Threat evaluation and jamming allocation

Osner, Nicholas R.; Plessis, Warren P. du

doi:10.1049/iet-rsn.2016.0277

Cited by 15 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The states in the threat model can be associated with the danger values of threats for describing how dangerous it is for an aircraft to be in the state. This new threat evaluation with Markov chains (MTE) provides two combination methods, Max‐MTE (17) and Expected‐MTE (18), based on the original Threat Evaluation (TE) methods [9]. Given that the necessary intelligence of all ground threats that would engage the aircraft has been scanned and added to a known database, menaces come from ground air defence system can be converted to danger values by

D_{n} = P_{n} (][, W_{s} S_{\max false(p_{j} false)} + W_{a} A_{n} + W_{t} false(1 - T_{n} false))

D_{n} = \sum_{j} p_{j} \cdot P_{n} (][, W_{s} S_{j} + W_{a} A_{n} + W_{t} ()(, 1 - T_{n}))

In both threat evaluation equations,

D_{n}

denotes the danger value of the n th threat,

P_{n}

denotes the probability of aircraft encounter the n th threat in the current time interval.…”

Section: Threat Evaluation Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The states and danger values in the threat evaluation model are then used to evaluate the effectiveness of the jamming allocation (JA) process. In the process, each electronic countermeasure system (ECM) device in the aircraft contains several jamming channels and each channel can implement all the jamming techniques [9, 14]: random noise (RN), smart noise (SN), intensive false targets (IFTs), range‐gate pull off (RGPO) and velocity‐gate pull off (VGPO). It is also assumed that all threats in the known database have been divided into ten different levels by frequency‐band occupancy, i.e.…”

Section: Jamming Allocationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are also two suggested ways, Max‐JA (20) and Expected‐JA (21), to calculate the jamming effect of the i th jamming channel for the n th threat. All the methods are established by adding the state probability to the original calculation method [9]

E_{n, i} = SE ()(, S_{\max false(p_{j} false)}, J_{i}) \times I_{i} \times CE ()(, O_{i}, L_{n})

E_{n, i} = \sum_{j} p_{j} \times SE ()(, S_{j}, J_{i}) \times I_{i} \times CE ()(, O_{i}, L_{n})

In both the above methods,

p_{j}

is the j th state's (

S_{j}

) probability of the n th threat radar in the current time interval,

L_{n}

is the threat level of the n th threat. For Max methods (20),

\max false(p_{j} false)

also returns an index value which points to the maximum state probability in the current time interval.…”

Section: Jamming Allocationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By comparison, the system developed by Osner and du Plessis [9] solves the combination of ground threat assessment and jamming resource allocation. This TEJA system conducts confrontation analysis in the following areas: the effects of different jamming techniques on each threat radar stage, the constructive and destructive interactions between different jamming techniques, and the future effects of current jamming actions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This TEJA system conducts confrontation analysis in the following areas: the effects of different jamming techniques on each threat radar stage, the constructive and destructive interactions between different jamming techniques, and the future effects of current jamming actions. Unfortunately, although the model proposed in the literature [9] is fully functional and easy to operate, it still presents the following defects in the decision‐making process of TEJA: (i) threat radar stage changes from low to high according to the time it detects the target; (ii) there is a lack of consideration of the information sharing among multiple radars when platform flies from one radar detection area to another adjacent radar detection area; (iii) the general method for calculating the probability of encounter is not given when the radar parameters (e.g. radar range) are not sufficiently transparent.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations