1. DE Effects Committee Brief HPM M&S Subcommittee
02 November 2009
Dr. Timothy J. Clarke
AFRL/RDH
Directed Energy Directorate
Air Force Research Laboratory
Dr. J. Mark DelGrande
SAIC

2. Summary Role of M&S Sample of Codes Present Activities Shortfalls
NOTE DETEC MSWG held this last week at AFRL. Pulled some shortfalls from this observation. 2

3. The HPM M&S Pyramid DOD Modeling Pyramid
Results, not models, are aggregated and passed up the pyramid
ICEPIC
TMax,
Antenna codes
Physics
(Components & Subsystem Effects)
Engagement
(One-on-One/Few)
Mission
(Few-on-Few)
Campaign
(Force-on-Force)
THUNDER CFAM
EADSIM
SUPPRESSOR
RF-PROTEC
DREAM
DOD Modeling Pyramid
Simulates HPM system against one or more target systems (devices or networks of devices)
Bridges Physics & Mission Levels
Physics: study detailed problems (e.g., sources & antenna physics)
Mission: flight packages (e.g., effectiveness and survivability against targets with air defenses)
Supports the following R&D functions
Predicting HPM system lethality against electronic devices and systems of devices
Performing tradeoffs to optimize HPM effects
Sensitivity studies to determine key parts of problem, and areas where experiments can provide the most insight 3

4. HPM Physics Level Codes

5. Higher Level HPM Codes

6. Institute for High Power Microwave (HPM) Employment, Integration, Optimization, and Effects
Building and populating a framework to propagate accurate and traceable information from engineering level models to mission and campaign level models to allow for faster acquisition of HPM systems that solve mission needs
MISSION- & CAMPAIGN-LEVEL ANALYSIS
Mission (EADSIM, SUPPRESSOR)
Campaign (THUNDER, CFAM)
(Whole Target)
Abstracted Models
Pk MODELS
(Target Components)
Highly integrated end-to-end HPM system model
Pe MODELS
Fault Trees
Advanced network models
Engineering Level Models
PROPAGATION MODELS
Empirical Pe models Predictive models
As an example of efforts to integrate tip-to-tail
Platform EMI/EMC
State of the art optimization, design of experiments, and uncertainty quantification will be available at all levels to allow for rapid analysis of alternatives
HPM SOURCE
T Max – Finite Difference Time Domain
RF-PROTEC - Exterior & Interior ray-tracing
CREATE-RF-high fidelity propagation models
“In-situ” performance prediction
CREATE-RF-high fidelity propagation models
Detail plasma and material modeling

7. M&S Shortfalls Propagation Models
Capability to quickly calculate fields inside of complex structures, such as anechoic chambers, where multiple bounces occur.
Engagement Models
Data to support engagement scenarios/validation
Time-Out-of-Action: particularly data to support models
Improved methods to assess/develop TTPs via M&S
NOTE DETEC MSWG held this last week at AFRL. Pulled some shortfalls from this observation. 7

8. M&S Shortfalls Effects Models
“Physics-based” HPM effects prediction capability
e.g., Elemental Modeling
Data to support effects models that account for % degradation
e.g., Network traffic reduction
Other M&S Tools
Predictive tools to assist testers in scoping HPM effects parameter space, pre-test.
A maintained database to collect and share the HPM data supporting M&S
NOTE DETEC MSWG held this last week at AFRL. Pulled some shortfalls from this observation.

9. Summary
We view our scope as effects-related M&S, specifically for counter-electronics applications, and not including ADS (human effects)
We identified several near term and far term issues:
Near term
Time Out of Action: data to support models
Predictive effects modeling
Methodology for V&V of effects models (probably falls within V&V subcommittee, but important enough to call out here)
Ensuring that effects testing produces appropriate data to feed engagement M&S
Far term
M&S support for BDA
Wideband and low-frequency propagation models for engagement M&S