22 May 2014 :CDE Enduring challenge competition presentations

Centre Defence Enterprise

for

Enduring Challenge Competition

Enduring competition

Perpetual

Radical

£3M per year

Enduring competition

Challenges

Enduring

9 framework

Framework

Protection Lethality Human performance

Mobility Lower cost of ownership

Framework

Situational awareness Communication Data Power

Enduring challenge

Conventional Weapons

Active Integrated Protection Systems (AIPS)

Enduring Challenge

Competition

Centre for Defence Enterprise

© Crown copyright 2013 Dstl

27 May 2014

Conventional Weapons


27 May 2014

Programme vision

Research and Development will have supported UK Weapons Freedom of Action and Operational

Advantage by maturing technologies and evidence to enable a future complex weapons, novel weapons and general munitions portfolio underpinned by the principals of Commonality, Modularity and Re-use.


27 May 2014

B C

D

© Crown Copyright Dstl 2013

Tech

nolo

gy

Sys

tem

Time

Technology development in absence of systems thinking (pet projects)

System thinking in absence of technology maturation (concepting)

A

A: Technology driven activity with focused system analysis e.g. Future Local Area Air Defence System (FLAADS)

B: System driven activity with focused technology maturation e.g. Selective Precision Engagement At Range (SPEAR)

C: Technology push into application with future refinements e.g. Brimstone 2

D: Stretching requirement tempered by available technology e.g. Future Anti Surface Guided Weapon (FASGW)

Innovation and Exploitation

Therefore we will need to introduce Systems Expertise to follow technology development in the Centre for Defence Enterprise through the Weapons Science and Technology Centre (WSTC). Visualisation courtesy of MBDA via MCM ITP

Programme drivers (1) • Conventional Weapons

– Complex Weapons (Guided Munitions) – General Munitions (excluding small arms)

• Operational advantage – “…we often need superior technology and other forms of battle-

winning edge.”

• Freedom of Action – “…we must be able to operate, maintain, and refresh certain

capabilities effectively, without being dependent on others.”


27 May 2014

Programme drivers (2) • Policy / doctrine trends

– Through Life Cost – Complex Weapons are very expensive • Commonality

– The use of a single weapons system across multiple roles

• Modularity – The use of a single sub-system in multiple weapons system

• Re-use – Developing an existing sub-system or system for a new application

– Accuracy • Reduced risk of Collateral Damage • Comparable Effect with smaller or fewer weapons

– Lifespan


27 May 2014

Programme Themes


27 May 2014

CDE enduring challenges

• lethality (weapons – conventional, novel, directed energy, defence, less-than-lethal)

• lower cost of ownership (platforms, equipment, facilities)

• Protection (personnel, platforms, facilities, digital systems, materials)

• New capabilities (challenging current convention, disruptive)


27 May 2014

Points of contact

• [email protected]


27 May 2014

Active Integrated Protection System

(AIPS) - Enduring Challenge


27 May 2014

Contents

• AIPS Research Scope • Threats • Active Protection Description • Why Active Protection • Active Protection Issues and Challenges • What we want • What we don’t want


27 May 2014

Active Integrated Protection System (AIPS) Research Scope • Mass efficient vehicle protection by the

application of Hard Kill and/or Soft Kill technologies

• Hard Kill measures aim to physically interact with incoming threats to prevent or reduce impact - “Don’t be Hit”

• Soft Kill measures aim to disrupt the threat engagement chain “Don’t be acquired / Hit”

• Goal: An affordable Fully Integrated System with inherent Threat Detection and Situational Awareness

OFFICIAL © Crown copyright 2013 Dstl

27 May 2014

The Threats

• Non-complex shoulder launched anti-tank (AT) systems

• Complex anti-tank guided munitions (ATGM)

• Tank fired large calibre munitions


27 May 2014

What Constitutes a typical AIPS?

• Active and passive sensors for threat launch and/or track • Control & processing hub • Hard kill effectors • Soft kill effectors • Host platform supporting architecture


27 May 2014

Why Active Protection? • Proliferation capable anti armour systems is a major risk • Vehicle passive and reactive protection measures may no longer provide

complete protection for some threat systems • Passive protection systems only deal with the

“Do not be Penetrated” layer of the onion


27 May 2014

Active Protection – The Issues

• Active protection is not the panacea of platform protection and should be considered as only part of the survivability toolkit.

• Common issues: – Diverse and evolving range of threats – Coverage and dealing with multiple threats – Physical integration (Size, Weight, Power) – Potential collateral effects

• Use in complex environments – Safety – Security


27 May 2014

The Active Protection Challenge

Developing a low risk, mass efficient, affordable and flexible protection capability that can provide increased survivability to a range of land platforms.


27 May 2014

What We Want


27 May 2014

• Innovation – New combat vehicle APS concepts with lower

integration and operational risk: • Novel concepts and technologies to detect, classify

and track a threat • Novel methods of physically interacting with the

threat (Hard Kill) • Novel methods of disrupting the engagement chain

(Soft Kill) • Novel adaption of technologies

• Consideration of the issues, performance trades and risk mitigation

What We Don’t Want


27 May 2014

• Novel solutions that don’t attempt to deal with the real threat scenario – i.e. “Don’t be there”

• Solutions that don’t address the key issues – Solutions that are not feasible in the real world of safety, size,

weight and power constraints • Technology studies of existing commercially available APS

systems

Date post:	15-Jan-2015
Category:	Technology
Upload:	centre-for-defence-enterprise
View:	110 times
Download:	1 times