FATE CONTROL STATION CONCLUSIONS
- Preliminary responses indicate that no known Control Station
meets the currently defined FATE requirements
- Control Station Requirements change as:
- the aircraft design develops
- avionic system
- flight control system
- engine and airframe systems
- the concept of operations develop
- Missions (e.g... SEAD, Air-to-Air, Air-to-Ground)
- Weapon Carriage Requirements
- Sensors carried and used for targeting
- Operational Environment (E.g.. Edwards, Tyndall, etc...)
Notes:
As expected, no existing control station meets the currently defined requirements for the UCAV ATD . This was expected because the existing control stations are designed for UAVs on reconnaissance missions. They have no weapon delivery command and control capability and the ability to command hand off of targets to weapons. A large portion of the UAV control stations is dedicated to sensor management and sensor data processing.
It immediately became obvious that the C/S design was very tightly coupled to the aircraft avionic system, flight control system and engine and airframe systems. While there can “generic” designs in the C/S, the “generic” portion will need adaptation to different vehicles.
It also became obvious that the concept of operations generate requirements for the C/S. Mission types such a air-to-air, air-to-ground, SEAD, Low level ingress, etc. drive command and control requirements along with systems necessary to accomplish these tasks.
Weapons, and targeting sensors also will have an impact on the C/S design. The operational environment of the aircraft, will also drive C/S design in order to connect with the facilities systems.
The operating environment of the C/S itself will drive is design greatly. If it can sit in an airconditioned room and never move will cause a different design than if is must move, reside in a trunk, or an aircraft, or the lap of the controller.