Cap.16 Weaponneering For Specific Targets

The following points regarding the spreadsheet in Table 15.
3 should b
observed:
Unitary targets are distinguished from area targets by simply describi n them
with small values of LA and WA as for stick deliveries.
2. Either functioning time or altitude may be specified, as is the weapon spin
speed and the particular weapon characteristic selected in the trajectory
worksheet; see selection factor in Table 15.2. The appropriate pattern
dimensions are returned to the main spreadsheet in the “Trajectory Results”
section.
3. The computation of WB and Lti is performed in the “Weapon Effectiveness”
section, and from that point the analysis is the same as for stick deliveries.
528 Weaponeering: Conventional Weapon System Effectiveness
In dealing with such targets, we will use the basic effectiveness calculation
introduced in Chapter 10, Sec. 10.1, reproduced here:
Prob{damage} = Prob{hit} x Prob {damage if hit} (16.1)
Also recall Chapter 10, Sec. 10.2 where the duality of representing the
weapon/target by a lethal area was discussed. In this chapter it will be the target that
is represented by a finite size lethal area.
The probability of damage given a hit is denoted as PHD and is not a separate El
but is involved in the effectiveness calculations. In most cases considered here, PHD
is set to unity; the exception is in analyzing bridges. The problem therefore reduces
to one of calculating PH1T.
The basic approach in dealing with specific targets such as those just mentioned
is to compute the dimensions in the ground plane of the effective target area, namely,
TET and WET. Having done this, the methods for computing PDj or FDi already
developed may be applied directly to the target under study. The process is however
dependent on whether:
1. We are dealing with a unitary target or an area of target elements.

2. The attack is with a single weapon (or individually aimed multiple weapons) or
a stick of unguided weapons.
Unitary Weapon vs Unitary Target

For this case we will derive Z,ET and WET differently for each target type and
use these dimensions to represent the target; therefore, it is appropriate to use the
representation shown in Fig. 10.2b. The effectiveness PDj for a single weapon is the
probability of weapon hitting within the lethal area representing the target, given the
accuracy of delivery, as shown in Fig. 16.1.
If the attack uses single unguided or guided weapons, the effectiveness becomes
the probability of a single weapon landing inside the rectangle of
Single
Fig. 16.1 Unitary targets with single weapon.

Weaponeering: Conventional Weapon System Effectiveness
If the attack uses sticks of unguided weapons, then the methods described in
Chapter 13 would apply. The single weapon lethal areas with dimensions £ET and
WET would be enlarged to account for the precision error
f-B — \/ f-ET2 + 8%br2 (16.6)
WB = v'Xr + 8xbd2 (16.7)
Then the pattern dimensions would be determined from the stick dimensions.
Lp = Ls + LB (16.8)
WP=WS+ WB (16.9)
The effective pattern dimensions Z,EP and WEP would be calculated next:
LEp — max(Z,/>, LA) (16.10)

,
WEP = max(W />, W^) (16.11)
If a single weapon is used, then the methods of Chapter 12 would apply, leading
to
AEP = max (AET, LA) (16.12)

lTEP = max(U7ET, WA) (16.13)
Finally, the effectiveness is calculated from
■<4ET
FDi = E(FC) XRXPHD* (16.14)
Z,EP x WEP
Fig. 16.3 Unitary targets with a stick of weapons.

Fig. 16.4 Bridge construction elements.
For the BEI method the weapon lethal area dimensions are set equal to the bridge
dimensions, and so for Fig. 16.5a we have
LET = WT (16.16)
=
IVET LT (16.17)
while for Fig. 16.5b
LET = LT (16.18)
U/ET = wT (16.19)
If the attack uses single unguided weapons or multiple independently aimed

guided weapons, the single weapon effectiveness is given from Table 16.1 as
PDj = PHD x PHIT x R (16.20)
b)
Bridge
LT
Attack Attack
direction direction
Fig. 16.5 Definition of tET and WET for bridge target.

Fig. 16.7 PHD as a function of bridge width for BEI = 5 ft.
Example
A bridge has dimensions 30 ft wide by 500 ft long and is attacked by a single unguided
weapon aimed at the center. The aircraft attacks in a direction parallel to the 500-ft length
of the bridge. Calculate the probability of dropping the span of the bridge, given that for
this type of construction and the weapon used, the value of the effectiveness index is BEI
= 5 ft. First, we calculate PHD from
BEI’ _5j
AID = 1 - exp = 1 — exp 30 = 0.154 (16.23)
w
Then the values of £ET and WET form the bridge dimensions taking into
account the direction of attack. We have
LET = 500, WET = 30 (16.24)
Table 16.2 shows a segment of a spreadsheet that relates to the preceding
analysis where the values of £ET and WET are calculated for specific BEI.
Because the scenario is a single unguided weapon against a unitary target, Eq.
(16.5) applies, and Table 16.3 shows a modified version of the spreadsheet used
in Chapter 11, Sec. 11.9 to illustrate the weaponeering solution for this attack.
Table 16.3 Weaponeering Spreadsheet for Bridge Attacks

METHOD 1-Bridge: SINGLE UNGUIDED WEAPON Vs BRIDGES
Constants
Gravitational acceleration, ft/s £ 32.200

Convert degrees to radians deg2rad 0.017
Target Parameters
Target dimensions LT, ft 500.000

Target dimensions WT, ft 30.000
Weapon Parameters
Drag-L=low, H=high,
D=dispenser L
Ballistic dispersion, mils Sigma-b 2.000
Reliability R 0.950
Aircraft Release Data
Airspeed, KTAS / ft/s V 550.000 928.400

Dive angle, deg theta 30.000 0.524
Release altitude, ft _______ 1200.000
Trajectory Results
Vertical velocity, ft/s Vv -464.200

Horizontal velocity, ft/s Vh 804.018
Drag constant (Cd/M) cO 0.005
Constant a used in trajectory a 5975.800
2.400
Time of flight, s t flight 2.400
Horizontal velocity at impact Vhi 794.426
Vertical velocity at impact Vvi 535.493
Impact angle, deg I 33.982

Slant range, ft Sri 2262.820
Ground range, ft Gri 1918.425
Delivery accuracy
CEPground Normal REP/DEP
CEP, ft ground, normal or mils CEP 0.000 36
Deflection error probable, ft DEP 0.000 20.628 20.628
Range error probable, ft REP 0.000 36.91 36.906
Ballistic error, deflection, ft sigma-bd 3.050
Ballistic error range, ft sigma-br 5.457
Adjusted DEP DEP dash 20.852
Adjusted REP REP dash 37.307
(Continued)
Weaponeering: Conventional Weapon System Effectiveness
Fig. 16.9 Circular target.
where as usual LT is the dimension of the target parallel to the aircraft flight path (in
feet) and WT is the dimension of the target element perpendicular to the aircraft flight
path (in feet). For this case, AET is again computed using Eq. (16.27).
71 ET = F-ET X WET (16.27)

The two-dimensional circular target is shown in Fig. 16.9.
It is approximated by a square of equal area having dimensions LET and WET in
the ground plane, where £ET and WET are defined by
LET — WET — T EMD) (16.28)

Here, RT is the radius of the target (in feet).
We can extend the concept of EMD to targets having three dimensions as shown
in Fig. 16.10. From this figure we see that the target may be hit on the roof while the
projected ground plane impact point relative to the building footprint would suggest
that the building was not hit.
Fig. 16.10 Weapon striking the top of a three-dimensional target.

for cylindrical targets. The effective target area in the ground plane (Ar, in square
feet) is then computed using
AT = [£y+ 2EMD][Wy + 2EMD]+£SHWy (16.32) for rectangular
targets, or
Ay = IT(RT + EMD)2 + 2RȚLSH (16.33)
for cylindrical targets. 1VET is then adjusted so that the same effective target area in
the ground plane will be produced, that is,
Ay
WET = 7— (16.34)
Z-ET
AET may be computed using Eq. (16.27), but is equal to AT.
Vertical targets such as tunnel entrances, caves, and shelter doors can be
weaponeered by entering a target length LT of zero, the door width as the target width
WT, and the door height as the target height HT. Typical damage definitions for these
targets include the production of rubble at the entrance to prevent passage of materiel
or personnel. As such, rubble may be produced either by placing the weapon inside
the tunnel, hitting an area around the portal or the apron in front of the portal. As
indicated in Fig. 16.12 therefore, there will be an EMD in the vertical plane and in
front of the target.
Because the target length is zero, the effective target length is the length of the
shadow plus the EMD in front of the target, or
LET = HT + ERMD + EMD (16.35)
Fig. 16.12 Vertical target with EMD.

Table 16.5 Weapon Effectiveness for EMD Damage Functions

Weapon Effectiveness
Effectiveness value EMD 5.000

Target geometry Rectangle Cylindrical Resultant
Shadow length, ft LSH 49.606 49.606
Effective target length, ft LET 89.606 58.468 89.606
Target area AT 2192.115 78.540
Effective target width, ft WET 24.464 1.343 24.464
Effective target area AET 2192.115 78.540
Notice again how the target dimensions are used to calculate £ET and WET, but
the methods shown in Fig 16.3a are used because the target is considered unitary.
Above Ground Buildings

As for bridges, building construction materials and methods varies con-
siderably, and subtle changes in construction techniques can influence considerably
the effect of a weapon on such a target. The early JMEM approach essentially
correlates building damage to building type for a specific weapon based on battle
damage assessment. This correlation is in the form of an effectiveness index called
the MAE-Building and is given the symbol MAEBLDG- It extends sparse data for a
particular building type to a range of building sizes and weapons. In this sense the
method is similar to that described earlier for bridges. The process begins by
classifying buildings according to their building construction code, as indicated in
Table 16.7.
Examples of some building types are shown in Fig. 16.14.
Early methodologies treated buildings as two-dimensional targets and were
adequate for weapon deliveries that produced high impact angles. However, these
did not account for the increase in effectiveness that can be realized by considering
target height when low impact angles occur, as shown in Fig. 16.10. Therefore, in
the MAEBLDG method buildings are treated as three-dimensional targets. One of the
requirements of the methodology was that the results be consistent with those for the
two- dimensional area target method for high-altitude deliveries when target height
was not considered.
Because buildings are damaged primarily by blast, the methodology for
evaluating damage using MAEBLDG is a modification of the MAE# routines that
provide for entering the target height Hr- With these routines, the building
dimensions are input as LT, WT, and HT, and the MAEBLDG values are the MAE#
values given in classified JMEM manuals. If Hr Is set to zero, these routines give the
same results as those given when
Table 16.6 Weaponeering Spreadsheet an EMD Damage Function (Continued)

METHOD 1 -EMD: SINGLE UNGUIDED WEAPONIEMD DAMAGE FUNCTION
PD Calculation
RANGE DEFLECTION -
Sigma, ft 12.352 7.299
PD1_r/PD1_d 0.916 0.793
PD, 0.690
Force Requirements
Desired PD 0.700
# of sorties for this PD 1.028
# sorties available NA 4.000
Expected PD from NA sorties 0.991
MAE/j is the El type and when the building length and width are input as the target
area length and width (LT and WT).
The effectiveness methodology is somewhat different for buildings compared to
other target types dealt with in this chapter in that although the building is a unitary
target, a fractional coverage calculation is made on the building footprint.
MAEBLDG is used to describe the damage function for buildings and represents
the total floor area damaged, averaged over all of the floors. For this cookie-cutter
damage function, PHD is unity out to a specific distance from the impact point and
drops to zero beyond that distance. Again, the numerical values of MAEBLDG are
classified and are obtained from the JMEM Basic Manual in tabular form (in square
feet) listed as a function of the building type and weapon. It is assumed the weapon
is fuzed such that it penetrates the building before detonation.
In the JMEM/AS open-ended methods presented here, all MAEBLDG values are
assumed to be circular in the ground plane and are approximated by squares,
regardless of the impact angle.
The first stage of analysis is to represent the three-dimensional building as a two-
dimensional rectangle in the ground plane by using the EMD approach of the
preceding section. The method begins by comparing the
Table 16.7 Classification of Sample Building Types

Building Type JMEM Code
Multistory masonry lood bearing wall
Multistory framed—steel or concrete reinforced
Single story load bearing masonry wall
Single story framed, column and slab construction lc la 4b 3b
The effective target area in the ground plane (AT, in square feet) is then
computed using
ÂET = [Zr + 2EMD][Wzr + 2EMD] + LSH Wr (16.40)
and V7E-r is computed from
WET = 7^" (16.41)

EET
Before calculating effectiveness from ZET and we demonstrate with an

example.
Example
Consider the building target shown in Fig. 16.15 having dimensions 100 ft (LT) x 100
ft (WT) and is 50 ft (HT) high. Calculate ZET and WET for the building if MAEBLDG is
25,000 ft2 and a weapon impact angle of 45 deg is
Fig. 16.15 Building target.
specified. An initial calculation reveals that
ZET = v/MAEbldg = ^25000 = 158.1ft (16.42)
The EMD value is

158.1 - 100 = 29 1ft
(16.43)
2
Calculate the shadow length as
Hr 50
ZSH=-4TT-EMD = ---------- 29.1 = 20.9 ft (16.44)
tan (I) tan 45
2. If multiple, independently aimed weapons are used, then the methods of Chapter
12 are used to determine the rectangular pattern dimensions and conditional
probability of damage PCD inside.
LEP = max (LET> Ly) (16.49)

WEP = max(UZET, WT) (16.50)
3. If a stick of unguided weapons is used, then the single rectangular cookie cutter
representing the stick has to be derived where
£EP = Lp, WEP = Wp (16.51)

and the conditional probability of damage inside the stick is Pen — /’CDS! see
Chapter 13 for further details on these calculations.
An expected fractional coverage calculation E(FQ) of the LEP x UZEp- rectangle
on the LT x WT target is performed where the appropriate- conditional probability of
damage PCD is used. The resulting probability of damage for single weapons is given
by
FDi = E(Fc) x PCD x R (16.52)
where PCD=1 for a single weapon attack and PCD < 1 otherwise.
Note that even though we are talking about a unitary target, the effectiveness
measure is written as a fractional damage and corresponds to the proportion of
volumetric structural damage. If Eq. (16.52) produces a value of 0.7 for example, the
result is interpreted as “the attack has produced 70% volumetric structural damage to
the target building.” A common rule of thumb is that 30-50% structural damage
corresponds to loss of function of the activity contained within the building.
Table 16.9 shows a complete weaponeering implementation of the building
methodology for this case of a single guided weapon against a building target and is
similar to the methodology discussed in Chapter 11, Sec. 11.10 except for the
inclusion of the MAEBLDG damage function and the methodology for dealing with
both guided and unguided weapons. Unguided weapons may be used by setting P HIT
= 0 and PNM — 1.
For brevity the spreadsheets for independently aimed weapons and sticks of
weapons are not presented here.
Indirect Aimpoints
The methods developed in earlier chapters for calculating target damage can be
adapted to assess the effects on the surrounding structures. Before this is looked at in
detail however, we will investigate the effect of damage sustained by a target when
the weapon is not aimed directly at it.
Table 16.9 Single Weapons Against Buildings (Continued)

Integrals
integral #1 -1.678 integral #1 -1.170

integral #2 1.352 integral #2 1.114
integral #4-integral#5 -0.030 integral #4 -0.082
Results
Fractional coverage 0.995 0.977
Combined fractional coverage 0.971
FD1-Pnm 0.9715
FD1 - Phit
Range Deflection
Sigma range, ft 0.010 0.010
LEP 179.057 WEP 151.317
Integral Limits
s 139.528 s 125.658
t 39.528 t 25.658
a 9866.153 a 8885.387
b 2795.085 b 1814.319
Integrals
integral #1 -1.791 integral #1 -1.513
integral #4-integral#5 0.000 integral #4 0.000
Results
Fractional coverage 1.000 1.000
Combined fractional coverage 1.000
FD1-Phit 1.0000
Combined E(Fc1) 0.9715

EFD 0.9715
In all of the preceding weaponeering methodologies developed so far, it has been

assumed that weapons were aimed at the center of the target as it seems the natural
thing to do.
We shall see soon that there are good reasons for studying the case where the
weapons are directed to some other point away from the target, as shown in Fig.
16.16. The figure shows a target, which may be a unitary or area type located at the
origin, but an indirect aim point (DPI) is located at coordinates (Ro> Do) relative to
the center of the target.
Substituting this and the one-dimensional Carlton damage function into the
expression for PDX in the range direction gives
X=OO
4x2 ' (x - /?p)2~
exp x exp
£'ET2. 2<r*2
x=-oo
4-00
4x2 x2 2x7?o ô2

Z/ET2 + 2ax2 2ax2 + 2ax2
— oo
(16.57)
Consider the simplification of the exponent p:
8x2ax2 + X2Z/ET2 - 2X/?QZ/EȚ2 + 7?QZ.'ET2

(16.58)
2£'ETW
After some manipulation this may be written as
^X2 — 7?oiZET2A2 1?O2A'ET4 Ô2iZET2

,8ax2 + L'ET2 ) ~ (8ax2 + E'ET2)2 (8ax2 + L'ET2)
'8ax2 + Z'ET2'
(16.59)
. 2O-?L'ET2 .
Further simplification results in
4Z?02
+ (16.60)
(8<r? + L'ET2)
Substituting back into Eq. (16.57) for PDj gives
x=oo
2
PDU = ^^= [ exp JW + E'ET2
<TXV277 J
X=-00
L 2cr x
2
£'ET2 J
x exp — (16.61)
(8<TX24/?
+ Z/0
2
2ET )J
Recalling from the delivery accuracy section that ax = REP/0.6745, Eq. (16.68)
may be written in the form
______ E'ET______ 4A02

PDix = 2
\/17.6REP + E'E? x exp — (16.69)
(17.6REP2 + L'ET2)
Similarly, for the deflection direction

W"ET 4£)02
P ly
° yi7.6DEP2 + UZ'T2 X CXP [(17.6DEP2 + W"ET2). (16.70)
As before,
PDj — PDlx x PDjj (16.71)
It is seen that these results are the same as those obtained in Eqs. (11.10) and
(11.11), except for the exponential terms in PD 1X and PDllr The spreadsheet derived
in Chapter 11 for unitary weapons/point targets can be modified to include indirect
aimpoints using Eqs. (16.69) and (16.70).
Single Blast Weapons Against Unitary Targets

Referring back to Chapter 11, Sec. 11.5, the PD, values in range and deflection
directions may be obtained from Eqs. (11.19) and (11.20) by including Ro and Do as
the mean values.
2
1 ’-(X-RO)21
axs/^reXP 2ax2
EET D -T-, Ro, EET N
c-x
= ND - ND ----- Ro, <Tx (16.72)
Wj LL
» 1 -(v-Do)2)
PD]^ = dy
ayy/2êXP 2<ry2
2
WET N
= ND [W ET N
—, Do, ay - ND - (16.73)
II Recall that the integral limits are

(16.76)
LEP + LA X IEP — LA
s ~~ t ~ --------------------- x ----
I 22
Using shorthand notation, Eq. (16.77) may be written as

Expanding Eq. (16.75), we get
E(FR) — [A + A + A + A — A] (16.78)
Recalling the NORMD1ST (ND) function from Excel, and considering Ro to
be a mean value for the aiming error distribution, the first three integrals may be
written as follows:
A = [ND(t, Ro, <7v) - ND(—t, Ro. (16.79)
A = Le? ^La [ND(-f, Ro, ax) - ND(—s, Ro, (16.80)
A = ZeP+— [ND(S, RO, ax) - ND(t, Ro, <rj] (16.81)

2Lx
Integrals /4 and I5 may be evaluated by putting them in the general form I' where
b
I' = ------ -= x-exp

O-XV2-7TJ
a
(x — Rp)2
(16.82)
2o>2 dx
The first integral on the right-hand side of Eq. (16.82) may be shown to be
h
(x Ro) 2 (x - RQ)2A
(x-Ro)-exp dx = 2ax2 ) (16.83)
2ax2
a
Summary of Weaponeering Methodologies and

Locator
Considering the methodologies discussed in Chapters 11-16, it may be seen that
there is a commonality of approach, which simply stated involves the following:
1. Determine LET and lÊT for the appropriate EL
2. Determine if the delivery is a single weapon or a stick.
3. Consider if offset aimpoints are used.
4. Select the appropriate methodology to compute PDT or FDV
For all of the El types discussed, Table 16.11 summarizes how to calculate the
appropriate LET and UZET.
Table 16.12 summarizes where to locate the corresponding methodologies for
computing effectiveness.
Note the following:
1. The Carlton damage function is used only for the unitary target/single weapon
combination; otherwise, a rectangular cookie-cutter damage function is used.
2. N/A means methods may or may not exist, but an operational scenario of this type is
unlikely.
Table 16.11 Calculating £ET and WET for Different El Values
WET ÊT ^HD

El iET
MAEf v'MAEf x a 4T/° MAEf 1.0
MAES VMAEe ler MAE8 1.0
Av(n) lVET/sin / v’Av Ay/sin / —§
Av(gnd) W ET \ 'Av Ay —§
BEI LT Wr Ul X W EI 1 - exp (- BEI/
W B)
EMD 2-D tr+2 x EMD W r + 2 x EMD £ET X W ET 1.0

rectangle
LȚ+ 2 x EMD 4- 1$H UT X W ET ------ §
EMD 3-D ------ 1
rectangle
4- EMD) 4- ISH £ET x W Er ------ §
EMD 3-D ------ 1
cylinder
£ET x W ET ------ §
EMD vertical W r+2 EMD
(Hr + EMD)/ tan /+EMD
MAEBLOG 4- 2 x EMD 4- ISH ------ 1 £ei x W H 1.0
* tgH = Hr/tan/ — EMD, If HȚ= 0 or if £$H < 0. set £$„ — 0-

1
W ET = [(tr + 2 EMD)(W r + 2 EMD) + £SH Wrl/fa-
* Wr = + EMD)2 + 2 Rj £SH]/1ET-
s
Usually HD = 1. but users sometimes input the presented area together with a value of PHo <
1.

Cap.16 Weaponneering For Specific Targets

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cap.16 Weaponneering For Specific Targets

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The following points regarding the spreadsheet in Table 15.

Prob{damage} = Prob{hit} x Prob {damage if hit} (16.1)

1. We are dealing with a unitary target or an area of target elements.

Unitary Weapon vs Unitary Target

Fig. 16.1 Unitary targets with single weapon.

f-B — \/ f-ET2 + 8%br2 (16.6)

WB = v'Xr + 8xbd2 (16.7)

LEp — max(Z,/>, LA) (16.10)

AEP = max (AET, LA) (16.12)

Finally, the effectiveness is calculated from

Fig. 16.3 Unitary targets with a stick of weapons.

Fig. 16.4 Bridge construction elements.

while for Fig. 16.5b

If the attack uses single unguided weapons or multiple independently aimed

PDj = PHD x PHIT x R (16.20)

Fig. 16.5 Definition of tET and WET for bridge target.

Fig. 16.7 PHD as a function of bridge width for BEI = 5 ft.

Table 16.3 Weaponeering Spreadsheet for Bridge Attacks

Gravitational acceleration, ft/s £ 32.200

Target dimensions LT, ft 500.000

Aircraft Release Data

Airspeed, KTAS / ft/s V 550.000 928.400

Vertical velocity, ft/s Vv -464.200

Impact angle, deg I 33.982

Fig. 16.9 Circular target.

71 ET = F-ET X WET (16.27)

LET — WET — T EMD) (16.28)

Fig. 16.10 Weapon striking the top of a three-dimensional target.

AT = [£y+ 2EMD][Wy + 2EMD]+£SHWy (16.32) for rectangular

Ay = IT(RT + EMD)2 + 2RȚLSH (16.33)

LET = HT + ERMD + EMD (16.35)

Fig. 16.12 Vertical target with EMD.

Table 16.5 Weapon Effectiveness for EMD Damage Functions

Effectiveness value EMD 5.000

Above Ground Buildings

Table 16.6 Weaponeering Spreadsheet an EMD Damage Function (Continued)

Table 16.7 Classification of Sample Building Types

ÂET = [Zr + 2EMD][Wzr + 2EMD] + LSH Wr (16.40)

and V7E-r is computed from

WET = 7^" (16.41)

Before calculating effectiveness from ZET and we demonstrate with an

Fig. 16.15 Building target.

specified. An initial calculation reveals that

ZET = v/MAEbldg = ^25000 = 158.1ft (16.42)

The EMD value is

LEP = max (LET> Ly) (16.49)

£EP = Lp, WEP = Wp (16.51)

Table 16.9 Single Weapons Against Buildings (Continued)

integral #1 -1.678 integral #1 -1.170

Combined E(Fc1) 0.9715

In all of the preceding weaponeering methodologies developed so far, it has been

4x2 x2 2x7?o ^o2

Consider the simplification of the exponent p:

8x2ax2 + X2Z/ET2 - 2X/?QZ/EȚ2 + 7?QZ.'ET2

After some manipulation this may be written as

^X2 — 7?oiZET2A2 1?O2A'ET4 ^O2iZET2

Further simplification results in

Substituting back into Eq. (16.57) for PDj gives

______ E'ET______ 4A02

Similarly, for the deflection direction

Single Blast Weapons Against Unitary Targets

II Recall that the integral limits are

Using shorthand notation, Eq. (16.77) may be written as

E'ET 4A02