PEGEM_Executive_Summary.pdf

UNCLASSIFIED

POST-ENGAGEMENT GROUND

EFFECTS MODEL

Executive Summary

Version 1.5

September 2015

The views, opinions, and/or findings contained in this document are those of the author(s) and should not be construed as an official Department of Defense (DoD) position, policy, or decision, unless so designated by other official documentation.

Warning: This document contains technical data whose export is restricted by the arms export control act (Title 22, U.S.C., Sec. 2751 et seq) or Executive Order 12470. Violators of these export laws are subject to severe criminal penalties.

Destruction Notice: For classified documents, follow the procedures in DOD 5200.22 M, Industrial Security Manual, Section 11-19 or DoD 5200.1-R, Information Security Program Regulation, Chapter IX. For unclassified and/or limited distribution documents, destroy by any method that will prevent disclosure of contents or reconstruction of the document.

Distribution Statement F – Further dissemination only as directed by the Missile Defense Agency: 7100 Defense Pentagon, Washington, D.C. 20301-7100, or higher DoD authority

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PEGEM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii

Version 1.5 SEPTEMBER 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................................... III

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................................. IV

LIST OF ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................................................. V

PURPOSE STATEMENT

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 OVERVIEW

3.0 FUNCTIONALITY

4.0 ARCHITECTURE

5.0 VERIFICATION & VALIDATION

6.0 PLANNED ENHANCEMENTS

7.0 SUMMARY

LIST OF FIGURES

PEGEM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iv

Version 1.5 SEPTEMBER 2015

LIST OF FIGURES

PAGE

Figure 1 Sample PEGEM Output Figure 2 Lethality Models Simulation Regime Figure 3 PEGEM Operating Domain Figure 4 PEGEM Capability-Based Modeling Figure 5 PEGEM Modular Architecture

Figure 6 PEGEM Applicability Space

LIST OF ACRONYMS

PEGEM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v

Version 1.5 SEPTEMBER 2015

3D Three-Dimensional

AMRDEC Aviation & Missile Research, Development & Engineering Center

API Application Programming Interface

BMDS Ballistic Missile Defense System

CBRNE Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, or Conventional High

Explosive

CLM Core Lethality Model

COEA Cost and Operational Effectiveness Analyses

DIA Defense Intelligence Agency

DIS Distributed Interactive Simulation

DTRA Defense Threat Reduction Agency

GB Gigabyte

HE High Explosive

HPAC Hazard Prediction and Assessment Capability

HTK Hit-To-Kill

IV&V Independent Verification and Validation

JC Juniper Cobra

JPOW Joint Project Optic Windmill

JPOA Joint Project Optic Alliance

KIDD Kinetic Impact Debris Distribution

MB Megabyte

MDA Missile Defense Agency

MSIC Missile and Space Intelligence Center

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization

NT Nimble Titan

NSWC Naval Surface Warfare Center

PC Personal Computer

PEELS Parametric Endo/Exo-atmospheric Lethality Simulation

PEGEM Post-Engagement Ground Effects Model

PR/SCR Problem Report/Software Change Request

RAM Random Access Memory

Page vi PEGEM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SEPTEMBER 2015 Version 1.5

UNCLASSIFIED

RDD Radiological Dispersal Device

RSOI Reception, Staging, Onward movement, and Integration

SLKT Survivability, Lethality, & Key Technologies

SNAP Simple Nuclear Application Programs

TBM Tactical Ballistic Missile

TOI Times of Interest

USASMDC U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command

USASSDC U.S. Army Space and Strategic Defense Command

VCS Version Control System

VLSTRACK Vapor, Liquid, and Solid Tracking

V&V Verification and Validation

WMD Weapon of Mass Destruction

PEGEM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PEGEM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

Version 1.5 SEPTEMBER 2015

PURPOSE STATEMENT

This document is designed as a system level treatise for the Missile Defense Agency’s (MDA)

Post-Engagement Ground Effects Model (PEGEM). System level architecture and capabilities are defined; however, it was not the intent of this document to provide design or operator details.

Detailed information may be obtained in the PEGEM User’s Manual, as well as other manuals available from the PEGEM Program Manager.

2 PEGEM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SEPTEMBER 2015 Version 1.5

UNCLASSIFIED

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Analyzing the lethality and vulnerability of current and future ballistic missile defense systems is an integral part of any defense element development cycle. Performance must be assessed first against the baseline threat, and then against excursions to simulate dynamic ballistic missile defense systems and combined arms threat environments. Finally, performance must be assessed in the context of future deployment and combined arms scenarios.

The measure of a Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) element’s performance is sensitive to individual measures of lethality effectiveness. Many simulations involving endgame lethality assume that a direct correlation exists between probability of hit and probability of kill, i.e., a successful hit can translate into a successful kill. However, detailed analyses have shown that weapons of mass destruction (WMD) payloads, including chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and conventional high explosive

(CBRNE), can still create significant residual lethal ground effects after intercept.

These post-engagement effects are not readily modeled in a system effectiveness simulation.

In order to be able to assess ground collateral effects from both intercepted and non-intercepted tactical ballistic missiles (TBMs), the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has sponsored the development of an analysis tool called the Post-Engagement Ground

Effects Model (PEGEM). The constituent models in PEGEM allow analysis of BMDS engagement issues such as endgame lethality, intercept debris, agent breakup, vaporized agent, munition ejection and propagation, agent atmospheric transport and ground hazard assessment, and personnel casualties. Figure 1 shows a PEGEM screen capture highlighting ground hazard concentrations from a biological bomblet payload.

FIGURE 1 SAMPLE PEGEM OUTPUT

PEGEM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

Version 1.5 SEPTEMBER 2015

UNCLASSIFIED

2.0 OVERVIEW

PEGEM connects payload point-of-intercept lethality in the air with ground collateral effects, providing CBRNE munition hazards, as well as agent-coated solid debris field assessment, in the form of effects on the ground against user-definable assets. Output of the model is in the form of CBRNE agent and debris ground extents, as well as estimated casualties at user-specified times-of-interest (TOIs). PEGEM capabilities are designed primarily for hit-to-kill (HTK) intercepts, although some capability exists for blast/fragment interceptor warheads as well. PEGEM is designed to work with the other two Core Lethality Models (CLMs). The Parametric

Endo/Exo-atmospheric Lethality Simulation (PEELS) provides endgame lethality information through an external file interface, while the Kinetic Impact Debris

Distribution (KIDD) model, which is integrated into PEGEM, provides initial intercept debris characteristics.

In addition to ground effects resulting from intercept, PEGEM computes the effects on the ground for non-intercepted threats (i.e., the threat warhead functions as designed).

This allows the analyst to compare the ground hazards resulting from intercepting a threat to those from an equivalent non-intercepted scenario. Figure 2 depicts the phenomenology span covered by PEGEM and the other two CLMs for performing effectiveness assessment.

FIGURE 2 LETHALITY MODELS SIMULATION REGIME

PEGEM integrates a complex suite of phenomenology and operational models to produce a comprehensive simulation incorporating all areas of ground collateral effect assessment. The suite of models includes:

Unitary chemical and submunition ejection source terms

Submunition and debris propagation (including uncertainties)

4 PEGEM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SEPTEMBER 2015 Version 1.5

UNCLASSIFIED

Chemical/biological agent atmospheric transport and dispersion

Conventional explosive and fragmentation effects

Nuclear Weapons

Weather (including uncertainties)

Population

Casualty estimation

Terrain usage data and 3D visualization

Radiological Dispersal Devices (RDD)

Cruise missiles

2.1 Development History

PEGEM development began in 1992 under direction of the Lethality Division of the

Survivability, Lethality, & Key Technologies (SLKT) Directorate, U.S. Army Space and Strategic Defense Command (USASSDC), now known as the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command (USASMDC). MDA sponsorship of the program came from their need for an integrated, end-to-end simulation which could provide effectiveness analysis for interceptors to support Army Cost and Operational

Effectiveness Analyses (COEA). PEGEM was developed by integrating legacy models, improving their functionality when necessary, and developing original software and frameworks for needed CBRNE applications.

Continuous development, maintenance, and sustainment occurred over many years as

PEGEM moved from an initial 1.0 release in 1995 to version 6.2 in 2010. During the development cycle for version 6.2, a parallel development effort began to extract the

PEGEM core functionality into a user-callable application programming interface (API) to prepare PEGEM for future incorporation of ground effects calculations within MDA frameworks.

This PEGEM API product line was given a separate version number starting with 1.0 and, after version 6.2 was released, the legacy code was retired with new development only occurring in the API. Once the API product stabilized, a new, more modern graphical user interface was added which is the current product being distributed to the user community.

2.2 Operational Involvement

Since the advent of ballistic missile threats, there has been an urgent need for a high-speed, predictive tool to effectively model engagements and their ground effects in the operational environment. The war fighter needs these tools to plan for consequences of engagement and to place ground assets in areas of least risk based upon the defense design and current/forecast weather. Post-attack communication desires early warning of CBRNE collateral effects for both war fighters and civilians.

The USASMDC and MDA have used PEGEM in many multi-national exercises and training events, including North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Joint Project

Optic Windmill (JPOW), Joint Project Optic Alliance (JPOA), Juniper Cobra (JC), Reception, Staging, Onward Movement, and Integration (RSOI), and Roving Sands exercises. In these events, PEGEM was connected to missile defense simulations and

PEGEM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

Version 1.5 SEPTEMBER 2015

UNCLASSIFIED

tactical networks via Distributed Interactive Simulation (DIS) and Link-16 respectively, providing ground effects truth results for missile intercept events.

PEGEM was also used to support the Nimble Titan 12 (NT12) Capstone Event, a multi-national, ballistic missile defense wargame that examined a range of political and military issues that will eventually influence future, multi-national, BMD operations. One of the issues/objectives dealt with in NT12 was “Consequences of

Engagement”. PEGEM was used to support this objective by predicting chemical/biological ground effects and post-intercept debris footprints for a number of different scenarios.

3.0 FUNCTIONALITY

PEGEM is written in C/C++ and runs in Windows environments, although the API can also support Linux. There are no special software requirements for the standard

PEGEM standalone personal computer (PC) operation. PEGEM requires a minimum of 2 gigabytes (GB) of random access memory (RAM); 4 gigabytes (GB) are recommended. The entire suite of code and supporting data files require approximately

1 GB of disk storage. However, additional storage is required for code execution and some user tailoring is allowed to control output data volume.

3.1 Simulation Domain

PEGEM can simulate a wide variety of military and civilian environments and weapons systems scenarios. The functional applications of the tool are critical to its user base as they can be modified to suit individual program needs. Some of the more significant applications include:

Connect point of intercept lethality to ground collateral effects

Intercept effectiveness assessment in terms of ground collateral effects

Parametric sensitivity studies of CBRNE agent effects

Visual indication of ground effects

Consequence of intercept / consequence of no intercept assessment

Passive defense planning

Figure 3 highlights PEGEM’s operating domain. The numbers in the figure refer to 1)

Threat Payload Release, 2) Propagation of Surviving Threat Payload, and 3) Ground

Effects.

6 PEGEM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SEPTEMBER 2015 Version 1.5

FIGURE 3 PEGEM OPERATING DOMAIN

(1) Threat Payload Release

PEGEM calculates the initial dispersion of payload, utilizes KIDD to characterize debris characteristics, and calculates the ejection velocity vectors of surviving submunitions. PEGEM submunition ejection calculations are supported by engagement data from PEELS. Capabilities include:

Multiple threats per scenario

Wide range of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and conventional high explosive (HE) threats

Intercept or non-intercept functioning of threats

Initial cloud (source term) formation of CBRNE payloads and debris

Standard set of threats consistent with PEELS and KIDD

Capability for user-defined threats

(2) Propagation of Surviving Threat Payload

PEGEM can use historical, current, and forecasted meteorological data, including specification of uncertainties, to predict submunition and debris propagation and hazard transport and dispersion. After initial payload release is characterized, a three degree of freedom propagator is used to determine submunition and debris ground impact locations while atmospheric transport models compute chemical and biological agent dispersion over the terrain.. Significant aspects of the physical environment that can influence collateral effects are modeled. Capabilities include:

Atmospheric transport and dispersion provided by Vapor, Liquid, and Solid

Tracking (VLSTRACK) (sponsored by the Naval Surface Warfare Center

(NSWC)) and Hazard Prediction and Assessment Capability (HPAC)

(sponsored by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA))

PEGEM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7

Version 1.5 SEPTEMBER 2015

UNCLASSIFIED

Prompt Nuclear Effects Modeling provided by DTRA/SNAP (Simple Nuclear

Application Programs)

Fuzing/operational deployment modeling obtained from Missile and Space

Intelligence Center (MSIC)/Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)

Submunition-specific aerodynamic data and individual submunition and mechanical debris flyout and impact calculations, including effects of weather and initial location uncertainties

Terrain and time variable meteorology, available in databases or real time, including specification of uncertainties

(3) Ground Effects / Consequences

PEGEM permits calculation of casualties based on ground hazard grids for all threats and intercept debris. Capabilities include:

Casualty calculations with U.S. Government accepted toxicity standards

Casualty prediction with a choice of two discrete population data models

User-defined asset tracking

3.2 Capability-Based Threat Modeling

From its inception, PEGEM has been “Capability-Based” as mandated by its original mission to adapt and model a wide variety of weapons systems. PEGEM allows for a wide range of threat descriptions, as shown in Figure 4.

FIGURE 4 PEGEM CAPABILITY-BASED MODELING

4.0 ARCHITECTURE

In recent years, PEGEM was re-architected and has evolved into a modular framework consisting of multiple API modules. Providing the same capability as legacy versions, Threat Modeling Is Driven by Capabilities, Not a Specific Threat Set

• Fundamental “Delivery Systems”:

- Ballistic Missile (TBM)

- Cruise Missile-Aero Platform (CM)

- Asymmetric

• Fundamental “Payload Types”:

- Unitary (Bulk)

- Canister Submunition

- Magnus Rotor Bomblets

- Spherical Submunitions

- Ellipsoidal Submunitions

• Fundamental “Fill (Agent) Types”:

- Chemical

- Biological

- High Explosive

- Radiological / Nuclear

Threat Modeling Is Driven by Capabilities, Not a Specific Threat Set

• Fundamental “Delivery Systems”:

- Ballistic Missile (TBM)

- Cruise Missile-Aero Platform (CM)

- Asymmetric

• Fundamental “Payload Types”:

- Unitary (Bulk)

- Canister Submunition

- Magnus Rotor Bomblets

- Spherical Submunitions

- Ellipsoidal Submunitions

• Fundamental “Fill (Agent) Types”:

- Chemical

- Biological

- High Explosive

- Radiological / Nuclear UNCLASSIFIED

8 PEGEM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SEPTEMBER 2015 Version 1.5

UNCLASSIFIED

PEGEM still operates in a standalone mode but now provides APIs for consumption by various system simulations and other frameworks. All of the modules are seamlessly connected via a graphical user interface to demonstrate PEGEM capabilities. PEGEM facilitates access and selection of threat, weather, and population database information.

PEGEM can also be executed without the graphical user interface in a command-line mode.

The PEGEM modular architecture is illustrated in Figure 5. Enhancements to PEGEM and the addition of new features are easily accomplished; thus, PEGEM has the flexibility to be adapted to a variety of roles.

FIGURE 5 PEGEM MODULAR ARCHITECTURE

5.0 VERIFICATION & VALIDATION

PEGEM is tested internally throughout all phases of the development lifecycle to assure a quality product. These tests consist of unit level, integrated, and system level tests, which test all critical aspects of the software. The PEGEM developer maintains an automated test suite that is executed during development cycle for regression testing.

Test procedures are maintained for Verification and Validation (V&V) activities.

Regression test results will often produce additional test procedures.

5.1 Development Verification & Validation

All changes to PEGEM software are tracked through Problem Reports/Software

Change Requests (PR/SCRs). Once unit testing is complete, developers submit code to the version control system (VCS) for control, history tracking, and product builds for further testing. PEGEM is verified and validated using both available test data and open literature. Threat payload information is obtained directly from defense intelligence agencies for PEGEM threat set updates or enhancements. Threat

PEGEM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9

Version 1.5 SEPTEMBER 2015

UNCLASSIFIED

functionality and responses are obtained from payload lethality flight, sled, arena, and light-gas gun tests and numerical hydrocode analysis. Submunition and stability device aerodynamics are obtained from historical wind tunnel tests.

5.2 Independent Verification & Validation

Legacy versions of PEGEM were tested by an Independent Verification and Validation

(IV&V) agent. Managed by USASMDC, the IV&V agent received the entire PEGEM product (including documentation) to evaluate requirement implementation, assess the usability of the code, and validate the effectiveness of PEGEM output. The IV&V agent maintained contact with the PEGEM team to communicate problems, issues, concerns, and needs. Past and current IV&V agents include: Teledyne Brown

Engineering, KBM Enterprises, Innovative Emergency Management, Horne

Engineering, ITT Corporation, and the US Army Aviation & Missile Research, Development & Engineering Center (AMRDEC). The latest API version of PEGEM has not been independently verified due to funding constraints.

6.0 PLANNED ENHANCEMENTS

The BMDS elements require models to operate in corresponding regimes of the atmosphere or environments, as depicted in Figure 6. For instance, midcourse elements place additional requirements on models for handling exoatmospheric releases at increased closing velocities. As MDA tackles the challenges of modeling all of the missile phenomenology areas, it will mandate a continued need for flexibility and code changes to incorporate these demanding requirements.

FIGURE 6 PEGEM APPLICABILITY SPACE

10 PEGEM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SEPTEMBER 2015 Version 1.5

UNCLASSIFIED

6.1 Threat Capability

The intelligence community continually improves the fidelity or makes structural/operational changes to threat designs. These designs must be analyzed to correlate with the capabilities-based functionality so the appropriate software requirements can be generated for PEGEM. These requirements can involve changes to an existing model structure (such as operational parameters, agent fill, operational/fuzing timelines, and/or improved aerodynamic components), or major modifications for totally new functionality (such as long-range strategic threats).

Maintaining up-to-date threat models requires continuous study and analysis of capability-based threat definitions/constructs and threat processes.

6.2 Simulation/Tactical Communication Protocol

In the past, PEGEM has been used in many exercises and training events. In these events, PEGEM was connected to missile defense simulation and tactical networks via

Distributed Interactive Simulation (DIS) and Link-16 respectively, providing ground effects results for missile intercept events. These capabilities need to be migrated to the latest version of PEGEM.

7.0 SUMMARY

PEGEM has been used by numerous Government and contractor organizations and in many military exercises and operations for over a decade. The MDA has invested extensively in this technology and has been the backbone of missile intercept/no-intercept ground effects analyses. This critical position in the MDA suite of CLMs assures a continued investment in model upgrades and validation. Extensive in-house and independent verification and validation continues to improve the tool and its credibility. Sponsored by MDA, PEGEM is available at no cost to qualifying

Government agencies and contractors.