Planning Strike Missions

by Michael Puttré
Nov. 2002.

The US Air Force and Navy are updating mission-planning systems in order to use precision-guided weapons more effectively The revolutionary impact of precision-guided strike weapons on many aspects of the air-ground battle is readily apparent. The most visible aspects are in the results of strike missions, where targets are destroyed with fewer sorties, and ground units can call in close-support strikes from aircraft at standoff ranges. Behind the scenes, precision-guided weapons are changing the way missions are planned.

One significant difference in the use of precision-guided versus dumb ordnance is the greater array of release points that can be used with the former to hit a particular target. The number of targets that can be engaged from a particular release point is potentially greater as well. These factors, plus unique characteristics of the weapons themselves, require updated and in some cases totally new mission-planning tools.

In current US service, the primary air mission planning systems are the Air Force Mission Planning System (AFMSS) and the Portable Flight Planning System (PFPS), a PC-based version; and the Navy's Tactical Automated Mission Planning System (TAMPS). Each of these systems describes a family of systems, with releases optimized for particular aircraft. In addition, each version may have a number of components for handling specific tasks. Under PFPS, for example, the Combat Airdrop Planning Software (CAPS) is used for planning airdrop operations, and the Combat Weapon Delivery Software (CWDS) is used for dropping free-fall unguided and laser-guided munitions. Precision-guided munitions are planned using software systems unique to each weapon. There are also some specific, stand-alone aircraft mission-planning systems, such as the Tactical EA-6B Mission Support (TEAMS) system, which is used by US Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force EA-6B crews to plan, coordinate, and execute Prowler missions.

The Air Force and Navy are planning to transition their individual systems over to the Joint Mission Planning System (JMPS), which will provide the basic mission-planning architecture for all tactical aircraft and bombers. This is a massive undertaking, to be phased in over time. A particular challenge will be the integration of task- and system-specific software components into JMPS, either as new programs or ports of existing programs.

However, it is the integration of precision-guided strike weapons capability into the JMPS architecture that is among the most interesting programs related to mission planning due to the importance of these weapons in current strategic thinking. The US Air Force has awarded Northrop Grumman Integrated Systems (Hollywood, MD) a $49-million contract to develop and deliver Precision Guided Munitions Planning Software (PGMPS) that will provide a common, integrated, personal-computer-based mission-planning application for all current and future USAF precision-guided munitions and their variants. PGMPS will be a planning component of JMPS and will replace the current weapons-planning modules for the AGM-130/GBU-15, Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW), Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD), Small Diameter Bomb (SDB), Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM), and other future precision-strike weapons.

Incompatible Bombs

Currently, each strike weapon has its own mission-planning module that is either supplied by the manufacturer (itself, or through a subcontractor), or by another contractor. A F-15E is capable of carrying a variety of precision-guided munitions, including AGM-130, WCMD, JDAM, and JSOW. An aircrew planning a strike mission would have to be able to go from one planner to another indifferently. Each of these planners has a different look and feel, which opens up the potential for confusion. (How does this feature work with JDAM vs. WCMD?) By contrast, the unguided and laser-guided bombs are considered similar enough that they are all treated under the Combat Weapon Delivery Software, as opposed to having different modules for each bomb type.

"When we took those individual planners to PFPS over the last year and a half [under a separate contract], some of those inconsistencies have been worked through in terms of the user interface, but not to the degree that they really needed it to happen," said Dave Basford, PGMPS program manager at Northrop Grumman PRB Systems. "So what PGMPS is doing is taking all of the precision-guided munitions programs and putting them under one contract. PGMPS Release 1, which will go out in February of '04, is going to provide a common user interface and planning capability. In terms of interface, you would see a map, much like you'd have with AFMSS, but there would be a series of dialogues and various tabs. You would have a weapon tab, and a target tab, a release tab, and these will provide information germane to the particular weapons platform. If you were planning a JDAM strike, it would have JDAM-specific information on the weapon tab. The common interface also simplifies interface-control definition between aircraft and weapons, which streamlines software development and maintenance."

Although PGMPS is intended to be a component of JMPS, which is now under development for the US Air Force and Navy, only the Air Force will use it. The Navy is taking a different approach: tasking the developers of precision-guided weapons planners for TAMPS to effectively port their solutions to JMPS. For example, Boeing is developing the Navy's precision-weapons-planning component for its SLAM-ER missile, while Raytheon is working on planning component for its JSOW as well as Boeing's JDAM. As for unguided and laser-guided bombs, ultimately CWDS, which is developed by Tybrin Corp. (Ft. Walton Beach, FL), will provide the common mission-planning component for both services.

The push to improve mission planning is not just motivated by a desire for aircrew convenience or ease of maintenance. Precision-guided weapons introduce radically different capabilities than unguided free-fall ordnance, and these capabilities are unique and specific enough to require specialized mission planning. In the past, aircraft flew missions in which the weapons release point was known before takeoff. Now, the release point can be dynamic, changing in response to new targets identified with improved sensors or designated by ground forces. "In PGMPS, we have both forward and backward planning," said Basford. "Given a known target, where can you release a weapon from in order to hit that target? Given a known release point, what area is in your attack radius? Another capability of PGMPS is what is called a real-time planning mode. That's where in flight the crew can use PGMPS, incorporating a GPS feed, to display position and range data as you're flying along, so you can release your weapons to hit a known target. This allows you to do some mission planning on the fly."

The air campaign over Afghanistan as part of Operation Enduring Freedom provided a window into the dynamics of planning missions using precision-guided weapons. In that conflict, US heavy bombers loaded with JDAMS loitered over the battlefield at high altitude, providing "close support" on demand to Special Operations soldiers on the ground. This was a revolutionary capability, made possible by the precision of GPS. Furthermore, tactical aircraft flew from aircraft carriers and distant bases without specific targets, but flew kill boxes or provided close support with a variety of precision-guided weapons. At any moment, the aircrews were faced with changing relationships between possible targets, the locations of friendly forces, and safe and effective release points for their weapons. Such missions also place heavy burdens on the controllers and tankers who support them. Anything that simplifies the display screens in these circumstances would be a blessing.