CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE
AGM-45-7A SHRIKE.
FINAL TEST REPORT
A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Science in
Engineering
by
Michael A1an McMaster
January, 1977
The thesis of ...Mi chae 1 A1ClJ'l-McMs>s ter is approved:
California State University, Northridge
September, 1976
ii
PREFACE
During the time of this project, July 1975 through June 1976,
I was employed by the Pacific Missile Test Center
Mugu, California in the Federal civil service.
(P~1TC),
Point
I worked in the
Attack Weapons Branch of the Weapon Systems Test Department.
Chapter
. 1 contains the mission of my work center.
My project was to perform the duties as the project engineer
on the SHRIKE
AG~1-45-7A
weapon system during its Navy Technical
Evaluation and Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (NTE/IOT&E).
Chapter 2 defines NTE/IOT&E; and Chapters 3 and 4 detail some of the
theory and philosophy of test and evaluation.
My project and the
.SHRIKE weapon system are introduced in Chapter 5.
The results of
the test and evaluation program are in Chapter 6.
Portions of my project; missile specifications, launch parameters, target parameters, certain results, and conclusions are
'classified and therefore cannot be included in this report.
iii
>
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE
iii
GLOSSARY
vii
ABSTRACT
ix
I.
JOB DESCRIPTION
1
II.
TEST AND EVALUATION - POLICIES AND PRINCIPLES
3
A.
General
3
B.
Nav.)' Technical Evaluation
3
c.
O~erational
Test and Evaluation
III. THEORY OF TEST AND EVALUATION
IV.
v.
4
8
A.
General
8
B.
Ex~loration
8
c.
Information
9
D.
Initiation
9
E.
Pre~aration
10
F.
Process
10
G.
Action
17
PHILOSOPHIES OF TEST AND EVALUATION
20
A.
General
20
B.
O~erational
c.
Design Engineer Philosoph.)'
24
D.
Program Management Philosoph.)'
28
E.
S.)'stems Philosoph.)'
30
Philosoph.)'
20
PROJECT INTRODUCTION
36
A. Background
36
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Con't)
Page
B.
Pur~ose
c.
Methods of
D.
Project Management, Organization, and
and Objectives
40
Accom~lishment
41
52
ResQonsibilities
E.
Data Reguirements
53
F. ReQorts
VI.
55
G.
CaQtive Flight
Tests
56
H.
Instrumentation Reguirements
57
S~stems
I. Targets
59
J.
59
Range Area
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
61
A.
General
61
B.
Guidance Section
61
c.
Control Section
64
D.
Rocket
74
E.
Pilot/Missile
t~otor
S~stem
Interface
BIBLIOGRAPHY
74
75
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Checklists
77
Appendix B
Polynomial Regression Program
83
Appendix C
Reduced Data Graphs
90
Launch, Target and Impact
45
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
Conditions
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Con't)
Page
Table 2
AGM-45-7A Component Expenditures
48
Table 3
Testing Program
49
Table 4
Minimum Data Requirements
50
Table 5
AGM-45-7A Aircraft Requirements
51
Tab 1e 6
Flight Test Results
63
Figure 1
SHRIKE Configuration
37
Figure 2
Angle Gating
40
Figure 3
AGM-45-7A NTE/IOT&E Milestones
47
Figure 4
Organizational Chart
54
Figure 5
Pressure Coefficient MS 159.4
66
Figure 6
Pressure Coefficient MS 128.0
67
Figure 7
Line-of-Sight vs Direction of
69
LIST OF FIGURES
~lotion
Figures 8-11
Angles
Reduced Data Graphs
vi
70-73
GLOSSARY
AFTEC
Air Force Technical Evaluation Center
AGM
Air-To-Ground
AUR
All-Up-Round
BDA
Bomb Damage Assessment
DoD
Department of Defense
DSARC
Defense Systems Acquisition Review Council
DT&E
Development Test and Evaluation
EAS
Electronic Altitude Sensor
ECM
Electronic Countermeasures
EMI
Electro-Magnetic Interference
g
gravity
GC
Guidance Computer
GS
Guidance Section
IOT&E
Initial Operational Test and Evaluation
MIDAS
Missile Intercept Data Acquisition System
MSL
Mean Sea Leve 1
NAVWPNCEN (NWC)
Naval Weapons Center
NTE
Navy Technical Evaluation
OT&E
Operational Test and Evaluation
r~issile
PMTC (PACMISTESTCEN) Pacific Missile Test Center
PRF
Pulse Repetition Frequency
PSI
Pound per Square Inch
R&D
Research and Development
RF
Radio Frequency
sse
Standard Specification Compliance
vii
TAC
Tactical Air Command
TDD
Target Detecting Device
T&E
Test and Evaluation
TFW
Tactical Fighter Wing
· TFWC
Tactical Fighter Weapons Center
USAF
United States Air Force
WRALC
Warner Eobins Air Logistics Center
viii
ABSTRACT
AGM-45-7A SHRIKE
FINAL TEST REPORT
by
Michael Alan McMaster
Master of Science in Engineering
I was employed at the Pacific Missile Test Center as the Flight
·Test Engineer on the SHRIKE missile between July 1975 and June 1976.
During this period I conducted a Navy Technical Evaluation and an
· Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (NTE/IOT&E) on the SHRIKE
AGM-45-7A missile.
This test program included extensive test design
and planning, test conduction including captive flights, missile
launches and laboratory tests, data reduction and evaluation.
Ten missiles were launched against simulated enemy targets during
the flight test phase.
Each of these launches was planned to meet
different test objectives and demonstrate the ability of the missile
to meet design specifications and operational effectiveness.
The
missile failed these flight tests and is therefore not going to be
recommended for production.
Because of a definite requirement for this
missile, it will be modified and retested as an AGM-45-7B missile.
ix
I
As I dea 1t with other peop 1e, I had the opportunity to observe
! many different philosophies on how to conduct a test and evaluation
program.
I also learned some of the theory and background of test and
·evaluation .. ~ty observations and learnings, along with details of my
• test designs, test conduction and evaluations, comprise the main
. portion of this report.
X
I.
JOB DESCRIPTION
The Pacific Missile Test Center
(P~1TC)
is the major Navy facil-
ity for flight test and evaluation of air-to-air and air-to-surface
. missile systems.
Weapon system evaluations are independent of the
developing agency, and provide an unbiased estimate of the technical
adequacy and operational
~uitability.
These evaluations provide
technical data to the developer, and to Commander, Operational Test
and Evaluation Force to answer the Defense Systems Acquisition Review
Council (DSARC) decision milestones.
The flight test efforts include test and evaluations of fighter
and attack aircraft airborne weapon control systems, air-to-air and
air-to-surface missile systems, associated ground test equipment,
: and flight support for other programs.
This includes the overall
, design of flight test programs, the detailed engineering planning of
individual flight tests, the conduct of flight tests, the detailed
engineering analysis, and reporting of performance and deficiencies.
I work for the Flight Test Division, which has a responsibility
to plan and perform flight test operations in support of PMTC test
and evaluation of airborne weapons, weapon systems, and related
devices.
Inherent in this responsibility is to:
a.
Design flight test and evaluation experiments.
b.
Develop and formulate detailed flight test plans.
c.
Arrange for target and range support services.
d.
Perform airborne test operations.
e.
Analyze test results, including real-time telemetry of
system characteristics.
1
2
f.
Prepare reports of technical and operational findings.
g.
Prepare formal documentation for use of test ranges.
h.
Define requirements for test aircraft and associated
instrumentation and test installations.
i.
Coordinate aircraft modifications and special configurations.
j.
Provide flight test aircrews for airborne operations.
k.
Review and approve detailed flight test plans proposed
by weapons development agencies and their contractors.
1.
Develop improved flight test procedures and techniques.
m.
Propose hardware, software, or functional/procedural
changes to resolve weapon system deficiencies.
n.
Review and comment on weapon system design/development
proposals and specifications.
II.
TEST AND EVALUATION - POLICIES AND PRINCIPLES
A. General
Test and evaluation (T&E) shall be commenced as early as
possible and conducted throughout the system acquisition process as
necessary to assist in progressively reducing acquisition risks and
in assessing military wort!1.
Acquisition schedules will be based upon accomplishing T&E
milestones prior to the time that key decisions, which would commit
significant added resources, are to be made.
Before the initiation of development of a new system, T&E
using existing systems, or modifications thereto, may be appropriate
to help define the military need for the proposed new system and to
estimate its military utility.
Determination of military worth, need,
and utility will be accomplished in accordance with other DoD
directives.
All T&E activities shall consider environmental issues and
provide assessments for review as early as possible in the test
planning cycle.
B. _r:lavy Technical Evaluation (NTE)
NTE is an element of Development Test and Evaluation (DT&E).
It is the T&E conducted to:
demonstrate that the engineering design
and development process is complete; demonstrate that the design risks
have been minimized; demonstrate that the system will meet specifications; and estimate the system's military utility when introduced.
NTE is planned, conducted, and monitored, by the developing agency
of the DoD Component, and the resu 1ts thereof are reported by that
3
4
agency to the responsible Military Service Chief or Defense Agency
Director.
NTE shall be started as early in the development cycle as
possible and include testing of component(s), subsystem(s), and
prototype or preproduction model(s) of the entire system.
Compati-
bility and inter-operability with existing or planned equipments and
systems shall be tested.
During the development phase following the Program Initiation
Decision, adequate NTE shall be accomplished to demonstrate that
technical risks have been identified and that solutions are in hand.
During the Full-Scale Development phase and prior to the first
major production decision, the NTE accomplished shall be adequate to
insure:
that engineering is reasonably complete; that all significant
design problems (including compatibility, interoperability, reliability,
maintainability, and logistical considerations) have been identified;
'and that solutions to the above problems are in hand.
For those systems which have a natural interface with equipment of another Component or may be acquired by two or more Components,
joint NTE may be required.
Such joint testing will include partici-
pation and support by all affected Components as appropriate.
C. 9perational Test and Evaluation (OT&E)
OT&E is the T&E conducted to estimate the prospective system's
military utility, operational effectiveness, and operational suitability (including compatibility, interoperability, reliability, maintainability, and logistic and training requirements), and need for any
modifications.
In addition, OT&E provides information on organization,
5
personnel requirements, doctrine, and tactics.
Also it may provide
data to support or verify material in operating instructions, publications, and handbooks.
OT&E will be accomplished by operational and
support personnel of the type and qualifications of those expected to
use and maintain the system when deployed, and will be conducted in as
realistic an operational environment as possible.
OT&E will normally
be conducted in phases, each keyed to an appropriate decision point.
During Full-Scale Development, OT&E will be accomplished to assist in
evaluating operational effectiveness and suitability (including compatibility, interoperability,.reliability, maintainability, and logistic
and training requirements).
OT&E will be continued as necessary during
and after the production period to refine these estimates, to evaluate changes, and to re-evaluate the system to insure that it continues to meet operational needs and retains its effectiveness in a
new environment or against a new threat.
In each DoD Component there will be one major field agency
separate and distinct from the developing/procuring command and from
the using command which will be responsible for OT&E and which will:
1.
Report the results of its independent T&E directly
to the Military Service Chief or Defense Agency Director.
2.
Recommend directly to its r·1ilitary Service Chief or
Defense Agency Director the accomplishment of adequate OT&E.
3.
Insure that the OT&E is effectively planned and
. conducted.
In addition, each DoD Component will provide within its
·immediate headquarters staff a full-time, strong, focal point organ-
6
ization to assist the independent OT&E field agency and to keep its
Military Senice Chief or Defense Agency Director fully informed as
to needs and accDnplishments.
Operat-ional testing should be separate from development
testing.
However, development testing and early phases of operational
testing may be combined where separation would cause delay involving
unacceptable military risk, or would cause an unacceptable increase
in the acquisition cost of the system.
When combined testing is
conducted, the necessary test conditions and test data required by
both the DoD Component developing agency and OT&E agency must be
realized.
In addition, the separate Component OT&E agency must:
insure that the combined test is so planned and executed as to provide the necessary operational test information; participate actively
. in the test; and provide separate evaluation of the resultant operational test information.
Acquisition programs will be so structured that at least an
initial phase of operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) will be
accomplished prior to the first major production decision adequate to
provide a valid estimate of expected system operational effectiveness
and suitability (including compatibility, interoperability, reliability,
maintainability, and logistic and training requirements).
Prepro-
duction prototypes will be employed for IOT&E if they are reasonably
representative of the expected production items and
p~ovide
a valid
estimate of expected system operati ona 1 effectiveness and suitability.
Otherwise, special pilot production items from a pilot production line
wi 11 be emp 1oyed for IOT&E.
7
For more complex systems, additional phases of OT&E may
be required and performed with pilot or preproduction items subse.quent to the first major production decision but prior to the availability of first production items.
When production items are avail-
able in sufficient quantity, follow-on phases of OT&E adequate to
meet the full objective outlined above will be accomplished by the
appropriate DoD Component's independent OT&E agency.
For those systems which have a natural interface with equipment of another Component, or may be acquired by two or more Components,
joint OT&E will be conducted where required.
Such joint testing will
include participation and support by all affected Components as
appropriate.
•II I. THEORY OF TEST AND EVALUATION
A.
General
The life cycle of any weapon system consists of several
major phases.
These phases consist of; (1) requirements and concepts
development, (2) research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E),
called the weapon systems acquisition process, and (3) the deployment
phase when systems are considered operational.
The first set of
phases are under the policy control and direction of organizations
responsible for design and procurement, and the latter operational
phase becomes the domain of· the user.
T&E organizations perform their
functions, generally at an intermediate phase of transition between
producer and user.
T&E activities service both producers and users
to varying degrees over the entire life cycle of a weapon, regardless
of whoever has primary responsibility for the system.
However, the
T&E activity has facilities and resources to respond to many types of
customers, including contractors and foreign governments.
In essence,
the T&E activity provides an important interface function between
producer and user interests.
In this section the elements of T&E relating to the NTE/IOT&E
phase are outlined and described.
B.
Exploration
Exploration is the first major element of T&E activity.
Exploration, as used in this context, consists of being sensitive to
the external environment and interacting with that environment.
It
involves a process of searching for harbingers of change, being alert
to new perceptions, following initiatives of others, realization of
8
.·
.
9
pertinent discovery, and a consciousness of shifts in attitudes,
tradition and power.
While the exploration element employs passive
data processing techniques, its primary inputs derive from active
methods for the development of relevant information.
·a two-1-1ay interchange with the externa 1 world.
Exploration is
The interchange is
. intended to transmit a clear message of interest, ability to digest,
ability to communicate at a high level of sophistication, and exhibit
.a clear sense of commitment and purpose.
Exploration is not limited
to the contemporary state or recent scenario but seeks to understand
the future through forecast.and prediction.
All subsequent elements are iterative processes and adjust to
·correct for error and alignment with outputs of exploration.
C.
Information
The information element encompasses the orientation of the
T&E community and its respective centers of excellence to the external
:stimuli.
The features of the information element include the pro-
cessing, evaluation, classification and packaging of information.
Interpretation and
translatio~
activities are undertaken with steps
of refinement and selection preceding publication.
In everyday terms,
the information element of T&E is where the body begins to respond
to the world around it by determining meaning and potential relationships.
D.
Initiation
The initiation element signals to the T&E community and the
·cognizant external world that management is committed to pursuing a
. specific course of action for an oncoming T&E requirement.
Initiation
10
consists of those early action steps which require the selection of
lead organizations, beginning of coordination between centers of
excellence, the initiation of papers, directives and other formal
"requests''.
In essence the system is alerted and activated for serious
project commencement.
E.
Preparation
Preparation is the final element of T&E before the commence-
ment of the test process, per se.
Where previously all evidence of
activity was of paper form, the preparation element exhibits the
fruits of earlier initiatives.
The preparation element is not just
the delivery of test hardware, however.
In fact, it consists of
derivative planning and long leadtime steps required in the usual
budgeting and justification process.
In some cases it involves the
gradua 1 reordering of resources toward new objectives and system
demands.
This element includes knowledge acquisit,ion budgeting,
facility deve 1opment, target deve 1opment, systems deve 1opment, manpower development, and management systems.
F.
Process
The process element is the heart of the T&E theory.
the reason for all previous efforts.
It is
It is during the process
element that the vital function of interfacing the developer's efforts
and concepts with the demands of the user is accomplished.
This
element is considered as time zero in the time-sequencing of the
various elements.
The process is when things to be tested are mated
with the test capability, i.e., systems, facilities, skilled manpower,
etc.
Actual testing activity commences and the grand scheme begins to
.·
'
11
'Operate.
The process can begin no earlier than desired test systems
'are available, but can be applied to a weapon system at any number
of stages in the development and operational life cycle.
Process
begins with design subsystems and prototypes and need not wait until
a complete model is ready.
Exact time of start, release and engage-
ment between phases and termination are often undefined.
When the
process begins, it requires negotiation between the developer and the
T&E agency.
Often there is a phasing period; but, where agreement
cannot be reached, other considerations will be brought to bear on the
issue.
The requirement to test under the full control and indepen-
dence of the test agency is a matter for legislation.
The starting
point depends upon special conditions and status of the design effort.
Once the process commences and reaches the threshold of
actual testing, the subject weapon to be tested must conform to the
laws of test progression and follow an inviolable sequence of steps
that can be contracted or expanded but not eliminated.
The project
people prescribe the testing over the weapon life cycle, but the
hierarchy of test methods, which are intrinsic to the theory, are
the domain of the functional forces.
The test process is under
constant review and may be modified to incorporate state-of-the-art
advancements.
Process consists of three subelements which precede
the test subelement and one which follows it.
1.
Test Planning
Test planning is a finer level of planning than heretofore
outlined.
Test planning defines specific objectives and sets goals.
It is this level of planning which provides for the efficient use of
12
resources, including their readiness and scheduling.
It is the final
synthesis between requirements, test system capabilities and operational forces.
2.
Criteria Development
This subelement describes the rules of the game as they
apply to the tests to be conducted and the various stages of evaluation.
Criteria are not the result of arbitrary or unilateral pro-
clamations but result from a careful study of specifications, threat
characteristics and operational requirements.
The yardstick by which
weapon systems must be measured is multidimentional and ultimately
will call for examination of every system facet.
Criteria develop-
ment results in quantitative, qualitative and relative factors to
guide test design, operational planning, as well as final acceptance/
rejection decision making.
An important feature of this subelement
is that it establishes in advance those levels of tests and their
intensity which must be completed satisfactorily, as hurdles, before
movement to the next phase of the test hierarchy.
As a final note,
the development of criteria is another critical step in a chain of
events that began with the issuance of objectives.
Compromise at
this late date in the series will seriously weaken the usefulness and
justification for meaningful T&E; but it should be recognized that,
at the same time, pressures to avoid certain tests and to alter
criteria could be extreme.
3.
Test Design
Test design is where the determination will be made on
how the tests will be conducted, which test systems will be used and
13
how the systems will be used.
It includes the finalizing of test
parameters, static conditions, creation of environment, sequencing of
events, operational criteria and tolerances, settings for all systems
;and flight geometry.
Various test exercises •rrill be created to pro-
duce situations and conditions by
,system performance evaluated.
~1hich
criteria can be applied and
Test design is a technical activity.
Since test design quality will have a direct bearing on what is
accomp 1i shed in the 1a bora tory, test ce 11 s and externa 1 facilities,
as well as subsequent actions, the process calls for the highest of
talent with ·adequate time to perform their creative task.
The test
design must take into account follow-on activities and assure the
·design produces information for analysis, correlation with other
systems and tests and input to research data banks.
Test design may
involve preliminary hookups and should provide for development and
application of simulation and prediction models.
Test designers should be alert to the "test conditions
Gestalt" where in one instance the system performance requirements
prevail in establishing test conditions and, in the next, the test
conditions prevail to determine what the system will do.
For some
purposes the test designer wants to know under what set of conditions
"X" will the system perform as "Y".
conditions that will produce ''Y".
This implies a search for
In this situation one determines
the 1imits of performance under open conditions.
For .other purposes
the test designer will want to find out that the system performed "Y"
under a given set of conditions "X".
This type of test may be used
for decisions to proceed or halt, based on specifications.
14
4.
Test
As the name implies, the test subelement is where actual
:operations are conducted v1ith the subject weapon systems (components,
'subsystems, assemblies or related systems and software, as appropriate).
It represents the culmination of years of activity and
preparation.
The tests can be viewed from two perspectives;
(1) the
accomplishment of test phases which are established for program and
user purposes over the lifecycle of a system such as the IOT&E and
,the NTE, and (2) the performance of a test hierarchy, such as conducted
in the laboratory, environmental cells and integrated simulation
stations.
It is during the test subelement that the roles of the
engineers with design, systems theory and operational predispositions
:are melded, balanced, formed, fitted or otherwise exercised to the
[benefit of the project.
a.
Elements of the test hierarchy are as follows:
Laboratory: theoretical
These are early tests conducted to gain information
and evaluate design concepts of prototype hardware.
Extensive use of
analog, digital and hybrid computer systems is a feature of this
element.
Persons involved are scientists and engineers with signi-
ficant theoretical and system specialist capabilities.
They are
equally at home in an R&D environment as they are in T&E.
They
perform an "advance man" function and perform important interfacetransition tasks as the T&E community begins to collaborate with the
developers of the weapon system.
b.
Laboratory:
system development hardware/software
This element provides for test on functional sub-
15
systems through integrated, well advanced development weapon systems.
This aspect of test consists of indoor ground testing that is largely
static but may involve induced environmental conditions.
It is the
time when electronic and mechanical test sets are utilized to completely exercise the weapon in conjunction with computer and manually
induced signals and on-line monitoring with real-time display.
c.
Environmental Facility
Full scope environmental testing under fully con-
trolled conditions is conducted on weapons before proceeding to
dynamic tests and to certify specification compliance of production
models.
Such tests are conducted in large-scale chambers, cells or
open-air stands and stations that can accommodate the full model and
permit operations with power-on and ordnance.
to as all-up-round (AUR) tests.
They are often referred
These facilities are often used for
the testing of mechanical or aerodynamic subsystems of weapons in
conjunction with laboratory tests of electronic portions.
d.
Flight Tests
Flight tests are comprised of three distinctive
types.
These are:
captive flight tests, instrumented flight tests
'and operational flight tests.
Captive flights are practice sorties
conducted without missile launch to check out system operation and
.for familiarization.
Instrumented flights are those for systems
i
:which have been equipped with sensing devices and
.mitters or recorders.
tele~etry
trans-
Operational flights may have instrumentation
aboard but do not consider the instrumentation of "go", "no-go"
priority and are willing to depend upon radar, camera coverage and
16
voice recording.
The operational flight test covers the range from
preprogrammed flights to simulated combat situations.
During this
element the operational specialist comes into his own and exerts
significant.influence on the testing.
However, for the instrumented
:flight series the operational type will not have the final word and
;may have to settle for separate test flights in cases where operational or realism demands may obscure or preclude required observa: tions and data collection dependent upon specified conditions of the
;design engineer.
5.
Grand Evaluation
The grand evaluation is a summary of test subevaluations
:and the overall evaluation of the weapon system after the final
, iteration of the test hierarchy.
The grand evaluation is conducted
iin full light of national goals, test criteria, objectives and mission
'
'requirements. Upon this evaluation rests the professional reputation
of the T&E community as it is THE product.
The grand evaluation is
accomplished without delay, interruption, or outside influence or
pressure.
It requires participation o"f design, systems and opera-
tional persons and has provision for representing diverse viewpoints
and needs.
While it behooves the preparers of the grand evaluation
to seek consensus and conclusiveness, the very nature of the weapons
acquisition demands may require conditional remarks and limitations.
'It is during this subelement of process, especially, that the most
,modern techniques of systems analysis, operational analysis and
decision theory are brought to bear.
prime feature of the T&E.
The grand evaluation is not a
Its funding, support and protection are
17
mandatory and cannot be compromised without serious consequences to
the nation's defense and the respectability of the T&E comilluni ty.
It
·is essential that the grand evaluation not be preceded by incomplete
portions or "what's to come" reports by the releasing authority.
Further, the publication must be professionally written and produced
and be timely.
G.
Action
As stated in the description of grand evaluation, the
product of the T&E community is one of information and judgment.
It
is a paper product which does not automatically go on its way for use
like the weapons system itself.
Therefore, it is a fundamental element
•of T&E theory to provide for a suitable life and utilization for the
product.
Without action the efforts of the T&E community could stand
for naught.
There are five subelements to the action element.
l.
Report
The production and distribution of the grand evalua-
tion report is an obvious action.
not suffice.
However, any manner and means will
The grand evaluation report requires a standard format
which provides for official requirements and signature.
Its pre-
sentation and publication should not be extravagant but certainly
possess professional layout, writing, illustration and printing.
tribution should be made by courier to requestors.
Dis-
The report should
serve as an impact document.
2.
Cha 11 enge
Challenge is listed as a subelement because, if the
report of the grand evaluation is not to be ignored and is to have
18
some effect on weapon system acquisition, it must stimulate a series
·of events.
When the grand evaluation is favorable, the report is well
received ond heralded.
beg·ins to
lc•Jrn
However, when the results are negative, one
why this subelement is titled challenge.
Negative
reports should focus .attention on problems and deficiencies and result
in further evaluation, improvement, change, and under certain circumstances, project halt or delay.
3.
Leadership
To acquire leadership status, the T&E community must
take leadership action.
This means functioning as a unified body,
forming coalitions, coordinating plans and policies and self-regulation.
Leadership also means that the external world to the T&E community
must be impacted by its judgments and accomplishments.
Developments,
innovations and recommendations should be forthcoming from the work
undertaken and the knowledge obtained.
For example, when it is dis-
covered that threat characteristics and user requirements are out of
alignment or development techniques are effecting ultimate system
effectiveness, then leadership action is called for.
Leadership
action represents the feedback function to assure the weapon system
acquisition loop is closed.
4.
Theory Building
The theory of T&E can only be as effective as the
amount of improvement and attention it receives.
Continual evaluation,
analysis of data to confirm principles, research to improve the
fundamental tenets and open channels for dialog are essential to theory
building.
Theory building means that experience gained on one system
19
or technique is documented, analyzed and re 1ated to fa 11 ow-on work .
. In addition, the lessons and facts of historical occurrences are
• searcl1ed for generalizations and clues to problem solution.
It is
all too c<,sy to move to the next project and not provide for the accretion of knowledge in a form that can be acquired by later generations .
. An open forum must be available for scholarly communication.
Expres-
sion of constructive criticism and contrary viewpoints can be a healthy
input to theory building.
IV.
PHILOSOPHIES OF TEST AND EVALUATION
A.
General
The organization and staffing of the T&E organization is
, reflective of the many strains of disciplines and backgrounds from
which it draws its manpower.
The philosophies of the user are repre-
sented by a cadre of pilots and officers with previous fleet associaThe research and development side of the Navy house is in
tion.
evidence by a healthy contingent of civil service scientists and
engineers.
Each of these groups have their own particular mental
. picture of what T&E is and how it should be conducted.
For every
system requiring tests there have always been more testing schemes
:and purposes than economics and time could allow.
Since all parties
cannot conduct independent tests, action is taken to coordinate
•exercises such that all observers can extract the information each
needs and conduct independent analysis.
I was exposed to four different philosophies during my conduction of the NTE/IOT&E.
These philosophies were; (l) Operational -
from the pilots and future users of the missile, (2) Design Engineer my point of view, (3) Systems - missile developer, and (4) Program
Management - from the managers.
These four philosophies are described
below.
B.
Operational Philosophy
The operational philosophy is comprised of, and gains its
chief momentum from, the Naval pilot, the fleet officer and the line
engineering officer.
These men carry the experience of combat encoun-
ters and are able to apply this knowledge to determining the opera-
20
21
Itional worthiness of any piece of defense hardware. They
I in naval tradition and know the value of testing a system
1
are steeped
with. the
men who wi 11 operate it during combat, the importance of conduct! ng
I exercises at sea, and the necessity of full familiarity, including
'
'
I performance capability, operational characteristics and maintenance
'
demands.
A central tenet of the operational philosophy is that the
, purpose of T&E is to assure that the weapon system is compatible with
:other fleet systems, either carrier defensive or offensive systems,
. and that mission performance requirements are satisfied.
In the view
! of the operational philosophy, the new weapon system must possess
·operability, reliability, suitability, and maintafnability.
Further-
more, each of these abilities can only be fully assured by tests conducted under the direction of the user, by employing the user's
.
operators and under normal operating conditions. ·Normal operating
:
! conditions are defined to mean safe flying conditions, standard
· • tactical flight patterns, live target(s) and operator discretion .
'
. The operator's personal evaluation of system performance is of the
' highest importance.
The point of view taken is that the operator,
, or pilot in most cases, is an integral part of the system, i.e.,
there is a very carefully designed man-machine interface.
Since the
pilot is the one whose life is at stake and he must make the final
:decision in a combat situation, his confidence in the weapon is
i
critical. 'Prevailing pilot dissatisfaction can doom the most sophis-
. ticated of
1~eapon
systems.
For example, pilots have been known to
prefer aircraft cannons ("guns") to the very expensive missile
22
'because of fam'il i a rity and confidence in performance.
Thus, of types of testing conducted, it is the flight test
1that becomes the one "true" or "real" test.
The concept that the
'operational evaluation supersedes all others is accepted throughout
'
the defense community and by cognizant committees in Congress.
Opera-
tional testing also takes into account the interface with other
systems and equipment, tactics and techniques, organizational arrangements, and the human skills and frailties of the eventual users.
The "independent" evaluation of the operational forces is a pivotal
step in the .decision chain leading to production and introduction
to the fleet.
The process or model followed by the advocates of the operational philosophy is not overly complicated.
The steps are outlined
below:
1.
System Operational Orientation
In this step fleet operators become acquainted with the
operational characteristics of the equipement.
The training is
ordinarily provided by the developing agency in conjunction with the
prime contractor.
2.
Planning the Flight Test
In this step all operational considerations are taken
into account.
Flight path geometry is developed, supporting range
,requirements are established, target requirements are determined and
performance criteria are fi na 1i zed in aerodynamic terms of speed,
altitude and attitude.
Electronic settings are also established for
the various radar, fire control and avionic systems of the launching
ivehicle and missile.
23
3.
Practice Exercises
An important step in the operational type test is the
system checkout and trial exercises in preparation for the main event,
known as caQtive flights in Navy parlance.
In early phases of testing
the flight p1an and test sequences will fo 11 ow a prescribed order.
However, later tests will more closely simulate the unprogrammed
combat environment.
4.
Flight Testing
Missile launch distinguishes flight testing from the
'practice exercise.
In addition to missile launch, test directors
;
:will have various options which include missiles with provision for
telemetry scoring or live warheads.
Depending upon the
obj~ctives
of the test a large selection of targets are available to provide a
1range of performance capabilities and physical characteristics.
'
,Unless test requirements call for evaluation of electronic warfare
equipment, the electronic environment will be favorable, as will
weather and visability.
5.
Analysis of Data
Production of flight data has not been as important to
.the operational philosophy as to other testing models.
When opera-
tions are conducted on an instrumented range, extensive tracking data
will be available for reduction and analysis by government development
·I
: agencies and by contractors hi red for this purpose.
I
Te 1emetry for
!
, functional system performance is not emphasized but used more to
; monitor pressures, voltages, outputs, etc. i.e. , conditions preva 1ent
at the time of missile launch.
24
6.
Evaluation and Recommendation
Evaluations are performed from a mission fulfillment per-
spective and on a comparative basis with weapons currently in the
inventory.
Mission satisfaction criteria includes an assessment of
the new weapon in light of known combat situations and threat hardware capabilities.
It is at this time that recommendations concerning
operability, suitability and reliability are made.
Very often the
.evaluation is addressed to countering only contemporary threats
,through the use of familiar conventional command and control
tecnhiques.
C.
Design Engineer PQilosophy
The advocates of the design engineer philosophy believe that
'T&E revolves around engineering principles and system design.
They
exhibit a preoccupation with component and subsystem performance and
promote extensive bench and laboratory testing in .a search for absolute values.
A particularly important aspect of this testing process
is a thorough understanding of subsystem design concepts and a
detailed examination of design theory used in the development.
To a
large degree the design engineer philosophy is an extension of the
research and development process and concentrates on the "functional"
type of testing.
This type of testing is done to determine how well
various systems and material meet design and performance specifications
which have been contracted, i.e., whether they meet technical requirements.
Engineer design testing has a heavy quantitative emphasis
with many similarities to quality control practices.
To the engineer with the design orientation, tests of a
25
I~1eapon
I1
system are not much different than conducting an experiment.
Physical parameters and performance criteria are rigidly prescribed
.
and external conditions must be controlled as closely as possible.
·Flight testing is considered an extension of the laboratory experiment
and data gathered fro.m the dynamic test are closely correlated with
experience and predictions from the earlier tests run in the laboratory.
Flight tests to this group require extensive instrumentation.
;rest results frequently produce additional areas for problem solution
and design in1provement.
Of equal importance to the actual testing is
; the development of test equipment and facilities.
It is the conten-
' tion of the design engineer philosophy that state-of-the-art technology
employed in the weapon systerr, requires an equally sophisticated test
capability.
'
1
This calls for systems such as hybrid analog-digital com-
puters for simulations, test chambers to measure electromagnetic
!
'properties and test cells to determine performance under a range of
environmental conditions.
The leading authorities of the design engineer philosophy
·are the engineers and scientists who have maintained technical and
academic skills.
Advanced engineering training is a prerequisite to
membership and leadership in this group.
The process followed by the
engineering design philosophy for T&E consists of the following:
1.
Famil i ari zati on with Design Theory and Deve 1opment
Concepts
The member of the design engineer philosophy would prefer
t
to be involved with the project from the very beginning.
Data require-
ments are very heavy, even to the extent of computer programs and
26
design calculations.
Understanding and facility with the state-of-
the-art used in the system design are considered essential.
2.
Analysis of Design Through Modeling and Computer
Simulation
3.
Test Design and Planning for Subsequent Test Series
Test design is more than planning test objectives and
.general conditions.
It involves the development of sophisticated
test hardware and revolution of variables, control points, performance
predictions, measurement criteria, input and output tolerances, and
acceptance criteria.
Since tests of this sort require equipment which
'must be designed and procured, action for long leadtime items must
1be initiated at an early date. In some cases specialists must be
recruited and trained. Another major consideration is the acquisition
,of
facilities and range instrumentation, including mobile resources
I
of aircraft, ships and vans.
4.
Laboratory Tests of Materials, Components and Subsystems
This step of the process tends to include some duplica-
tion of the developer's tests.
However, in order to prepare for the
more complex tests, it is necessary to rerun some fundamental tests
and to gather data on specific functions not previously covered.
5.
Functional Subsystem Tests
The subsystems referred to here are the major assemblies,
e.g., propulsion, avionics, fire control, etc.
Tests at this point
,include environmental situations to verify specification compliance.
I
6.
Integrated Systems Tests
This series of tests consists of checking system perfor-
27
mance under conditions of design requirements, unusual environmental
situations, and may employ weapons equipped with dummy warheads or as
:all-up-rounds.
7.
Integration of System with Environmental and Threat
Stimulus and Full Operational Simulation
This step consists of the highest order of testing
sophistication.
Hybrid computer systems are used extensively to
simulate, monitor, actuate and display system performance in real
time.
8.
Instrumented Flight Test Series
This step is described as a series because it consists
of a gradual increase in demands placed on the system unde,· test.
~lodifi cations
and adjustments can be made between f1 i ghts.
Deve 1op-
ment and installation of instrumentation is a critical part of this
•step.
9.
Technical Evaluation Characterized by Quantified Data
Suffice to say that the scientist and engineers report
will be stated in technical terms with full substantiation for
assertions and recommendations.
As one might expect from a profess-
ional, the engineer's evaluations are slow to be compromised by
opinion and program considerations .
. It is noted that each of the above tests employ common
activities.
For example, each step requires test planning and
development of test equipment and instrumentation.
Also, the design
engineer is usually not hesitant to experiment within a wide range of
equipment settings, outputs and circuitry arrangements as he searches
·.for the secrets of system capability.
28
D.
Program Management Philosophy
The program manager is ordinarily separated from the actual
hands-on conduct of T&E.
At best he is an observer and is able to
provide policy inputs of a technical nature.
As a consequence, the
program manager views the T&E function in terms which affect him and
,his effectiveness in managing the project.
'
Objectives of T&E become
'more oriented toward satisfying program requirements, i.e., gaining
approval to advance to the next phase in the acquisition process,
obtaining acceptance and support for continued authorization and
'funding, meeting scheduled events such as Initial Operating Capability
: (IOC) and avoiding overruns and other sources of criticism such as
'
i "gold-plating" and system proliferation. While performance is a vital
(concern, the testing proof he requires is different for each customer
'
,and frequently the program manager finds himself in a position of
i
seeking data that will help promote or sell a program.
The satis-
'
!faction of having completed a phase of T&E can equal or supersede the
1
, importance of the test results.
In dealing with
high~r
authorities, the program manager, as
principal component of the program management philosophy, must present T&E results in terms which can be understood by persons lacking
depth in technical expertise.
Under these circumstances the perfor-
mance evaluations easily assume an operational and qualitative flavor.
The program manager must rely on those with technical qualifications.
In many cases this means of verification is honest and effective.
However, there is also the tendency for the process of communication
to degenerate into a situation where successes are highlighted and the
29
failures played down as problems well within the grasp of the
engineering staff to solve.
The program management philosophy functions from a bureaucratic model of T&E.
Each step of the acquisition process and the
T&E phases along the way are outlined in policy instructions.
The
model provides for ''technical evaluations'', ''operational evaluations'',
''production acceptance test and evaluation'', inspections and trials.
A Test and Evaluation Master Planning System (TEMPS) is utilized which
provides for the T&E over the development life cycle of the new system.
The program management philosophy must cope with a factor not
faced as directly by the other philosophies.
,tionship and influence of the contractors.
This is the close relaThe presence of strong
vested interests can let the T&E process devolve into a political
exercise.
The effect of contract changes, design failures, differences
of contract and specification interpretations are reflected in the
:directions issued by the program manager.
As the years of development
grind on, the program manager finds that companies, people, requirements, threats and technology change.
Therefore, the model used by
the program management philosophy must be flexible with provision for
later definition or revision.
Instead of relying on technical performance data generated
by the engineer, the program manager finds himself using other
scientific tools and measurements to guide him in his
~ecision
making.
Decisions with serious implications for T&E can be derived from program monitoring methods such as Program Evaluation Review Technique
(PERT), GANTT charting, Line of Balance (LOB) and input-output control
30
,systems.
The production of management information gains priority
!
!over system evaluations.
!
Budgetary control, logistics coordination
and reporting are examples of management requirements which, while
important,
~ften
assume demand·ing status to the exclusion of other
considerations.
The more sophisticated program manager will employ the techniques of systems analysis in the direction of T&E.
These techniques
include cost-effectiveness analysis, application of uncertainty models,
trade-off studies, gaming simulations, cost-sensitivity analysis,
parametric analysis, and statistical analysis leading to such activities as analysis of variance and design of experiments.
Another use-
_ful technique is the analysis of conflict systems designed to cope
with differing object·ives.
Kill ratios, reliability percentages,
,readiness probabilities, and overall performance statistics are figures
of interest to the program management philosophy.
The purposes of the
systems analysis techniques are to assist in asking fruitful questions,
ingeniously designing alternative systen1s to be compared and interpreting the results.
The program ana,Yst relates the calculations
performed in his comparisons to the problems motivating the inquiry,
as they are much more critical phases of the operation than the
manipulation itself.
E.
Systems Philosophy
The advent of systems theory has brought with it a group of
managers and engineers who believe that the T&E process should be
conducted with emphasis on achieving successful operation of somewhat
independent parts as an interated whole.
In this concept the smooth
31
I
!functioning of the whole is the primary objective of the system.
!Although individual components and subsystems may not be operating
1
:most effectively at a particular time, in the balanced overall interest
1
of the complete system the action at one particular time is compatible
!with the overa 11 system requirements for the entire period of interest.
The systems approach necessarily involves the vehicle, the missile, the
1
'ship, the ground support equipment, the logistics system, the main1tenance and the human factors over the life cycle of the system.
This
:philosophy of T&E is not greatly unlike that of the design engineer
,philosophy, except that the testing attention is focused more on the
interfaces between related systems than their independent operation.
1Even where the design engineer tests the entire integrated system, the
!
1
systems man will want to concentrate measurement in areas which will
assist him in assuring maximum system efficiency without incompatibility and unnecessary'duplication.
Much of the weapon system T&E involves the operation of
:electronic subsystems.
Engineers knowledgeable in this area recognize
,that the design of the operatjng system itself consists of providing
a means for specifying the character of the process as well as the
nature of the control logic, the control instrumentation and signal
conditioning.
This assures that there is an overall balance among
,these three parts such that the outputs which are obtained are suitable for the overall purposes for which the process is being directed.
The systems engineer may have at his disposal the ability to specify
and modify the process characteristics as well as the rest of the
system in order to achieve the overall operating system that is most
useful for the system intended.
32
In electronics the systems approach gives an added dimension
of freedom to modify the process to enhance the overall output effectiveness.
The control engineering approach emphasizes the achieve-
ment of enhanced systems output through control of the control logic,
. instrumentation and conditioning without rnuch freedom to modify the
process characteristics.
The systems philosophy insists that these
distinctions be recognized in the T&E process.
The systems philosophy has as its spokesman the technical
man with multidiscipline capabilities.
However, in addition to under-
standing the design and operational theory behind various subsystems,
he is a proponent of systems concepts as the guiding theory to testing
methods and policy.
He is aware that analog and digital computers
now make possible the analysis and understanding of phenomena in
large scale systems that were quite impossible with classical analytical mathematics of the past.
Modeling and simulation are used by
the systems man to explore possible reactions of the real system by
introducing representative environments.
Other concepts which appear
in the systems philosophy are methods to deal with probabilistic
phenomena and statistical variations,
linear and non-linear sub-
function relationships and overall control theory designed to cope
with stability, accuracy and dynamics of flight.
Characteristic of the systems engineering problem are the
facts that the exact nature of the results sought may
~ot
be known
and that many alternate ways exist to obtain the overall result.
Hence, the successful solution of T&E problems tends to follow
certain general approaches in which an iterative method is employed
33
to refine the results as the initial hypotheses are compared with
derived data.
Therefore, rather than outlining specific steps such
as planning, test design and test phases, the systems philosophy
,general app:oach will be outlined.
1.
Problem Formulation
Here the systems engineer determines requirements, esta-
blishes objectives, goals, and restraints, and defines the weighting
functions to place the proper emphasis on the various systems requirements.
The systems requirements are determined from a consideration
of the user's stated needs, as for example from specifications or
previous experience, or from a general knowledge of the same or
, similar processes.
2.
Synthesize System
~1hich
will be used to Test for Require-
ments Satisfaction
A number of alternate solutions which apparently could
:succeed will be considered.
From this a limited number will be
chosen which appear to have the most likelihood of being successful.
A range of values will be used for the various parameters, configurations and techniques, and a region of acceptable solutions will be
determined.
This information will frequently point up what informa-
tion is needed to make further decisions.
;
·'
Further, from such analysis
the critical assumptions are indicated, and one is most able to
• decide which solutions appear most likely to meet the system's requirements.
Mathematical means will often be employed to select
between alternatives.
3.
Find Ways to Design System Previously Synthesized
The design process used is an iterative one, repeatedly
34
trying to obtain improved solutions.
Initially, when the input data
are not well known, approximate methods, calculations, and tests are
. indicated.
As the sensitivity of the variables becomes apparent, the
'second order effects will be ignored.
Later, as the first order
effects are understood, it will be essential to include the second
order effects to be sure no obvious obstacles will appear later and
that the most satisfactory overall results will be obtained.
At this
point the systems engineer will focus attention on the functional
equipment that will most effectively group together the physica-l parts
that will accomplish the sysL;ms test requirements.
By grouping to-
gether the necessary hardware and software in this fashion, a structure of subsystems is created v;hich will be responsive to the system
design requirements on one hand and the operational needs on the
other.
4.
Measure What Has Been Done and Compare with Objectives
The systems engineering process of solution for T&E
problems is an evolutionary one of gradual transformation from a statement of the problem in operational terms to a description of the
physical equipment that makes up the system in terms of its capabilities.
As more and more data are available, the ways of converting
error information between objectives and actual realization into
appropriate changes increase.
The refinement and changes in the steps
will take place all the way from the problem formulation to the
measurement of results.
A higher degree of certainty exists in the
knowledge of the system and what it will do.
Because of the
inherent uncertainty of the data and the requirements, a strong sta-
35
tistical treatment of the problem is required throughout.
The existance of many objectives for the systems-oriented
,T&E engineer means that the problem is indeed a multi-variable, multi'loop one.
System parameters and dec-is ions made or1 the basis of their
effect on one objective also have effects on the other objectives.
The systems engineer problem is one of so arranging the treatment of
the systems that these interactions are minimized or, hopefully, made
to be most favorab 1e for each of the systems.
V.
PI\OJECT INTRODUCTION
?_Qckgro_u_n_cl
A.
The SHRIKE AGM-45 air-to-surface anti-radiation missile was
develo~ed
to provide a weapon to suppress enemy radars.
Because it
has been impractical to design a single SHRIKE to cover the entire
frequency range of threat radars, a number of models of the AGM-45
beginning with the AGM-45-1 and proceeding to the -10 have been introduced to handle specific bands.
The AGM-45-7A is one model of this
process.
This newest entry to the SHRIKE family was evaluated in a
joint Navy - Air Force testing program consisting of an NTE and an
IOT&E conducted by the Pacific Missile Test Center, Point Mugu,
California, and the Tactical Fighter Weapons Center (TFWC), Nellis
Air Force Base, Nevada, respectively.
The SHRIKE is a passive air-to-surface guided missile
designed to detect, track and guide on Radio Frequency (RF) energy.
The missile can be launched from the A-7, A-4, A-6, and P-3 Navy
aircraft and from the F-105 and F-4 Air Force aircraft.
The missile
vlill only be launched from the two Air Force aircraft in this T&E
program.
The SHRIKE AGM-45-7A missile contains four main separable
sections: guidance, armament, control, and propulsion.
For the NTE/
IOT&E, a telemetry unit is installed in the armament section in lieu
of high explosives on all launches except one which wfll be an all-upround.
The missile component parts and physical characteristics are
shown in Figure 1.
36
37
!~JI :.L. I\
:1
.
'\ --.---
n:, f~Jl.:t::c
"'t-
c--·--
0
0
"'~
t-
u
0
"'
[q
• •
\
•
v
z
~
u.
38
The guidance section consists of an RF section, a guidance
computer and a Target Detecting Device (TDD) which energizes the
proximity fuze.
The RF section receives radar pulses via a spiral
antenna which are processed in stripline networks then amplified.
The guidance computer processes the video signals from the detectors
in electronic circuitry which produces the required steering signals,
memory time, angle and intensity gates, etc., and the monitor functions required by the pilot and the telemetry unit.
The MK 5 MOD 2 control section contains a hot-gas servo
actuator, wings, a gas grain heater, an explosive squib, switches,
timing controls, two thermal batteries, an umbilical cable, and an
Electronic Altitude Sensor
(E~S).
The EAS functions to initiate con-
trol activation when proper conditions are met.
A new EAS bypass has
been incorporated in the AGM-45-7A to enable the pilot to select loft
or dive mode while the missile is on the airplane.
not available on previous SHRIKE versions.
This feature
1~as
The MK 5 MOD 2 is obtained
by modifying the older t·1K 5 MOD 1 to incorporate the EAS bypass and
angle gate selection features.
The propulsion section consists of a rocket motor, a motor
safe and arm device, an igniter, hanger lugs, a detent, four fins, a
boattail, and an exhaust nozzle.
The safe and arm device is attached
to the igniter and provides a means to prevent accidental motor
firing.
The hanger lugs position the missile on the launcher rails.
A tab and the detent restrain the missile during captive flight.
The armament section consists of a warhead, an internal safe
and arm device, a contact fuze, a booster, and an electrical cable.
39
The section is made of 3/16 inch mild steel tubing, 8 inches in diameter .. The unit contains explosive and 3/16 inch steel cubes stacked
to give a direct fragmentation pattern.
Th~re
are two SHRIKE delivery modes; loft and dive.
In both,
ithe pilot utilizes the direction indication to determine target
i
position with respect to r;issile boresight.
An aural tone represen-
. tative of the target radar Pulse Repetition Frequency (PRF) is also
i
available.
In the loft mode, used for medium and long range deliveries,
·the missile is fired into a ballistic trajectory toward the target
1
area.
Activation of the control system and guided flight to the
target occur when the EAS system determines that the missile is below
. 18,000 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL) and has experienced and increase in
1
static pressure of one Pound per Square Inch (PSI) since apogee.
In
the dive mode, reserved for short range launches, the EAS is bypassed
and control activation occurs three seconds after launch.
The
essential difference between the two modes is that the EAS functions
1
'in loft and is bypassed in dive.
The delivery mode is pilot select-
• ible in flight.
The AGM-45-7A also employs pilot selectible angle gates to
control missile look-angle.
Angle gating allows the SHRIKE missile
to lock-on the target closest to boresight and prevent extraneous
·targets from being acquired.
, Figure 2 (A through D).
The angle gating operation is shown in
At control activation, the angle gates are
centered on missile boresight as in Figure 2A.
If no target is
. detected, the gates begin to open as in Figure .2B until a target is
40
'detected as in Figure 2C.
The angle gates then close around the
target as in Figure 20 and the missile alters course to place the target
on boresight.
Throughout the maneuver the angle gates remain ''closed''
,around the target thus preventing spurious targets from being detected.
h.
TGT
#1
TGT
#2
A
h.
A
h.
l1.issil~
A
B
c
D
Figure 2 Angle Gating
The difference between electrical and mechanical boresight
lis the boresight error.
This error is due to the inability of the
guidance section to maintain the origin of the electrical coordinate
'system coincident with the interaction of the horizontal and vertical
mechanical axis over a given range of RF frequencies.
Boresight error
contributes to the overall system guidance in accuracy.
B.
Purpose and Objectives
The primary purpose of the AGM-45-?A NTE/IOT&E was to deter-
mine the readiness of the missile system for service use.
The overall
!objective of the testing program was to obtain sufficient data through
:comprehensive laboratory and flight testing to determine whether the
.-?A SHRIKE should be recommended for production. To accomplish this
'
:overall objective the following specific objectives were addressed
I
41
i
[during NTE/IOT&E testing:
I
Objective 1 - Evaluate missile target detection, tracking and
guidance specification conformance.
Objective 2 - Determine the effects of climatic and environmental conditions on 1nissile performance, reliability and maintainability.
Objective 3 - Evaluate the effects of missile system/
operator and missile system/aircraft interfaces on missile employment
and performance capabilities.
Objective 4 - Evaluate missile system/aircraft checkout procedures and missile support equipment.
Objective 5 - Evaluate missile capability to detect, track,
.and guide to a specific target in a realistic operational environment.
Objective 6 - Evaluate missile susceptibility to Electronic
Countermeasures (ECM), to include on-board airborne jammers, and
'Electromagnetic Interference (EMI).
Objective 7 - Demonstrate all-up-round capability.
Objective 8 - Make preliminary determination of operational
supportability.
Objective 9 - Make preliminary determination of life cycle
cost of the missile system.
Objective 10 - Make production/service use recommendation.
C.
Methods of Accomplishment
1.
General
AGM-45-?A developmental testing which included two engi-
neering model launches was conducted by and at the Naval Weapons
42
Center (NAVWPNCEN) prior to NTE/IOT&E.
moniton~cl
PACMISTESTCEN/TFWC personnel
and had access to all data from this testing.
Problem areas
identified during developmental testing were investigated during the
NTE and l'CSolved prior to commencement of the IOT&E.
A total of eleven prototype missiles were available for
the COinb·ined NTE/IOT&E and originally allotted as shown below:
NTE
5
IOT&E 5
Spare
l
Total ll
Since only eleven missiles were available for testing,
;data from both the NTE and the IOT&E was shared for evaluation purposes.
This increased the data base and its confidence limits.
2.
Types of Testing
Three major types of testing - laboratory, aircraft
l
.
capt1ve and launch flight - were conducted during the -7A NTE/IOT&E
program.
A brief description of each follows.
a.
Laboratory Testing
Standard Specification Compliance (SSC) tests were
conducted in accordance with the SHRIKE purchase description XAS 3840
at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, California, Fallbrook Annex.
The following parameters were measured at three temperature levels
. (cold, ambient, hot):
-False alarm rate
-Headtone amplitude
-Sensitivity
43
-Boresight error
-Angle gate width
-Logic
-Scale factor
-Reference plane orientation
Systems tests similar to but more extensive than SSG
ambient temperature testing were carried out to obtain response
.variations for each SSG parameter.
In addition, the following items
were also measured:
-Regulator voltages
-Intensity integrator voltage
-Intensity gate width
-PRF limit
-TDD firing angle
-TDD actuation voltage
ECM tests to investigate spot noise and swept noise
jamming susceptibility of the -7A were conducted in conjunction with
the other laboratory tests.
b.
Aircraft Captive Flight Testing
Dynamic aircraft and climatic environmental testing
were conducted at the PACMISTESTCEN.
The following areas were
investigated.
-Missile boresight
-Missile detection, tracking and guidance capability
-Missile reliability
-Missile system/aircraft interface effects
44
Missile system testing was conducted at the NAVWPNCEN
SHRIKE Range utilizing radar simulators to evaluate the following:
-Missile detection, tracking and guidance in a
single and multiple target environment.
-Missile boresight
-Missile system/operator and aircraft interfaces
-Effects of ECM and EM! on missile guidance
-Effects of out of band targets
-Target selectibility
-Aircraft stores effects
-Multiple aircraft effects
c.
Launch Flight Testing
Launch flight tests were conducted to evaluate
n1issile performance and capabilities in a free flight environment.
All launches were conducted against the NAVWPNCEN SHRIKE targets.
Ranges of values for launch conditions, target parameters, and impact
conditions to be used during this testing are shown in Table 1.
Letters are used to keep the table unclassified.
Each letter repre-
sents a range of values.
In addition, significant criteria and specific -?A
test objectives being addressed are indicated for each shot.
target environments are utilized for six of the ten launches.
Multiple
With
the exception of one of these six, IOT&E 4, the distance between
emitters and position of the missile at control activation have been
chosen to preclude the missile receiving more than one target unless
there is an angle gate malfunction.
In the case of IOT&E 4, the
,o
LAUHCH
TARGET
PARAMETERS
CONDITIONS
Significant launch,
~~ target,
and impact
%''
~:;""
s"''
NTE
1
1
crited a (number of
specific test objectives
addressed by this launch)
IDetectandtrackvalidation,
level launch, high freq/PRF
c
D
ciB
tgt, higi1 t~~minal angle
;1'12,410 1
fLmnlt loft, low freq/PRF tgt
.s c c C
2
lm·l terminal a['lgle __{_l, __~ 4__,__1_0_1
NTtlShort range dive, tgt selecI C I B I c I c
3
tability, med terminal angle
1
(1, 2. 3. 4. 5.10
11TE
NTE
D
!Long range loft, out of freq
sec tg~ {10\·t}, high terminal
anale (1, 2, 4, 10)
tHE ~1-~ed range dive, AZ error, out
5
of freq tgt (hi), low A/S
(1, 2, 4, 10)
f0T&E 1 t)irlimum range
~•
1
111, 2, 3 4 5 101
D
4
c c
I
I I~T&E\ ri:nri~~nl A~orror
J'
!OT&EIBack lobe, 101.' alt, high loft
3
(1,2,3,4,5"loL
rgr&E\1;'~~ ~~n~~, 4 ~;~~ ~~}·multiple
.
(1,2,3,4,5,7,10)warnead
\
B
B
-
ID
1,
Is lsE lc 1- Is \c \c
,
iD
B I C IBID IS/DIG
IE/DIG
ID
IC
lc
IC
D
D
8
B
A
S/BIC
E/DIC
D
B
B
D
c
B
S
S
D
E
D/DIC
C/S IO
c
c
D
S
c
B
c
c
D
S
c
0
I
c
c
1
0
B
0
B
c
j
I
..1
I Et!c~IC I D
j_ c ..
E' 8
.
n'+-ocA-+-.-,±-!-,-,,t,.-;,.--+,,-i-.,----'-,-!--,---!
_I__
I D j C I 0 I B\ o I D/tl "/~I" lt'/t I"'T 1u 1u i u
roTCl
1\lC-1
orlf-i qt-jS/DlC: lENT6/ST8- fD iB IDl 0
I I
I
I i
I ! iIi;.
tgl 0
lOT&EIHigh alt, lo\•1 A/S, multiple tgt,
5
c
c
D
I'D IC Jc
c c
A
c
A
""I"'
C' B h l -
IMPACT
CONDITIONS
E
1
1
·
i
TABLE 1 LAUNCH, TARGET, AliD JMPACT CONDITIONS
"""
"'
46
second target is above the frequency band of the -?A and will only
affect guidance if a malfunction occurs.
In all cases where multiple
,targets an! used, failure to guide to the primary target should only
be due to a _missile malfunction which can be determined from
available data.
Appendix A lists the checklists that I used for pre-flight,
flight, and post-flight checks.
This Appendix also contains the
pilot's pre-flight checklist.
3.
Methods of Testing
As
~tated
previously five prototype
were allotted for the NTE conducted by the
vided support for the NTE as required.
AGt~-45-?A
PAC~HSTESTCEN.
missiles
TFWC pro-
An additional five f!rototype
missiles were to be used during the subsequent TFWC led IOT&E.
PACMISTESTCEN supported the IOT&E as required.
The
An eleventh -7A
prototype, designated as a spare, was launched during the NTE for
.additional information.
Missile component expenditures are shown in
Table 2.
Table 3 presents an overall view of the AGM-45-?A NTE/
IOT&E program of testing.
In it the type tests and number of
missiles used to address specific program objectives l through 10
along with data reduction and analysis responsibilities are shown.
Table 4 is a listing of minimum data requirements for each type of
test that was needed for my evaluation.
Aircraft requirements for
the captive carry and launch testing are given in Table 5.
4.
Milestones
The NTE/IOT&E project milestones are shown in Figure 3.
1975
APR
NTE/IOT&E Project
Plan Published
NAV~iPNCEN
DT&E
NTE
JUN
AUG
1976
OCT
DEC
FEB
APR
!
I
I
I
JUN
I
!::.
l:s:-- - - - - - - ! : : .
/);.- -
-- -
-!::.
IOT&E
/);.-- -
NTE/IOT&E Final Report
-
-!::.
}).
FIGURE 3 AGM-45-7A NTE/IOT&E MILESTONES
_,.
....,
48
.---------------------------
-----·
COMPONENTS
Guidance Section
-~----
UNITS
11 ea.
Mk 37 Mod 2
(including Boattail Heights)
TOO Antenna
Mk 34 Mod 0
22 ea.
Electronic Assembly
11 ea.
Mk 8
~lod
0
Armament Section
ea.
Mk 5 Mod 1
Control Section
11 ea.
Mk 5 t1od 2
Wings ar.d Fins
11 set<
Rocket Motor
Mk 39 Mod 4
11 ea.
Telemet"/ Serti00
10 ea.
I
TABLE 2 AGM-45-7A COMPONENT EXPENDITURES
iType Test Us,d
To Address
Objective 1 - Evaluate missile target detection
In Each Type Test
u
"''-'z=>
"'
""_,
>-~
<
'-'
<
_,
X
X
X
X
X
tracking, and guidance specifica-
6 I 4
11
j
,
environmental conditions on missile
"''-'z
~ He~~~~~~~~
3
i
tion conformance.
Objective 2 - Determine effects of climatic and
Data
Data
Reduction
Analysis
Responsibility Responsibility
To Be Evaluated
Objective
SPECIFIC PROGRAM OBJECTIVE
I
Number Of Mi ssi 1es
1 6
414
j
~
'-'
'-'
~
"'
~
>--
0..
0..1
llOIX
"'
X
j
1
1
1 41
4
'-'
~ ~
"' ~I ~
~ §1
z
j
4 110
1X
X
X
X
1
.
performance, reliebility, and
rr:aintainability.
_I
I Objective 3 - Evaluate effects of missile system/
X
operator and missile system/air-
X
4
4
6
craft interfaces, on missile equipment/performance capabi 1i ties.
Objective 4 - Evaluate missile systerr·/aircraft
X
checkout procedures anu missile
support equipment.
Objective 5 - E·Ja~~ate missile capability to
detect, track, and guide to a
specific target in a realistic
X
10
X
4
X
5
X
X
X
XI
X
operational enviror,ment.
Objective 6 - Evaluate missile susceptibility
bornejamme~s,andE;H.
~0-bJ-.e-c-t-iv_e___-7---D-e-mo_n_s.:.t_ra_t_e all-up round
Ob}ecf1ve 8
1
j
1
capability.!
3
1
I
l-l
XI
~ ~'1ake
preliminary determination of
supportability.
i~ake producticn/service use
recommendation.
I
I
I I,I
2
X
I,
1
X
I XI I,I
"
i ;(
l
X
X
X r:~
L
X
X
"
Objective 9 -Hake preliminary determination of
life cycle cost of missile system.
1 Objective 101
X
X
to ECM, to include onboard air-
I
I
I
!
x·
X
X
X
X
!
Xl X j
1
1
X~- xl X
1
TABLe 3 TEST! NG PROGRAM
~
''-'
50
--
LABORATORY •
TESTING
-
CAPTIVE CARRY TESTING
-·-·---
Voltages,
currents,
frequency, e tc.
Measurements
appropriate
to the
specificat·io n
requirements
being
evaluated an d
the testing
being conduc ted.
ENVIRONHENTAL
t~issile:
--iiai,cTc
Altitude
AZ
EL
Temp
Tay_gs:j:_:
Frequency
PRF
LAUNCH TESTING
SYSTEM
Hissile:
Missile (for T/M launches)
-I{IOAS track
Optical tracking
Altitude
AZ
T/M
Weight and CG
EL
I._a_rget:
1>1~?.? i 1e (for Ha t'head)
Frequency
Radar track
PRF
Optical tracking
Po1;er output
Weight and CG
AZ
TargeJ:.:
EL
Same as captive
Number
system plus
Antenna patterns
Separation
Monitor frequency and PRF
t1i see 11 aneous:
Timing
Radar/MIDAS plots
Magnetic and video
--lfan<ie
tape rc:cotd1r;gs
'I
,,,,,,,,
""''""pictures
''''"'"' __j
Impact motion
BOA still photos
TAGLE 4 MINIMUfl DATA REQUIREMENTS
51
TYPE
SORTIES
FLYING HOURS
A-7/A-4
2
2
PACt~!
A-7/A-4
6
9
NAVV/PNCEN
F-105
5
7.5
Ne 11 is EH Range
F-105
54
80
F-105
4
4
NAVWPNWI
F-4
2
3
Ne 11 is EH Range
F-4
27
40
F-4
3
\ __________
-----·--·-- · - -
3
TARGET
COI~PLEX
STESTCEN
George AFB *
George Am•
I
NAVV/PNCEN
_j
*Reliability captive carry to accumulate 20, 20, 20, 20, and 50 hours on
respective IOT&E mis"siles.
TABLE 5 AGM-45-7A AIRCRAFT REQUIREHENTS
52
5.
Test Criteria
If a -7A guidance section passed all laboratory testing
.without a malfunction, it was ruled ready for captive flight testing.
Likewise, completion of captive flight testing without problems
readied a guidance section for launch testing.
When a malfunction
.occurred or a problem developed, the defective guidance section was
returned to the NAVWPNCEN for repair.
When the results of early
launch testing revealed problem areas, subsequent profiles and launch
parameters were changed by the test project engineers to further investigate the problem.
D.
Project Management, Organization, and Responsibilities
l.
Management
The USAF/TFWC was the Air Force management agency for
, the AGM-45-?A NTE/IOT&E, and the PACMISTESTCEN was the Navy management agency.
Project personnel were responsible to the project
managers and insured that the project objectives were accomplished.
Key personnel were as follows:
Organization
Name
Grade
R. M. Pedigo
CIV
NTE Project Manager
PACMISTESTCEN
C. Herkel
MAJOR
IOT&E Project Manager
TFHC/TEM
R. Caulk
CDR
AR~1
R. Samuels
CAPT
PMA Program
L. Tsubakihara
CIV
NAVWPNCEN Project Manager
NAVWPNCEN
T. B. Humphreys
LCDR
NTE Task
PACMISTESTCEN
M. f4cMaster
CIV
NTE Project Engineer
PACMISTESTCEN
CIV
CIV
Operations Analyst
Logistic Management
TFWC/OA
ALC/MMND
S. G. Plentzas
· K. Stammer
Title
Project Officer
~tanager
~1anager
AIR-5105B
PMA 242-3
53
2.
Organization
The team involved in the NTE/IOT&E consisted of the
project managers, engineers, and officers from the organizations as
shown in FiQure 4.
This team: (1) planned all tests and analyses
required; (2) conducted or monitored all laboratory, ground, captive
flight, and launch operations; (3) provided expertise for data collection, reduction, analysis and evaluation of the system; (4) supplied
operational and engineering experience and judgment for the evaluation of the system; and (5) prepared interim and final reports as
required.
The PACMISTESTCEN and TFWC project managers had overall
superv·isory responsibility and decision authority during test planning,
conduction, and reporting.
TF\~C
directed the maintenance a11d support
actions for the assigned USAF aircraft and aircraft systems.
TESTCEN maintained the Navy aircraft and aircraft systems.
PACMISMissile
checkout and maintenance functions were performed by PACMISTESTCEN
or NAVWPNCEN personnel (depending upon the location of the missile).
E.
Data Requirements
Prior to the NTE/IOT&E, the NAVWPNCEN was required to furnish
test data on the two engineering rounds to the NTE/IOT&E team.
They
were also required to furnish valid target patterns of the test
simulators.
During the NTE/IOT&E, the NAVWPNCEN furnished the NTE/IOT&E
team Missile Intercept Data Acquisition System (MIDAS) and radar plots,
real-time telemetry l'ecords, magnetic tape recordings, video tape
recordings, and target operating parameters after each operation.
The NAVWPNCEN developed and processed all motion picture film.
The
OPERATIONAL
TECHNICAL
NA',AIRSYSCOM
WASHINGTON D.C.
HQ TAG
LANGLEY AFB VA
AFTEC
KIRTLAND AFB NM
I
I
PAGHSTESTCEN
POINT ~IUGU CA
--
....
.... ....
I
TFWC
NELLIS AFB NV r--....
/
....
/
....
/
....
' ....
/
/
....
/ /
....
/
....
....
/
.... ,. /
/
/
NAVWPNCEN
''
' ' ....
'''
4
WRALC
GEORGIA
I
''
l2.AF
BERGSTROM AFB TX
Suppol"t
CHINA LI\KE CA
35 TF\<
GEORGE AFB CA
----- Coordination
Conr.1and
FIGURE 4 ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
..,.
0"1
55
phototheodo lite film was a 1so reduced by the NAVWPNCEN and two copies
of the digitized data given to the NTE/IOT&E team.
Four copies of all
missile tracking and impact camera coverage were required.
Still
photographs of the target site and missile impact were required.
Finally, NAVWPNCEN furnished failure analysis, as needed, validated
target operating parameters, and provided technical assistance as
appropriate.
Data from captive flight sort·ies were collected from aircrew
debriefing.
officers.
F.
Missile flight history was recorded by squadron project
Data reduction and analysis responsibilites are in Table 3.
Reports
The PACMISTESTCEN pubi·ished all flight test plans and profiles.
Following each launch test, I submitted a preliminary 24 hour message
reporting on general results of each launch.
More detailed reporting
was accomplished by interim reports as required.
The captive flight environmental tests exposed the missile
to a controlled regiment of captive flight environments.
These
stresses were designed to induce failures or cause changes in guidance
parameters which may then be detected during the laboratory tests.
During the flight, the pilot initially checked the direction indicator
for boresight, pitch, and yaw.
He also checked for aural headtone.
Then the aircraft climbed to 30,000 feet and "cold soaked" the missile
for 20 minutes.
After completion of the "cold soak", the aircraft
dived to 20,000 feet where the aircraft performed high ''g'' maneuvers
to induce maximum buffet.
After these maneuvers were completed, the
aircraft dived to 5,000 feet and performed another set of high "g"
56
maneuvers utilizing roll, pitch, and yaw gyrations.
was another low level pass against the target radar.
The final run
The p·ilot again
checked his presentation to determine if any change hnd occurred from
s~ak"
the "cold
G.
or high "g" maneuvers.
Captive Flight Systems
Te~~
The captive flight systems tests were flown <lga·inst single
and multiple target environments to evaluate 1nissile sensitivity and
selectivity.
The captive flight parameters included dives at several
angles from various altitudes and ranges.
Target types and locations
were chosen to approximate operation a 1 conditions.
Run-in altitudes,
headings and airspeeds and aircraft configurations were consistent
with operational requirements.
External stores (drop tanks, dummy bomb, etc.) were carried
alongside the -7A missile to determine the effects of multiple reflections of the target signal on the guidance seeker.
To determine reliability, captive flights were
flo~m
piggy-
back on training sorties and accrued 20, 20, 20, 20, and 50 hours
respectively on the missiles used for ·roT&E.
The missi'les were down-
loaded periodically and returned to the missile shop for checkout.
Fa i 1ures were 1ogged when detected.
to the NAVWPNCEN for repair.
Failed components were returned
Failures versus flying time was used to
determine the mean-time between failures.
Prior to each launch test, the launch airplane was given a
SHRIKE aircraft system check and the -7A missile was given a missile
test check.
All missiles were weighed and balanced before launching.
The following is a brief countdown guide of a planned launch
operation.
57
-1 day -All missile captive flight tests completed.
-3 hours - Aircraft system check completed.
-2 hours
Launch test brief.
-1 hour - Missile loaded on aircraft.
-45 minutes - Airplane airborne.
-40 minutes - Range time begins, commence dummy runs.
-5 m·inutes - Dummy runs completed.
-1 minute - Commence firing run.
Airplane takes up
proper launch heading, speed, and altitude.
-30 seconds -· Commit point reached.
Begin launch maneuver.
-10 seconds - All ground instrumentation on and recording.
0 time - Launch.
H.
lnstrumenj;Q:_ti on Regu i rements
The instrumentation requirements for the launch tests at the
NAVWPNCEN v1ere as fo 11 ows:
1.
t,1issile Telemetry
The telemetry format included six continuous channels and
a 30-channel commutator.
The following real time presentations were
required to be displayed during missile flight tests:
Function
Sun Sensor
Direction Finding Voltages
Sum Integrator Voltage
Headtone
TDD
Angle Gate and EAS
58
Calibration Voltages*
Solenoid Voltages*
Control Activation*
• Pitch and Yaw Acceleration*
DC Voltage Monitor*
Safe and Arm
Thrust and Drag Acceleration
Fire Signal and Baro Switch
DC Voltage and Squib Monitor
Launch Signal*
Telemetry Power*
Ro 11 t1on i tor*
Range Timing
*Displayed only during launch tests.
A telemetry magnetic tape recording of each launch test was
required.
2.
Radar Tracking
An FPS-16, f·lPQ-26 or similar radar was required to track
the airplane and plot in real time during captive flight tests.
During
launch tests, the radar tracked the airplane to the launch point and
then tracked the missile to impact.
3. · Phototheodo 1i te
A minimum of five phototheodolite camera stations and
two M-45 Mitchell color tracking camera stations were required during
launch tests.
The cameras were required to track the airplane to the
launch point and then the missile to impact.
The frame rate was at
59
least 10 frames per second.
Phototheodol ite tracking was required
from -5 seconds to impact.
4.
Impact Cameras
A minimum of two cameras mounted on mobile carriages was
required to record missile impact during launch tests.
rate had to be a minimum of 100 frames per second.
The frame
These cameras were
aimed at the tal'get in a way that they recorded the final missile
trajectory (right angles to each other).
These cameras were activated
by radio commands from the flight controller.
5.
Video Tape Recording
A video tape recording of each -7A missile launch was
required.
The tape recording included track of the airplane to the
launch point and then track of the missile to impact.
6.
Still Photographs
Still photographs of each impact posttion were required.
Each photograph
sho~1ed
the missile serial number on a stake placed in
the center of the impact location.
Each photograph showed some of
the target.
I.
Targets
The targets were realistic simulators of threat radars.
target site and missile impact was surveyed.
Each
Target operating para-
meters consisting of antenna patterns, carrier frequency, pulse repetition frequency, antenna elevation angle, antenna rotation rate or
azimuth angle, peak and average power was required prior to and after
tests.
60
J.
Ra_r1_g_e Area
1.
Safety
The NAVWPNCEN was required to insure
were clear of the impact area during launch tests.
tl1ctt
all personnel
They were also
required to ·insure that extraneous emitters 1'e1-e not on the air during
both captive flight and missile launch tests.
VI.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
A.
Genera 1
This presentation is divided into four topic areas - Guidance
Section,
Co~trol
Interface.
Section, Rocket Motor, and Pilot/Missile System
Warhead effectiveness is not discussed because the planned
warhead configured missile was never launched due to the program
being stopped.
Captive flight tests were conducted to determine miss i 1e
system capabilities and reliability, and the effects of changing
aircraft and climatic environmental conditions.
No malfunctions were
observed during these tests.
B.
Guidance Section
Before I could begin the NTE/IOT&E testing, NAVWPNCEN,
China Lake had to successfully launch two engineering prototype -?A
missiles to demonstrate that the missile and targets were functioning
properly.
On May 29, 1975, China Lake launched its first missile,
but a voltage regulator failed in the control section before impact,
causing the missile to go ballistic. ·since the launch was a test of
the guidance section and not the control section, the flight was
called a "No-Test" and did not count against the experimental tests.
NAVWPNCEN successfully launched two other experimental missiles on
June 13, 1975 and September 25, 1975.
This cleared the way for the
beginning of the NTE/IOT&E portion of the test program.
The AGM-45-?A has two main enemy radar systems operating in
its frequency range.
Simulators of these two radars were used as
targets during the NTE/IOT&E test progran1.
61
The.results of the NTE/
62
IOT&E are presented in Table 6.
I labeled the two radar targets as
"A" and "13" to keep the table unclassified.
The missile performed satisfactorily against target A with
a good success rate.
easily confused.
Against target B, however, the missile was
Certain target conditions caused the guidance
section to lose track of the primary target and guide towards a
secondary target.
The problem was identified through data analysis
and the most cost effective method of correction chosen from several
corrective methods.
The guidance sections were returned to the con-
tractol' for modi fica t ion and wi 11 be tested under a new program as
the AGM-45-7B.
The AGM-45-7A guidance section will never make it to
the production line.
Glint (RF reflection off adjacent stores) was observed during
operation on the F-105 aircraft equipped with wing tanks.
This does
not effect missile performance after it is launched, but does affect
the pilot's ability to discriminate between multiple targets before
launch.
,'
.
63
MISSILE
DATE LAUNCHED
NTE-1
Oct 3, 1975
TARGET
SUCCESS
B
No
REMARKS
Successful Countermeasures
NTE-2
Oct 10, 1975
A
Yes
NTE-3
Oct 17, 1975
A
Yes
NTE-4
Nov 5, 1975
B
No
Successful Countermeasures
NTE-5
Jan 7, 1976
B
No
Successful Countermeasures
NTE-6
Jan 12, 1976
B
No
Guidance Section MalFunction "No-Test"
IOT&E-1
Feb 18, 1976
A
Yes
IOT&E-2
Mar 18, 1976
A
Yes
IOT&E-3
Mar 24, 1976
A
No
Successful Countermeasures
IOT&E-4
Mar 24, 1976
B
No
Control Section
Failure
TABLE 6 - FLIGHT TEST RESULTS
64
C.
Control Section
----------------------- -------
l.
Pressure Sensor
The
~'W
5
~100
2 contra 1 section has two 1aunch modes to
determine control activation time: EAS mode for long range loft
launches, and EAS bypass mode for short range dive launches.
In the EAS mode the control section is designed to control activate aHelo it senses and increase in dynamic pressure of
1 PSI and is belov1 an altitude of 18,000 feet MSL.
In the EAS bypass
mode the control section activates three seconds after launch.
How-
ever, three out of nine missiles launched in the EAS mode activated
above 18,000 feet.
This indicated an anomaly in the control section
sensing mechanism.
The pressure sensed by the missile is calculated using
the following equation:
Pt
=
Pamb + QCP
2
Q = l/2 pV m
2
where Pt is the total pressure sensed by the missile (LBf/ft ),
Pamb is the ambient atmospheric pressure for the current
missile altitude (LBfft 2 ),
Q is the missile dynamic pressure (LBf/ft 2),
.CP ·is the pressure coefficient for the SHRIKE missile,
(p) is the atmospheric mass density for the current
missile altitude (LBm/ft 3), and
Vm is the current missile velocity (ft/sec).
The value for CP varies with·the location of the pressure
sensing ports on the missile.
Figures 5 and 6
~how
graphs.of Cp
65
versus the pressure coefficient at missile station (MS) 159.4 and
128.0, respectively (MS
= inches measured aft from nose). Presently
the ports are located at MS 159.4 and as can be seen from Figure 5
the value for Cp increases substantially between mach .75 and mach 2.
Consequently, the missile senses a higher than actual value for Pt
in this region and control activates higher than 18,000 feet.
Moving
the pressure ports forward to MS 128.0 as shown in Figure 6 would
give more accurate readings, but this would require moving the ports
out of the control section and could cause problems in separating
the missile sections.
This anomaly, does not adversely effect
missile capability to satisfactorily perform its mission; that is
higher control activation altitudes result in higher terminal angles.
Therefore, moving the pressure ports is unnecessary.
2.
Roll Rate
The roll rate of the AGM-45-7A was found to be unpre-
dictable.
The SHRIKE missile is assumed to rotate at approximately
1 rad/sec throughout flight because of the design of the wings and
fins.
However, at control
on several launches.
a~tivation
severe roll damping was observed
On others, high roll rates (up to 4.7 rad/sec)
continued throughout the flight.
High roll rate degrades guidance
in two ways: (1) rapid switching of the wings decreases maneuvering
capability and (2) combined with a large target angle from boresight,
can cause the guidance section to lose track of a target.
roll rates tended to increase maneuvering response.
Slower
Although the
roll rate did not contribute to any of the failures, it can contribute to increasing the miss-distance.
A better quality control pro-
66
0
:::;F
:>:: :·;:v·l ;,: :1"··-·:: ...H,·-.....
:! :. ·-ij:;:: .::::-:~: "
·"
......
I . . ! '
I
j-l-~: ~~.~+s~:r+:::::Fl=~r- L;e f:)!H: ..
··-·
,; I.
·······-·······---~·--·'··'·
'
i ..
I'
.
..
;")[~!i,~m~l~i, ;J,:il~i f; , ,:I ~i'
:~~IF }~~il!i
i
1
j~ ~ li ~!
:
:_mmmmm:Th-[~·;mt:Ir~rn:,mm·lm fu;rnu!:wmt:. ~
~mw":n~~~~~iY!\:~: ·~:AL\!~:<~~~~~0n?~~- ;u~JH~~~~.L4
"'N
0:
<1'
"'
en
w
::~::::::1:~::::·::::::·:·;;:-
::::::::::::: ::·::·:· :::.::·::";"·::::·1::··:·:::
0
"z"
:~R:m;+&.-~~~-m-l~itm-~;o~i0ff2nm1Whm,~~~m:. ,;.-
IH)~5l:.c':~n::~n+>-7~'G!J:)~BL'L::\LUtm
:r:
N <>
"'
~
V')
:;:
~-,
(lJ
~
!:::
w
~
u
::> ~
o> u.
u.
.....
·~
OJ
0
u
w
"'::::>
VI
VI
"'a.'"
1"1
0
N
0
0
0
d:> lN31~1:Ll30~ 3UnSS3Ud
0
I
67
:m\;mm@~'\.:r!_':\~·rr:~ -:TTI10"1::TTTTj J,1.:,n ~
"':\:I',TI\''-"
.J
r· L
, ,, \
··,1
N
..;
N
0
co
"'w
(0
"'r•
:>
Vl
~j))rJ]}\t,~n,m::},\~h:~:\ :_,h~H'W\:\\:, \t:' \;:m~~\,;~;:y\HD::~ ~ "z
.\~illWu~uj~:mlw~\z\ji\1_r.-lli.• \t;ili~:\~Wm1:~m~~h,rt\·m-w:·1
:X:
u
<f
:10
N
>=
1.0
.;!.'
....
.•."'
U>
\.L
\;;
.-
w
<>
.~
·~
l~
"'
0
(.)
w
(~
::>
V)
V)
.....
"'""
"'0
"·
0
0
N
0
0
N
ci
I
ci
I
6il
gram should be considered in the production of the wings and fins
because slight differences can cause significant missile roll.
3.
Control Section Efficiency
There are two general methods of controlling the wings;
proportional and ''bang-bang''.
In the proportional method the wings
are deflected in proportion to the angle between
and missile target line-of-sight.
missil~
boresight
In the bang-bang method the wings
are fully deflected anytime the target is off missile boresight.
In
other words if the missile is pointed left of the target the wings are
leading edge hard right.
As the missile crosses the target and points
to the right the wings reverse to
l~ading
uses the bang-bang method of control.
I
edge hard left.
~edified
The SHRIKE
the polynomial
regression program contained in the math pac of the Hewlett Packard
9830Adeck computer to fit my data.
The program takes a set of data
points (X, Y) and calculates the coefficients of
a polynomial
(up to
the ninth degree) using a least-squares fit. Basic statistics on the
data, coefficients, and r 2-measure of fit can be printed on the
printer.
The data points and. the resultant polynomials can be graph-
ically displayed on the plotter.
in Appendix B.
This modified program is contained
I used this program to generate Figures 8-11 and the
figures in Appendix C.
Figure 7 explains the nomenclature for the
missile's line-of-sight and direction of motion angles.
Figures 8-11
and the figures in Appendix C show that the control section functioned
as designed.
Figures 8-11 are a representative sample of the launches.
The figures for all launches are contained in Appendix C.
In Figures
8 and 9 the azimuth and. elevation angle for the line-of-sight and
69
direction of motion of the missile is
versus time from
plottc~d
1aunch.
HORIZONTAL
/1---'NISSlLE DIRECTION OF
I~OTION
HORIZONTAL (GROUND)
-->?-----------------TARGET
9 = MISSILE LINE OF SIGHT (LOS) ANGLE
0 = MISSILE DIRECTION OF MOTION (DOM) ANGLE
Figure 7 Line of Sight vs Direction of Motion Angles
These figures show that after control activation 0 and g
approach each other near impact which indicates that the missile was
pointing at or very near the target.
When 0
=
g then the missile is
pointing directly at the target.
Figures 10 and 11 show the diffel-ence ("') bet1<1een g and 0
(0-9).
A negative "'indicates that the missile is pointed above the
target.
As the missile approaches the target this difference should
decrease and approach zero if the missile is functioning properly.
As
can be seen from these figures the missile was trying to reduce the "'
value in every case.
The acceleration curves show
th~
amount of "g"s
the missile was pulling during its turns towards the target.
These
figures show that the max "g" possible was always generated in the
correct direction.
The SHRIKE has a 3 "g" design limit.
Although
i'O
-m1·1r.
'. :-v.il' S I
--rJ
[J':'"".
~1
!~
'.~..---~.• ---;!;---,!,-!---,!~--"',)111'~1
N
W
I~
K
m
N~
L1
(!UQ>
!.ci
t:i
:n;::n IIJ.Illll7.11
1n
!!l
..;,r
71
0
~-
..
'
.
lli!'l E
i!i
\
!!!
U"l
ffil'GZ
~
~
9
Is t:;
~ hi
;:; A~
·HU' LG
.....
II
..
t
~.
\\
\
.
\
N
•
w
!;;
ill
m
II
.
ru
rj
~
r<i
....
•
I
r~t
1~1
m
ci
c~uo>
'~
~=
f.;)
•·
··•
::r--~iWf.l
ci
~;1
ni
~
:n:!Nll tlllll!IA:rn
~1
I
"'
-
72
----~1..
L.,_____
__,
mr u
~
v
~~·g
+
I
~
f) 52
?.'j ~
~
5 }
ljj
f,; ""·
HW:S ~!
~
I
till!' E
·-----=·---,--------<
ru ~ ru
.
~
I
I
.
( 9l i1ll IJ.IHCilJ))Il 111111-11 7.U
1---·---~·----·---·-----·-----1---
~
~
1:::1
~
I
1:::1
~
'I
1:::1
~
1:::1
~
~
1:::1
~
[J
T
u
~
rii
0.lJ
'i'
=-:
......
<!l:IQl :n::111 lll!lllllll v
tf
I
I
I>!
1:::1
1I
'I
N
'"'
L~j
1:::1
~
73
!JWGI
I
mn;
..
tl~'ll
·Uil'B
i
i
~i---:c<:---·:r---·-:r:---"T'----:r:-~2--:+
m
;
w
~
§
~
~
~
N
~
~
tl~'h
..fiWE
~
~
I
M
•
t~i
,_;
I
..J
l'il
m
I"'
~
~
<!ll Wllllll!;llJ))tl NUI1UhJl3
·---·
1----··
Rl
f;l
f;l
·r·i
'l'
'I;
§
bi
•
...,
·I•
~
(!J:l(l) :n~n<u
~~
•r
llllllllh3'13
'<:}
I
74
everything functioned properly, the "g" s available (a function of the
aerodynamics of the missile) Has insufficient to properly maneuver the
missile to the target on sane'of the launches even though the launch
conditions
~ere
within the published envelopes.
Two possible solu-
tions to this problem are to increase the "g" capability of the missile
or to revise the published launch envelopes to agree with the actual
capabilities of the missile.
The graphs of some of the flights are missing from
Appendix C because the tracking cameras lost track of the missile
during its flight.
D.
Rocket Motor
All missiles were launched with the single thrust MK 39 MOD 4
rocket motors.
There were no malfunctions relating to the operation of
any of the motors.
Some of the missiles were observed to "pitch up" by approximately three to five degrees as they left the launcher.
However, this
does not pose a safety problem and no degradation of missile performance was noted.
E.
Pilot/Missile System Interface
In the F-105 and the F-4 aircraft, the function switches for
the angle gates and launch mode were unmarked.
In a stress situation
or with a pilot not completely familiar 11i th the switches, a SHRIKE
missile could be launched in the wrong mode.
should be logically and functionally labeled.
Therefore, all switches
75
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.
Benayoun, R., J. de Montgolfier and J. Tergny, "Linear Programming
with Multiple Objective Functions: Step Method (STEM),"
SEMA, Paris, 1970.
2.
Brownlee, K. A., Jll~ustrial Experimentation, Chemical Publishing
Co., New York 1949.
3.
Brumbaugh, M., "Design of Experiments," talk at meeting of
Delaware Section, ASQC. Oct 7, 1948.
4.
Cochran, H. A. and Cox, G. M., Experimental Designs, John Hiley
and Sons, New York, 1950.
5.
Coombs, C. H., A Theory of Cata, New York:
6.
''Critical Requirements for Research Personnel,'' Report of the
American Institute for Research, Pittsburgh, Pa., ~·1ar. 1949.
7
Fishburn, P. C., ''Additive Utilities with Finite Sets: Applications in the Management Sc'iences," Naval Research Logistics
Quarterly, 14, 1967, 1-10.
0
Hiley, 1964.
8.
Graybill, F. A., An Introduction to Linear Statistical Models,
New York; McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1961, Vol. 1.
9.
Ijiri, Y., Management Goals and Accounting for Control, Amsterdam:
North-Holland, 1965.
10. Klahr, D., ''Decision Making in a Complex Environment: The Use of
Simi 1arity Judgments to Predict Preferences," ~lanagement
Science, 15, 1969, 595-617.
11. Kopitzke, R. H., "9830A M!lth Pac" (Hewlett-Packard #09830-70000,
p.57) Polynomia'l Regression program.
12. Kreyszig, E., Introductory Mathematical Statistics, John Hiley
and Sons, Inc., 1970.
13. Miller, J. R. III, Professional Decision Making, New York:
Praeger, 1970.
14. Peacn, P., ''Function of the Data Analysis Branch,'' internal report
of Naval Ordnance Test Station, Inyokern, Calif, 1951.
15. Quade, E. S. and Baucher, W. I., ~terns A.f1alysis and P~
Planning, American Elsevier Publishing Company, Inc., 1975.
16. Raiffa, H., ''Preferences for Multi-attributed Alternatives'', Santa
Monica, Calif.: RAND, RM-5868, 1969.
76
17. "Test and Evaluation" Department of Defense Directive Number
5000.3, January 19, 1973.
18. Wagner, H. M., Principles of Operations Rgsearch, Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1975.
19. Wald, A., Statistical Decision Functions, New York:
Wiley, 1950.
APPENDIX A
CHECKLISTS
77
78
A.
Prior to Turn Up
1.
2,
3,
4.
S.
6.
ALL Armament Switches "OFF /SAFE"
Safety Pins Installed - All Loaded Ejector Racks
Cartridges Installed - All Loaded Ejector Racks
Sway Braces Adjusted - All Stores - Aero SA Aligned
Shear Pin Installed - Detent Tight
'
Wiring Harness Pylon to Aero SA:
a.
Two Plugs Aft Top of Aero SA
b.
Plugs Lockwircd
c.
Pull-out Bails Connected to Retainer
Primary Firing Lead Connected to Missile Plug
Hissil.e Hotor "ARH/SAFE" S~li.tch "SAFE", Flagged
7.
8.
(
(
(
(
(
)
)
)
)
)
(
(
(
(
(
)
)
)
)
)
Safety Pi11 in Place
9.
10.
Missile Umbilical NOT Connected, Upper Left
Missile Hing NOT rO:;talled
Break A>~ay Cor,nector Yoke Rod in Launcher
Retention Hooks and Hooks Locked
B.
After A/C Iutn Up
1.
Stray Voltage Test of Ejector Rack Breech Caps
a. Breech Caps Connected
b. Ejector Rack Access Doors Secured
Stray Voltage Test of Aero SA Launcher
a. Missile Umbilical Connected
b. Aero SA Access Doors Seecc1red
c. Missile Upper Left Wing Installed
Hi.ssile Ami/SAFE S~<itch "ARM"
All Safety Pins Removed
2.
3.
4.
IINO·PMH·39G0/119 (3·69)
( )
( )
(
(
(
(
)
)
)
)
(
)
( )
( )
( )
(
)
79
PRE-FLIGHT CHECKLIST
Aircraft:
Is the aircraft ready?
Is there a back-up scheduled?
Has the aircraft been preflighted?
Has it had a wiring checkout?
Has the launcher been hung?
Has the launcher been checked out?
Ait,crew:
Is there a trained aircrew?
Are they scheduled?
Do they have a backup aircrew?
Is a mission brief scheduled?
Have they been informed of time and place?
Is a debrief scheduled?
Weapon System:
Have the aircraft cockpit controls been checked?
Is the miss-ile qualified? (lab, time·, GLAT)
Has preflight testing been completed?
Has preload testing been completed?
Does the missile have to be loaded?
Is an ordnance crew necessary? Have they been scheduled?
Has the missile been prelaunch tested?
Is a backup missile available?
Are spare weapon system components available?
Launch Conditions:
Have primary launch conditions been selected?
Are they feasible in vie•il of existing weather, etc?
Have alternate launch conditions been selected?
Is a target available?
Is it the proper target (Band, power, characteristics)?
Has it been verified? How recently?
Is it scheduled and will it be properly manned?
Is there power available? Has it been checked?
Is there an alternate source of power?
Is there a qualified, verified backup target?.
Do the aircrew know its location?
Have all targets been surveyed?
Range:
Is the range scheduled? Is range-time sufficient?
Has a back-up launch period been scheduled?
Have the following data acquisition requirements been met?
,·
'
80
Cameras (Askanias, M-45's)
Radar
TV
TM (Mobile, T Pad, Weprats)
Timing
Is adequate power available at each remote site?
Is adequate data gathering material available (paper, film, etc)?
Has the test conductor been briefed?
Does the test conductor have a test plan?
Is it current?
Has range safety been properly interfaced with?
Have provisions been made for properly manning all range
facilities required?
Is a backup tracking radar available and ready?
Are results of all target surveys available to test conductor?
Have arrangements been made for BOA?
Have arrangements been made for data reduction?
Do appropriate range personnel know of time and location for the
brief? debrief?
Have arrangements been made for RF silence during tests?
Has photo chase aircraft been scheduled?
Has the aircrew been notified of the brief time and location?
Is there a backup photo chase available?
Can we go without photo chase if one is scheduled?
Does photo chase have sufficient equipment and film?
81
FLIGHT CHECKLIST
Targets:
A.
Primary Target
Proper frequency; PRF; power output?
Antenna pattern OK?
Proper azimuth and elevation angles?
Steady output?
Honi to red by frequency coordinator?
B.
Secondary Targets(s)
Proper frequency; PRF; power output?
Antenna pattern OK?
Proper azimuth and elevation angles?
Steady output?
Monitol'ed by frequency coordinator?
C.
Undesired Target(s)
Is frequency in band of SHRIKE being launched?
Can pilot boresight and track primary target with undesired
target present?
Will missile be pointing in such n direction at control
activation to exclude undesired targets with angle gates?
If not, has missile been captive flown to control activation
position to determine if missile lock-on primary target is
hindered by undesired target?
If missile loses primary target, will presence of undesired
target increase time or eliminate possibility of reacquiring
primary target?
Is there a reasonable possibility that if the missile is
launched with the undesired target present and if the missile
fails to guide successfully to the primary target then the
failure will be due to the undesired target?
Missile:
Does T/M indicate any malfunctions in the missile?
Does missile boresight appear to be OK?
Do angle gates function properly?
Doec the missile indicate steady primary target operation?
Does the missile indicate any significant undesirable targets?
Has the missile been weighed and is its center of gravity within
limits?
Have the wings and fins been measured to determine roll rate in
flight?
Is the missile T/M steady?
82
Profile:
---Will the data gathered from the miss i 1e trajectory resu1ti ng
·from this profile provide sufficient information to satisfy the
objective(s) for this launch?
Are the launch airspeed, altitude, horizontal range, azimuth
angle and elevation angle required by the profile so restrictive
that ·an average pilot will have a dHficu1t time trying to meet
them during the launch?
Has Naval Weapons Center commented on the planned profile?
Does all portions of the profile trajectory allow for MIDAS and
camera coverage?
Is the profile reasonable in view of prevailing cloud cover?
If the missile is launched with the existing winds, is there a
reasonable possibility that if the missiles fails to guide
successfully to the primary target that the failure will be
caused by the winds?
Data:
Is there sufficient instrumentation and camera coverage to insure
adequate data availability?
APPENDIX B
POLYNOMIAL REGRESSION PROGRAM
83 '
.·
'
84
.1 1.. 1 11 I 1·1 I i · , , I , 1.:1 l J .h .Ill i' ; J , F L ? ~; J
ll. Il\::1' ',IIIIJ: l 11.1 1.1:3[ :31!1·1[ PLJJT";
t:: liH'I.Jf 1.!
:?CI I''IIF: l 'J TII ll
:.:11 CL l J"UI 1 J 1•.1
41:1 111:-:r J
~50 1'/.11:: J •l,: I Cl c:c:
c:c.1 cr: I J.::·.ci
/!1 · I·IF:>: l I
\11.1 [:[ l J •l
') U 1.•.1 : ·:. \· .] ;,;: : _:; J. ::· :3 ;·_: : :. ,: : :; ·::·: :;.: ::::; o:l ::::: ::::; ~5 : : : \;:)
'')l IF L!. ''· Tl II :::·?CI
.1.
rJ c1
ll 0
:~,;::,:1
t :·::; o
l "-i- C!
t::'d,'l
1c:o
l /' Cl
1 ::•:u
1') (I
J ·::: r:· ·· l-,-~ 1-~:..: _,
c; 1:::: c: 1:::: :::: !I
[ lli'I.JT IL::
!.F. J.;·
Tii!J-i l('ICI
:n I ~:~: F' ·· ::.:: :·: ·;· !· 1:· :::: 1·.-\ r:: : -·: ~ I 1··-i c: F: 1··1 , \' c: !? c1 ::~: : : : E : : : : -:; Hr ·· ,
T1··-l!::. I. J f :-< 1 :'
:1 ::-:: :::;: , ::-:; ')
DI::::I' "\'I·ITII:•'ii·IF!>:·, Il!l:::l?l·l,,:•< C::I?I):•.:::::::E::O: \' HI"o
Ii··-11-)I.J·r '/:!. :• ·-~·::?:~ \':_·:::, \'9
l ~.::: <>< ;:::: ....: ~:< l >.· . : : '?
·: \'?····\' 1 ·, .. 1?
D
·:·:: '/ :! ··
;?
?!::)C:! '/
\':;::-!
._1
;? l i_j
? : : : lJ
'-0:: :\ · :·;·~ ·:!··
J ;1
;:.::
T ::;:, ..·' •:: I ., >:: ::::
:1 ::·::
;? :1
.
?~8
::.
: _:_, C: ,ci L. :; :
::·:: 1-:·i ::-:;
'r'~1Y!~
I 0 •J
1: ••
i
;? . :· :f.
::·::
:1 \' ~:::i ;1 \'
6
.!.
/t~i·~)~~,~)?~~)l
I> • .,
i.) ... i .i.
::::: t:: lj \' :::: ""( ::::
·~::: "? (1 f••,'/3
.? "" 1:· ~-I L.. ;.J
2::90
::::: Ci !j
::::10 ·r . . :·<J
::0:20 ,;::·,,FI·Ii. J.
r
·'·
:::40 \' ::.:: ~::: ..J
3:51:)
:::;:(::Jj L. t·:! [: c: 1.... <:•:· ' : :·: ·' :l. !I )j ;I ::::: .•· ::::; >
:::::·?Ci Tl I :::F' "EJ-1 r
:i. . II) :·r.:: I I·IT Di'llfl";
:::::e:: 0 ll·ll' !IT i'")
:':'\)Cl TF i"'')liol 1'1!1':11 '1:3<)
.:lUCt I"' I::: I rrr
4t0 I''F::IIIl "i'•T . I!CI . ,, fill: l·l";o.;"TI'''!I':l:?L:"\'"
4?0 r:·r::: I 1··.1 r
43(1 .DI::•:r• ''1'1?1::::; 'F:IITEi? I.II"ITI\' IO::lc\'"
440 E:IID
4~50 l''i)l?t·lfil :::F? . 2
4C:O Til:!'' FilL. ( :•:)
4?Ct >< "' 1"'1 E: ::.::II
4:::0 'i "·" HE:: :::; \I
4':)() r:···: I l'··l·rL.C;T· <;:-::-o~-- ( \' ·-·::< >-):· <\' :>::·::) >
~51. 0 F'CI•.c ( l'·'i ..... l Ul? F,. ...: .'
~::;? C1 L.f'IF:F:L. <·•:··· I.,~:;,, :•:, >:IIi:fi·IJ.E:·+·')9:• ;::.,...::;::;.
85
,,:;::IJ F'(Jf.:: 1•:.•"1. 1 Tf) '.,.' :. :TLT' ·r
~::·•11'1 ll... CII ::Jo: III.JI ,?11<:.::::,,1<•:· IIUT 7+·'/:l.:o:.;;:•::•l
558 l:~:·l ... l)l" ·-?.:3~-·0~3
560
~AGEl
~:: ?1:1
~:eo
IIE::·r I<
C458)K/( NOT PO+RO*:I.O+P)''-··;
I 1· F'l.i•·•ll li·ll.ll ,:::1:)()
i. . HL:L 1... '·. •.: '" :::1. o·t-" F';
CUU ld:TI,ii.JI Cl
~:·::()
:1.0 I•••.J ·.J
::::() I: I::;· '· 1• !··iC· C:il Ill i•:,, ::'>:::C:II ;•.•;,
:::11 1: :·:•:,: T I< 1
4U lF !(:1.=1 THEN I?U
~::;; u I r-·· i< J
·r 1-..i c: t··.) t ::::: o
6:::: .UI·• . r· "TJ:,, TF, IIIC::";
70 INPU1' D!,D8,D9
UU DL I
D?
I•I+'
·::o
UCt ·crT ]::::·:UC I···· 1 :.\+:D9
U I::::· :nc I J:it.U:3 'fl···!F:t··-1 90
1..?U C1
Cl .1. '?(I
1 ::::c: 0 X
"FJI':T: I? >(' ;
:1. ·1:1 I i'i'iJ.i I!!. J J
.t ~_:_::; 1.:) I:::.: :i . j.. l
1 c: i:::: Lr-: li L { .... :L .:\ -i·i: ':) L: I·· ~:-1') ·r ~ ·\ l:~- 1·-~ 1 :_.: Cl
.!.
:!. :!.
1 ( U .U \. ::::: 1....
'' 1:::. r·-1 -!
L r;:: '·{ .. ;
1 ::(' I lli'I.J f ![ ·']
. :1. ')i) .J:.:.j l·i.
?:•:o :r ~cr: .J·····t Jii')[+il':' r1:11·1 1?o
210 FOR 11~1 TO J
2:?0 ::c :· l Dl I I :1
;:::1) 'i'••••·FL I 1 I
~'>\!: IF l'ii::J TI!Eli :0:~50
~::~ ~:5 !J i···\ L: : -: T 1 \.
:::::C:CI I'IIII
l U I I l·l TIILi·l ,:::1)
:D I ~:::;F· ., I.:.II?CI!··.\C; ::< ~~ ''(:::· ''
:?(:!
:1;
·H'I
~::::0
60
~
r:t: ;?':~,; 'r'
IF F 1·1:·< < :1. > TIILil ::::0
EJID
:ot•:r· ''liCIT IIL.L.OI·II:::Ii''
IIIF'UI'
?0 EII:D
::;:o::C::H T";
86
.;., 1) F: ( ( ·:::: ;>. :::: I l ..:.. 1·1 .' ." (I·· I "l >>
r> { <·._: ·+ - . :.: :-_: ·J- ;: :_· .-· J··l >. . . ( 1--1 .. 1 >>
:_: : Cl I·< ·:> ::::
l ,:. : : ; : : : .-·. !·· i > / <j· -1 ... :1. >. . :::: u. . . : ;:; ')
40 ::·r::: :rr
~'dJ I' I? I liT "IH.I . F'U I IIT:C.: ••" 1·1
(:O F'I?JIIT
·;::r C1 F' I? 1 1·--! ·r ··::< ~
1·· 1~:::: i·:-1 1·--1 ::::: •• ::::: 1 . . . t·-1 ; ·r F! c: ;: : ~:::; ··: : ; ·r . I) r:: \,~ • : : : ·· : : ; : : :
::::~) f''F I !If "\':
!·:r:JHI··••" ~::::::.·1·1 :; fl'li:::::<:;" ~:::r" :oF:''."."'"::::·:;...
')0 F'iO:: I Ill'
ll:iO l'I?I!I·i· ''(:l.ii·.:F: . C:C!LI"I''· ••''F:')
llil::l F'I<Iill
l c~(l II III
:1
(I
~:::: ::::::
::·:--: '.-:~
~::-: ·_:_: i :... ::. :, 1-__!
I
:1.0
;;?
o
•. :.:::
rr:· 1-i
.D T: _:· i--,
·• Ji r:.::
·:- ... ~i ·:·l-·iF::I··-1 ;?61J
: : ·· ~
c;" i:·:: c: l-.~ _,
Jili''i. :r Dl
40 IF D!
-W lHEN ?0.
·· ~-. ~ 1·:1 >: :u !·:.: c; .: ·· :; :o :? ··· H
.u.::
~::: t:J
'? 0 I r::· i.=.l :::: : : :
"r· H:::. r i
:::::: r
·ro
98 F0R 'i=:·t
·! ..... , .. ,
·'· ····' ·:~·
:··.:::·
:~c::a
t:L
1.
:1
;. .
~··
:r
'? ~J r::· 1 ::.: :~~~
:;::: o F (J r. ·
t .,,u
I... ' I..
.~
·.::- ~--', ::::1
·
I1l·~t
"' ;· :...
·1..
1 ..: ....:
J ·:·:·c;::
r~:
1
1. ::.:
:?
·r !J :n :1. ·+ :t
: : 1..•• 1.:; J +c::r : . ,, .: I1:?+.:: :::···I:: . . . :::;::
? 1?1 (:) 1·· ! F: ::·::. !" I
::: 1 .:'1 11.:1 cI. (I+.::+·'· .• ·•·•· <,, :::: 1<:: >.<::
Ct .i. e: : :·: ·r· c: . . c: c :!.:' 2 ·.J-·1 J · :· ; : :
1;::i
;?·~!-t)
J
r~
:: ::: P
J·t·?
]
'' :u C) 1·· ! F: ''
:::::J··i:n
250 IF N:D2 THEN 280
~::: GCl
T:l :1: ~:::; F'
., I· ·! C) T" L: I··.J C) i.J C!. ·1 I"' I)::: t:·r::::: ··
0 !1!11
:? : : : rl r:o ~::: lc! :::~ .I.
:•:·:.:o
n:: •T1::+l
380 FOE J=l ro D2
:O::llil 1.:::11·· 1•"11)10:1:1 F' J
:·1)1:: 1 • 1 rc1 n::: ·.JI·l
::•::.:~0 C:r: F'+ I l·•i::J I' I T J. C:[ I"]
::40 I·IF>:r I
U ::.;::c:i"'+ I
::::c:c1 :::: •k
::'?0 I (Jh: 1..'·"
l(J D ..1
::•,:::·:o 1····"!"'·1·1
I) 11..11:: 1·1····
Tl) [1, 1·::: ···I ·'L
::::·:o
,·
!
87
·101'1 c:r: 10:+·1·1··. ·1 J···c:r: 1?+1·1····1 :I····I.:L I" J:>:·1.:t: 1"·11·1·····1 l
4111 111 ::r t·l
·1:?0 I(•••F:·H·1· . ·1
4::.:CI IIC:::r L.
,....
440
.::.o
4:511 !II:::T ..J
4c:c1 ·r····· <:u:.::: . ;· 1 > :<:· •:: n:? ;.;::: >. . . : ,:
478 f:or~ I::~t ··r(J 112-1
4::::u r ··r-l···. I
<1')1:;'1 C:i T .i•• 1.···c1: r· J
~'iOCI l''UF: .J: 1 fll II:":·· I
~51 0 F'••Il:?+· :l··· I ......1
~520 1"""1"·:<:· <:U;::>+ :1. ··· <r:o . . . l >.
~:•:o:o ~o:·:·r:· . . . .J
~:)4Ct
0
~:;:;;o I.J.• r ·IJ+ 1
~::; (; Cl \·1 :::: F'
~';'?0 F'IIF: I<:• 1 Tf) ..J
~5 U0 '·/ ::::: \• 1·+ U···-·I·<
~'.i')O ::::••::::····1::[ F:·:·l< J :o:cr: '·/ J
6CII:I iiE:·:T I<
(;; 1 D
6;?0
C:c:l)
640
·:::::>··I
C:l: F' J:c::::.·Cl F: J
iiF:•<f .J
IIF:••:T I
c:r:tl•:l ..... cr:tJ
6~5o u·r o
1_:;;
::~: 1:::t
10 IF W=U TliFH 128
'~0
I"F::I!·IT
:38 PRINT ''COEFFICIENTS''
4U l''i? I I·IT
~;o F'IIRI·IriT
68 FOR
F::. ;)., r::·.l c?, :::
I~l
TO D1+1
1-·-!i? :r TT:: <1 ~5 :1 ~:~·;c1 > "u <"I···· .1. ") . . . :- "131: I .1
t:: t·-1 E: ;:-:; T I
'c' ,::: F' I? I 1· i f
:liJU r·F:II·!T ''F:~ :::.;)l..li''IF:F: •• ''F:1 . . . TO
110F'F:IHf
~?o
l~t
1;::o EHD
10 f:OR X=X1 TO X2 STEP
: : o \' "" r:: 1··.1:::: ;. .:
<X2->~1)/l00
:30 IF Y<Y5 OR Y>Y6 THEN 60
40 PL.OT :•·•:, \'
~50 GCITU '?0
co P1:r1
?0 t·lF::.---;T ;.-:;
:C::O Z •FHf::o
9~:) EIID
88
11 I :U! · ,i ' "! i iII:· I i '· I I. I: i I L It ,i I I ( ::;; > ' l
II '.11·: .::: ,. '.,!IF: I " :;
:::1 J iII 1.1 l IL II i
:C::tt 11 Ill·••? TliiJ·I 1::::)
'·IU Ll'U:F:·t. ( •._.,, II:• ;::., Ct,, ::: . ..-:::::>
C:Ct l HL:F:t. ( ,.:, , H, .? , F' I . ···;:::,,::: . ·:.:::>
i'll 1. !:1''!'1<1:::
" ........
,·.,- ... "":;
LI) I.tl
~?!J
l !··-!f'U '!' >::
::::: !j
{I ·!: ~:::, r.:o
1
\'
<c: r:\! . . c ) : : ;
11
r::· !··1 ;:::: ;:-::
··lt:: Ct··i.D
:!. 13 .n c· F' 1:·:·1··-! ;:::. <Z >
?!I IF !1[;1:1<:<1. Cit:: I:[;:J::••:;::: l)f:: 'i<:\'1 Ill?'(:.·,·;::
::,::1:1 F'L..I!T E:l ::0:: J ., \' , l
4 C:t C: F' L.!J ·r· · · ij" ::::: :1 ..... ,J" : : :
50 IF 2=1
c;.:::
L._r::!::::~:_l
__
9C!
··rHr~N
(_ -:::-> ··::.::··
~
Li::ii.:::F:I... (-:~:-:~1, 5:t l :; 0:1 ;? ..... 3) ''+'';
1 (1 1;:) :u I ~::: F'
llrJ ;.·r::riJI?I··I 1
J::·:t:l ItJ:3F' ''i''CIIl·IT· l.iF'F' :::C:I'IL.[I ··;
1 : :; 1';1 r: 1: r 1...1 r::: 1·1 u
')(I
:!.()
;: ": ~:J r:· i... 0 T'
F!··-ll<(:?>
::.:: ; :-: . ,. ::-:;: : : :t
'{? ·+· '·I
::::: ,
:::::D It I ::::r:·
·•IU It I ::.:F· "IliJIHc"
~51)
h:F. l!JI?II I) .
lCI
[l[i'
:0
F'l·l:•·•:(;?)
FOR I
TO It2
:11 L:L I +l l•l:t: I l< [:[ ;;: J
·lU 111:: T I
~,r, F: r: .n :::1<:~ l , ·,·
c.u F:•"·U
:!.
i'lll:ll l;:r,
89
;.-u r·c.\1.:: r.-.-.-1
::::I) r:· ()1::: ._I 'I
·:::>o r:::.. -....-r.::-1· 1
11J
u:.:~-;:
ll) 11 ;:::
I ;;::
100 C[RJ=CCRl+B[lliB[.JJ+Z
110 IH::<r ..1
12:0 rrr::r I
:l : :;: () :.:: :1.
:1. I· [': L;::' ] :•:· :?
140 ~2= 10[2]+2+2
l ~5 () : : : : : ; : : : ·+· \' .'(. z:
1 c:u :;::;.[ . .-. .-: : ; ..-:[.·1·\'·(·'/·k,?
l ? ~) : ;_:;
~5 ·+· t:::: r: ? :·1·:(· \'
H:o r·rrr+::::
190 IF P9#1 THEN 220
2:00 II Zlli 'lliEil ::30
:~10 I·IF:IfF <t::,;:'51J:•II:•bi::?:J,','
c::c:(Ol IO::ETUI?i·l Fill'':?
:";:;:u I·IF: I r·c <1'5 ,
U >'' UEL.t IE''[:[ c: J , \'
z: ..-.t.u
F:r:Tur:•:rr rr1r":?
?C~I
r::·or?l·li'iT
250 FORMAT F6.0,2F14.4
:l.tJ
:?F 1 ·l, •I
nr:r: r:r·r:o:o:::.-::·
30 FOR 1=:1. TO D10l
40 IF X#O TiiEN 50
41 ;.-. .;. . . 1 [· ....i. ('I
~50
\'::::\'··l·DL I J:~:-::.:;··]·· ( :t ····1 >
60 HLi:r I
:::: 0 F: F:·. T l...i 1:::~ l· ·l \'
APPENDIX C
REDUCED DATA GRAPHS
90
91
. •.•
>l~'UI
Hl!' 1.1
llWSI
~
ill
~·
i5
z:
-J
!:]
~
BWhl
fA
..:
~
,_
mn:t
~.------~~~-----~-----?lli------~ili------~5~.~----~td~.:~·tt
.~
W
W
W
M
N
92
· HWUI
---
*
a
aa· u
i
!§ 1!1
a
"'
tq:;
UG'91
l!1\il
--'A
.. ..."
II
B3'SI
~
\i4
~
i5
~
BB'hl
A
"'
·~
!l1
;::
nB'EI
<~JQ > 3'19NII tm llU/.:JU
93
H~'fll
---i·
HU' 1.1
awst
~
liS'hl
1
···'
EO'~I
~
0
'"
!7.
"'
t-l_:z
""
"'
0
"'
N
~'
ili!
"'
m
ili!
r-i
(9)
r.
t.'1_
~
~
N*....:
'-' I
~
'I'
~
'i'
~·
~
N
""
"'
~
'f
0
M
'I'
ill
.p
llnllUH313))11 o1011HA313
.,_
N
~
iE
~WEI
,!~
f"'"!
~
N
~-·I-
""
'f
"''-'
(~3o) 31~11lll
Nn I UIAJU
Q
~
""0
~
~
;::
94
: .·.
-mn•:
-liD' :i?.
~
ill
~
i5
..
~: -~1:1" E;~
..
....
~
illlfi
..
g
:::;
!!;
a
e:
·~
:-B:J'l <( l!j
....
~
~
~
·-m!'GI
~J
II
*
...""
.-r.w u
II
"''
'"
t;.
~i
~
·-r.n'SI
ili---ej
.!!i·
tq
Rl
~
[;j
lli
:;:j
f4
(;!
I!!
C9J1> :n~mu mmuzu
~-
Ill
~
!!!
9
!5
RJRfWEI.
l'i•r
95
~
til
mi!!
lfli§
i!!G
1!-' w
~~
..... "'
"'"
...
11
"'
w
'
!<
[;j
Q
r.i
:;i
ru.r.--___,rJo:---Jru>:---::M:----.±:fj,----flj±..:--·--,tp~·EI
ni
,_
rn
~
(!1)0)
3l~Nll
~
llalliiAJU
~
.~
ci
96
fill" hE
./
97
~
~J"Ill
ttl
~
!!!
~
I
I
8
~~·a
e:
k!
>=
,,l - - ....t~
~
N
(93 0) •
•
3.1'1NU
llln1IIZU
98
·HW!ll
9
~
!l.\b6
Ul
~8
~ ~
... "'
11
u
.. +
l-~ .
M
'
w
~
,!;
"'
Jq
•
[;j
rn
·-"'td
N
<930 l 31ci:;u tm r:tUhJ13
-I
'"
"!
r.l
[jfn
!:i
99
·!j~l' ~l i
~ii'l-11
c
l"n
~
../
i·~m·u
0
-~-~
=>
:5
:--..;-:,
"'
lt
~W9
nu-z
~~,..------;~
r~
trl
I
<9 > NUiliJllJlJ))IJ lll0111 ZU
.~,..-----;~.
r""!
b:-1
.~,
.......
cmo>
319NU
mnmuu v
b:j~='-c- - - -
111
r;i
'f
!g
1-
100
·..
HW!ll
~~
•\
U;!"hl
7
rl~"i:l
~nll
~
iii
~
;
J
11r~·
~-··
u
i5
~
""E
na·s
r-m·h
..
.,..
,.;
...
"'
r•i
1-
ill
!.d
~kJ
~
(9)
.,...
t'.J
.:!:.
IIU11U~3·1J))U
kj'
kj'
~
·~
j
a;rz
"'
t-1
<r
NU!lllh313
"+
~
(!130) 31911\l HUllUh-113 17
l;j
"'
...
7J1Wl<l.
<r
...~
101
IIH' Ill
'
-
...'
.• '
'
......
"
"
.'
llll'llL
•'
~WLL
...
,'(.
I
-
'
'-
1
v
~il'9L
·'
~
~<l'hL
'
~
'
w
\.;;
w'~------~w~------~~·~------~~~------~~·~------~r~~·uL
~
~
14
1!130) 3191HI Nlli1Uh313
~
Pi
~
·"
' ..
d
-e:
i=
.'
'
~
~
!cnL
.....'-.
Ill
0
102
,\II' \U
EWLL
~WSI.
I
13:3' St.
EWhl.
a
.~
'
w
f,jj
9,.,
~!
..;
*
~
•
9
"'
"!
1:!
...
I
C!l) NOllUMJ'lJ))U 11111l11ZH
~!
ru
I
~
~
I
ru•
ui
I
~
~~
ru
iI
C!UO) Jl!lHU lllnHI Ztl
ru
v
ciI
[jiWi!l.
.,;
•
...Rl
~
§
·~
u:
e
e:
It!
;::
103
~il"US
Ma"hS
~
v
urns l1l
~
i5
~
~
>..
flil'H.'i
§
~
Ill
~
!t;l
:::1
h
*
!§
~
§
f!~'Elh
~
..."'
u
~WSh
mnm
t1;i--ru--d1--r' ·-~1--gr-----rr.~--:[vlr..---:ru:t:.-----cr,"':y""·-"'wm· i!h
~
~
1'4
-
~
~·
d
-
~
~
-
-
~
<930 l Jl!JNU lllnl117.1l
~
~
~
~
<=
fE
~
,_
104
mnm
UWO!i
uu·ss
l!Wlu
~
~w~
ill
~
i5
~
i'ii
u:1· o.."ti ....
~
;::
g
UWOh
m:a
u;
156
~~·sh
~11!
;J ;=;
II
*
~
..."
IJU. hh
w'
8""
1----<
lli
gl
[;j
~nrt:h
!d
~
I
f.j
~~
[;j
ld
(~JQ> Jl~t:ll
[;J
!G
Nlllli!AJU
_
l 05
mro:s
Ill!' !lh
106
IIW!JS
l!U'i':S
BWIIS
~
~
~
~
ua'lih
l'il
....
~
>=
~ll'Sh
llil' hh
...
------,-1.,Jl-13 •Zh
·- .
'!'
I
Oil Nfll LUH313))1J tlfllll!A313
!li------e~
trt
lsi
~~--~-~----~~~-----~
~-~
tq
t..1
<93G)
:n~!NII
I
Nn! 111.~313 <!
T
107
!Will
u~·li
a
~
}ji l!i
iii
'<!;
11a·a
a
§
~ !!:
;:J
.,.
.• "
·I•
mn.
~
61
~
+
I
~m·!i
Q
!!I
~
~
;:::
l13"S
N
•
w
5"'
~
r.l
ni
r-.i
ru
rJ
!'!
,__
F_.J
~,
m
0
l4
t;l
r;r·
ci
"
(9)q) 3l!lNll
0
h~
l';i
o•o
ll.li11HZH
i;j
Ill
M
~
oq
....pn: .
""
""
..
108
mnn
I
Uli'L
~
iii
~
Imra
~
;::J
..."'61
~
....
aw:s
l!~'h
'
''
~r------;l
fq
<DJQ > 3'19:m ua IUIAJ13
109
~---l
L___ .
..
~
~~·s
I
-~~·:s
~a·E
~
"'
j:d
I
<9 l NU llHH:liJ):liJ 11101·11 ZU
I _ _ _, ___-~·----J·---·----·--·-1
'"
N
N
W
N
N
N
w
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
J"
m
~
m
I
~
I
~
~
I
<S;!Ql ;Jl9NU lllfllllZ\1
n11
V
lli
'i'
..."'
t;i
[;j
[jl
"'
gj
lji
\1
;:_;
§
~
!;!
;::
110
~'IJI
li:l"/.
~
hi
llU'!l
/
..
""
~
•. .
..
iii,.:
:J~r
:s !t!
....
~·h
<9l lllll!l!H313))U NnllHA313
!!J-:--- :B-----:rll··---t:l,.,..._~--olli·>c---""'t;i:-----:cw
~
·~
~
·~
~
~
'V
~
T
"
i5
~
T
ili
"'
'j