraft I has a wide spectrum of
air-to-ground attack 'weapons, including rockets, Modelling and simulation is carried out for a
low-drag bombs, rt?tarded bombs, runaway denial dive-toss attack mode, wherein the aircraft dives

bombs, laser-guided bombs, air-to-ground missiles, from a certain level and pulls up before releasing
I
etc. 'lWo modes of delivery of air-to-ground the \weapon. There is a finite time delay between
weapons are discussed here. the time at which the pilot is given release
authorisation and the time at which he actually
J
3.3.1. Continuously Computed Impact Point commences his pull-up. During this time delay, the
aircraft would have traversed a certain distance
In the continuouslyj computed impact point
which is taken into account. The release height for
(CCIP) moQe, continuous prediction of the weapon
impact point is I accomplished primarily through the weapon is calculated and from this height the
bomb Itrajectory is computed along the bomb fall
trajecto~y irtegration. The weapon trajectory and
axis. The current information in terms of latitude
the corresponding impact p<Dint comput~tion
and longitude of the fighter aircraft is transformed
include th~ effects of npn-standhrd atmosphere,
into the bomb fall axis through a set of coordinate
weapon characteristics, gravitatipnal var\ations,
transformations and -all computations are done in
coriolis accelerati(jn, winds and w1nd shear effects
this frame. The impact point is again transformed
with variable time steps. These c~mputations are
int9 the local frame by a reverse set of
used to position the reticle on HdD to enable the
I transformations. I
pilot to st~er the fighter to the correct heading and
issue the *elease command at the correct instant of
(
time. The algorit~ms I will I b'e simulated and 3.4 Error Analysis
evaluated on the cockpit environment simulator.
The weapon delivery syste"11 of the fighter
aircraft normally consists of ~ensors, display
3.3.2
systems, weapon ejection system and
computational systems. All these I equipment have

certain inaccuracies which contribute towards the

total system error or the impact point errors.
Simulation is an essential tool to arrive at the total
system error and helps the designer to fine-tune hi,s
design by layin~ down tolerances.

;Monte Ca~lo simulation is carried out on the

simulation software by specify~ng the statistical
parameters of system inaccuracies to obtain

323
 DFF sa J, VOL 47, NO 3, JULY 1997
t

ps. Pr, Ts, 11 Jj

ADS
D, M
ORAG
--"-~~-
WIND TUNNEU M, s, l.:u. MA(.;II <.;UMI'UIAIIUN
VENDOR

-('!!~E~!:!;J!j-Q~! ~ )

1
VEFF-BFP ,
FLIGHT
MISS DISTANCE
IN~ y EFF.BFP
(ACROSS)
IMPACT
hEFF-BFP, ~ ~AI~~ r
ADSI
POINT
RADARI
~- BEST COMPUTAT
LASER

(HEIGHT
ESTIMATION ION
COMPUTATION) of
h.EFF-BFP
AIRCRAFT
TO TARGET
h HEIGHT I& LEGENDS
RADALT
DOWNRANGE Ps -STATIC PRES~URE V -VELOCITY
Pr -TOTAL PRESS~RE h -HEIGHT
I HARMONISATIONI ;
ORIENTATION OF Ts -STATIC TEMP~RATURE 1 .IFLIGHT PATH ANGLE
INS, RADAR, HUD, (8, <I>,x)oRIENTATION TARGETTING
U 'Y -ANGLE OF ATtACK R -, DOWN RANGE
LASER RANGER ERROR
LDP, (8, 01>,x).JAR~ COMPUTA I ~ -SIDESLIPANpLE (elcl».x),-IPITCH.~OLLYAW
ROCKET, GUN J M -MAss, .,
TION
EYEPOINT
S -REF SURFACE AREA EJE -EJECTof
1
Cs -COEFF OF DRAG Ox. By. Bz -CRANGE IN X, Y.Z
MACH- MACH NUMBER (LbCATION)
.
D -DRAG AIr -AIRCRAFT TO TARGET
EF~-BFP- EFFECTIVE BOMB
I FALL PLANE
Figure s. Computational now AGWAAS

statistical parameters regarding the impact point 9ua}ities. This facility performs three major
errors. \ functions in the process of design and performance

A software has been developed for analysing evaluation of the fighter 'aircraft weapon system.
I.
the impact point errors of the fighter aircraft Firstly, the pilot-in-loop simulation is carried out
I
air-to-ground weapon delivery system. The data- wherein the algorithms ,of a]1 the weapon systems
base of this software accepts the inaccuracies of a are validat~d by integrating them with the avionics
particular system in terms of its 3(1 variations and and associated systell1 functionality.
, ,.
computes the final system error. This air-to-ground The algorithms deFcribed in the earlier
weapon aiming performance analysis software sections for different "1issions are presently in the
(AGWAAS) package is being 'used extensively and process of integl1ation with the CEF. This exercise
suitable modifications are being carried out to use provides various inputs to the des~igner by carefully
this for any weapon delivery system. Conceptual
studying the pilot workload. Based on the response
block diagram for carrying out the air-to-ground
of the pilot in the selected co'mbat mode, further
error analysis, is depicted in Fig. 5. tuning or redesign is carried " o~t. Secondly, the

different symbologies displaye.d on HUD get

4 COCKPIT ENVIRONMENT FACILITY
evaluated by the pilot. Ench of the different modes
The cockpit environment facility (CEF) at of delivery-CCTL, L,tOS" CCIP, CCRP,
ADA is a high fidelity cocfpit with LCA flying et~.-needs to have different symbologies to be

324
 ~

SUBRA~NYAM : SIMULA110N OF FIGHTER AIRCRAFf WEAPON SYSTEMS

ETHERNET B~

L INS. PC GRAPHICS
INS WORKSTATION
SVG. PC
FOR
(/) COMPUTER .HUD & OWl SOUND & VOICE

a5 COMPUTER

.ENGINE
~ MC- PC
DBM .PC
MISSION MGMT SOUND
< DATABUS
WEAPON .VOICE
FUNCTIONS MONITORING WARNINGS
~II
w
f-
Xi 15536- BUS

~l
a: II
I SGU I. PC
~
MFK. PC FSP PC [MANAGEMENT
STORES
I bISP~Y SYMBOL
GENERATION,CQMPUTER MUL TI.FUNCTION
WEAPON SYSTEM
DISPLAY COMPUTER
I. FLIGHT ~LANS
FUNCTION
.HORIZONTAL SELECTION
j SITUATION INDICATOR .MISSION DATA
I MANAGEMENT
i. ATTITUDE INDICATOR

Figure 6. High fidelity cockpit environment facility for weapon system evaluation

placed on HUD. These symbologies are derived by man, machine and man-machine interface as a
considering the mbde of delivery and its closed .loop system is specially emphasised. The
functionality a~ a closed loop system. The impact of various error sources on the total system
ergonomic~ of the cockpit forms the third major error f<1r a typical ilir-to-ground mission is dealt
function of the CEF. Functionalitr block diagram with. The importance of the high fidelity cockpit to
of the higH fidelit~ cockpit environment facility at
carry out pilot workload analysis to validate and
ADA for weapon system evaluat~on is shown in
Fig. 6. I I improve the weapon system performance is
brought out elaborately.

s. CONCLUSION
I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Ipaper highlights the various important
j
aspects of modelling and tsimulation activities The author expresses his thanks to the
related to the desi~n, 4evelopment and validation programe Director (LCA) and all the scientists of
,
of weapon systems qf a fighter aircraft. The the Avionics and Weapon System Directorate
I
importande of modelling and simulation in the (ADA), Bangalore, for providipg the relevant
developme~t of a complex system consisting of information required for writing this paper.
I

325
 DEF sa I, VOL 47, ,NO 3, JULY 1997

ConlrJhIllor

Shrl PS Subramanyam obtained his BE (Mech) from Regional Ellgineering College, Warangal, in
1973 and ME (Aeronautics) from Indian Institute of Sciencp, Bangalore.' in 1975. HIejoined DRDO
at the Defence Research & Development Laboratory (DRDL), Hyderabad, wherlt he worked on
flight control systems, missile guidance systems, hardware-in-loop simulatioJ and software
development for real-time embedded systems. Currently, he is wol1king at th'e Aeronautical
Development Agency'(ADA), Bangalore, in the area. of navigational and guidance system design,
weapon systems modelling and simulation, and weap?n systems algorithm and high fidelity cockpit
environment simulator development. ,

326