TECHNICAL REPORT NO.

293

SIMULATION AND ANALY~lS OF [HE

U~ l-JiG EFFECTIVENBgS ANALYS IS-TIOV (TEA-TOW)

FLIGHT DATA

PATR I(.K E. CORCORi'l

APRI IL 19,80

APPPCNED FO PUBLIC RELEASE, DISTRIB3UTION UNL-It'! TED-

t~ ~M(
~~ATRI~ S~~MSBest Available COPY
At. ' ,EEN PROVING AT!VITYA'YL!"
 DISCLAIMER

The findings in this, repot are not to be construed an 'n

)ficlal Depa.rtmv:t of the Army position unlei-s so specified
.) or.heor official documentation.

WARNING

Information .c1 data contained in this document are h:ised on

the input available; at the time oi preparation, The results may be
subject to change and should not be construed as representi ng the
D,,dCOM position unless so specifled.

TRADE iAA;5E

ThC use of tra&. names in this report does not cons;titUte an

official endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial
hardware or software. The report may not be cited for purposes
Of advertisement.

Best Available Copy

 UNCLASS IFIED _
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered)
READ INSTRUCTIONS
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PGE BEFORE COMPLETING FORM
P T NUMBER 12. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

S, TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

6SIMULATION &JANALY.SIS OF THE,-jRAININGEFFECTIVENES
.NALYSIS-TOW (TEA-CW) FLIGHTDATA z
6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTHOR(*) 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(&)

Patrick E. Corcoran
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT, TASK
AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS
US Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005
II. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE
US Army Materiel Development & Readiness Command/ Ar-
5001 Eisenhower Avenue .T7- U MB A
Alexandria, VA 22333
14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(I" different from Controlling Gilce) S. SECU F. )

4 UNCLASSIFIED
1'e, DECLASSI FICATION/ DOWN GRADING
SCHEDULE

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report)

Approved for public release, distribution unlimited.

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract entered In Block 20, It dlfrant from Report)

Ill. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

19. KEY WORDS (Continue on reverse aide It neceesau- and Identity by block number)

Tracking error
Simulation
Verification
Live-fire trajectory
120. ABSTRACT (Canfbzue am reverse e * ft necmesa.- ad identity by block number)
AMSAA was requested to provide an independent third party analysis of TRADOC's
Training Effectiveness Analysis-TOW (TEA-TOW) live firing data when neither the
tester nor the TOW Program Manager's Office agreed on the cause of the large
missile excursions and reduced frequency of hit. By making use of the AMSAA TOW
missile simulation it is concluded that the missile excursions were the result oi
gunner tracking errors in all but one casp. The excursions in flight 2407 are
not the result of gunner tracking error.
In addition, these flight data are compared with the simulated trajectornis ,

DDJA
i, 3 1t I Fo5
7-.7
UNCLASSIFIED
SOLETE SECURITY CLASSIFICATIONOF THIS PAGE (When
sacuRITYCLaUSIrIVATL OF THIS PAGE(Ohm Date 80M4O

'20. ABSTRACT (CONT'D)

to demonstrate that the AMSAA TOW missile simulation isa valid representation
of the real system especially when engaging the accelerating target.

UNCLASSIFIED
T
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF HIS PAGE(Wh.e, Data Ente?.d)
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The contributions of the following individuals are

acknowledged* Dr. Gerald Nielson recommended and calculated
the spatial differences used to validate the simulation.
Messrs, Arthur Gordon and Everett White conducted the
simulations. The missile trajectory plots appearing in
Appendix A were generated by Mr. Douglas Finley.

kJ

The ssil
traectoyNpl t aparge ilnk
" ...

g-~

Next, page is blank.

¢3
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 3

1. -INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2. PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. 9

2.1 Tat goniios ... n d.. i ti..o ..

n...s 9
2.2 Data Acquisition . ....... . . . *. . . . . . . . 9
2.3 Tracking Error Analysis .. . . . . .. . .. .. .. . . 9
2.4 Trajectory Simulation and Comparison ....... . . . 9
2.5 Simulation Verification.... .. .. .. ... .... . . 10

3.* RESUL.TS* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . . . . . 13

3.1 Tracking Error Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3.2 Trajectory Comparison . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 13

4.* DISCUSSION . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. 23

5.* CONCLUSION .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . *. 27

APPENDIX A . .. .. .. ... . .. .. .. .. .. . .A-i

DISTRIBUTION LIST..... ...

.. .. .. .*. .. .. .. .. .*.29

Next page is blank.

5
 SIMULATION AND ANALYSIS
OF THE TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS
ANALYSIS-TOW (TEA-TOW) FLIGHT DATA

1, INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to analyze the TOW
Training Effectiveness Analysis (TEA-TOW) flight data, and
to validate the Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity's
(AMSAA) TOW missile simulation,

The TEA-TOW test program had been designed to

measure the effectiveness of alternate TCW training
programs* The first training alternative was the minimum
phase wherein each trainee received eight hours of informal
training, After this training period, Pach trainee fired
one TOW missile (with an inert war headI at a remotely
controlled M'7 tank. The tank moved a cunstant velocity
.

and was at a range of 2800 to 30C0 meter.- If the frequency

of hit equalled the historic TOW frequenc,, of hit, the
program would be accepted. If not, eothez training program
would be tried. The minimum prograa f, ings rsulted in
large missile excursions and unexpectedly lo- frequency of

AMSAA was requested to provide -r ndependent

third party analysis of the TEA-1CW liv- 'iring data -the-
neither the TOW Program Manager's Offic' nor the tstr
agreed on the cause of the large missile !yrrsions and
corresponding reduction in the frequency n' hit. The
tester, the Training Doctrine Cki'mand'l ViRADEC) Corr:,ined
Arms Training Activity (TCATA), blamed the ano'a , .n
faulty missile guidance sets since several sexs failed
certain tests on the Land Combat Support System (LCSS) after
the missile firings. Personnel from tte TOW Progra'
Manager's Office reviewed the video tapes of the f'rings and
they concluded that the anamolies were the result of poor
gunner tracking.

AMSAA proposed to solve the controversy with the

methodology whereby measured ounner tracking error is used
as the input to the TOW computer simulation and the
resulting trajectory is compared to the actual trajectoiy.
If reasonable agreement is obtained, the live-fire
trajectories are attributed to gunner tracking error. If no
agreement is obtained, the actual trajectory is probably due
to faulty equipment since the missile is not following the
gunner generated line-of-sight.

TCATA supplied AMSAA with the tracking error and

the time correlated trajectory data for 84 flights. After
simulating these flights on the computer, only one simulated
flight did not agree with the corresponding live-fire
trajectory, Therefore it was concluded that the TEA-TOW
missile trajectories were the result of gunner tracking
errors.

Since the simulated and live-fire trajectories

demonstated qualitative agreement, the data were used to
validate the TOW simulation in a more objective ffanner. In
particular, these data were used to show that the simulation
is valid against the so called "highly" evasive target.
These are targets accelerating at O.3g's (normalized
gravitational units) or greater In a plane norffal to the
line-of-sight (LOS).

The validation of the simulation is an important

outgrowth of this study since the validity of the simulation
against t1 .a evasive target was questioned. The validation
issue wns vi;ry important to the success of the Armored
Combat Veht:lQ Technology (ACVT) program. The ACVT program
was wil1ing to provide the funds for a fiele test so the
data necessary to validate the simulation could be
collected, Because of this analysis a considerable amount
of mone was saved by using existing datay rather than
acquiring additional data, to verify the simulation.

8
j. PRCCEDURES

The target was a remotely controlled M47 tank

moving at an average speed of 13.5 mph. The tank wes moving
at a 45 degree angle toward the gunner at a range of 2800 to
3000 meters. In all cases, the target was moving from the
gunner's left to his right. This target speed resulted in a
horizontal LOS rate of 1.5 mrad/sec and a vertical LOS rate
of zero.

The tracking error and missile trajectory for each

firing were recorded on video tape for post flight analysis.
From these recordings, the tracking error and missile
displacement were measured relative to the center of the
target as a function of time. The tracking errors were
measured in milliradians and the missile displacements were
measured in feet. These values were mea~ured 10 times a
second to insure that the significant frequencies of the
tracking error and missile displacements could be
reproduced. These data were supplied to AMSAA on computer
cards.

For each of the tracking error time histories, the

meanvariance and normalized power spectral density (PSD)
function were obtained. These quantities Here obtained by
using an existing computer program, FTFREQ, from the
International Mathematical and Statistical Libraries
(Ref. 1). The mean and variance are computed by
conventional means and the PSD function is obtained by
taking the Fourier Transform of the autocorrelation
function. The normalized PSD function is cbtained by
dividing the computed PSD function by the variance of the
tracking error. These measures provide estimates of the
amplitudt and frequency content of the tracking errors.
Additionally, pooled statistics such as the average of the
means, standard deviations and normalized PSG functions were
calculated to obtain the average performance of the TEA-TOW
gunners.

1. IMSL Library 3, Edit ion 6, 1977,Volume I of 2

 The tracking error data were used as input to the
TOW computer simulation along with target motion
representative of a 1.5 mrad/sec constant velocity target.
TCATA Indicated that perhaps 10 percent of the data were
not constant velocity. Howeverpthe trial numbers of these
runs were not recorded). In all cases, the target motion
was simulated as moving from the gunner's left tc his right.

The simulated traJectories were recorded on strip

charts for uick look" analysis and on digital uzgnetic
tape for future processing. Since insufficient resolution
was obtained with the strip charts, computer plots Here made
from the magnetic tape which allowed for a better
comparison. Two computer plots were generated for each
trajectory. One plot contained the actual and simulated
trajectories in azimuth and the second plot contained the
corresponding elevation trajectories. The trajectories were
plotted from six seconds into the flight until target impact
or, in the case of a miss, until the missile range equalled
the target range. The data prior to six seconds were
questionable since the first four seconds of the actual
tracking data were usually missing and had to be
ficticiously generated. The remaining two seconds appeared
to be a reasonable settling time for the simulation to
recover from the ficticious input. These computer plots
were used to subjectively compare the actual and live fire
trajectories.

The TEA-TOW data validated the simulation in a

more quantitative manner. In particular, it shows that the
simulation is a valid representation of the TOW missile
system over a range of LOS inputs that include the LOS
motion due to an accelerating target. This is possible
since the input to the simulation and the actual missile is
the LCS motion which is the total motion of the tracker.
The LCS motion is made up of two components; gunner tracking
error, TE, and target angular positionG t . This
relationship and its first and second time derivatives are
given in Equations 2.1 through 2.3.

LOS =TE + 8t 2.1

LOS= TE + 8t 2.2
LOS = TE + 2.3

From Equation 2,3 it can be seen that large LOS

io
accelerat ons can be generated by large, oscillatory types
of tracking arrors even in the absence of accelerating
targetsp i.e.#t O.
0 It is possible to obtain estimates of
the LOS accelerations resulting from the tracking errors by
using PSD tectiniques.

The output PSD PSD(W)o , of a system having a

transfer function, G(W)Y and input PSD, PSD(W)i_ is given by
Equation 2.4.

PSD(W)o= IG(W)1 2 PSD(W)i 2.4

In the frequency domain, the transfer function relating

acceleration and position is

G(W) = _W 2 2.5

where W is angular frequency. Substituting fcr IG(W)1 2 in

Equation 2. gives

PSD(W)o=W 4 PSD(W)i

where PSD(W)oand PSD(W)i become the LOS acceleration and LCS

position power spectral densities respectively. The
integral of the acceleration PSD with respect to cyclic
frequency, f. equals the variance of the LOS acceleration*
This relationship is given in Equation 2.7.

-2 f0
(27rf) 4 PSD(f)idf 2.7

Since an average normalized PSD function was obtained,

Equation 2.7 becomes

cc tef (27rf)4 PSD(f)ndf 2.e

whereot~is the tracking error variance and PSO(F) is the

average normalized PS0 function of the tracking error. In
reality, the upper limit of integration in Equations 2.7 and
2.8 wes set equal to the frequency %here the amplitude of
the PSD(f) equalled 0.5 which is the half-power point of the

11
tracking error. Seventy-two percent of the t-acking error
variance is 3ccounted for over this alf-pv'4er bandwidth.
Therefore, the effects of low aiplitude, high frequency
noise are eliminated from the acceleration calculation and
only the significant frequencies and amplitudes of the
tracking error are considered in the calculation of 2 .
GCC
The live-fire and simulated trajectories were
quantitatively compared by computing the average spatial
differences between the corresponding trajectories. The
average spatial difference is given by
n

TD= i'=l
Z[(DYi )2+ (D~i )2] 1/2 2..
n
where DYi and DZiare the trajectory differences in azimuth
and elevation at time t and n is the number of points per
trajectory. For all of these flights, n is on the order of
80 since the time-of-flight considered in the analysis was
from six seconds to about fourteen seconds. The spatial
differences were plotted as a function of azimuth tracking
error standard deviation in order to obtain an estinate of
the goodness of the simulation as a function of the LOS
input. The goodness of the simulation as a function of the
LOS ac(eleration Is obtained by making use of this figure
and Equation 2.8.

The combination of the spatial differerces and the

subjective comparison of the trsjectories provide confidence
that the simulation Is a valid representatior of the TOW
missile system.

1 2'
 3. RESULTS

Table 3.1 presents the mean and standard

deviation, in milliradians, of the azimuth and elevation
tracking errors. The mean of the means is -0.061 mrad
lagging in azimuth and O.COB mrad high in elevation. The
average standard deviation, which has computed bytaking the
square root of the average varianceiis 0.257 mrad in azimuth
and 0.070 mrad in elevation. This value of azimuth tracking
error is 2.6 times larger than the standard deviation of
trained gunners tracking the same target. Trained gunners
will track this target with a standard deviation of 0.1G0
mrad in azimuth. The elevation tracking error is about what
is expec-ted of trained gunners yet when coupled with the
azimuth tracking error it is smaller than expected. Past
experience gained with TOW tracking errors indicate that
trained gunners will have elevation tracking error
amplitudes that are about 60 percent of the azimuth tracking
errors

The normalized PSD functions of the azimuth and

elevation tracking errors are given in Figures 3.1 and 3,2,
respectively. The accuracy of these estirrates is on the
order of 15 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. The
bandwidth or half-power point of these signals is between
0.6 and 0.7 HZ in azimuth and 0.5 HZ in elevation. The
peaks in the PSD functions occur at C.2 HZ in azimuth and
0.1 HZ in elevation. These bandwidths and peaks are
consistent with tracking data analyzed in the past.

In accordance with Equation 2.8, the average

variance of the LOS acceleration Is computed to be 2.7 mrad'
sec4 . The corresponding standard deviation of the
acceleration is 1.6 mrad/sec 2 . If targets uere prov~ding
this LOS motion, they would have to be accelerating at peak
levels of about 1.4g's at a range of 2.85 km. This level of
acceleration is greater than the acceleration capability of
a ground vehicle. Therefore, on the average, the angular
accelerations resulting from these tracking errors are
greater than those generated by evasive or maneuvering
targets.

Computer plots of 84 missile trajecto, ies are

contained in Appendix A. These data were used to
qualitatively compare the live-fire and simulated
trajectories. Supplementing Appendix A are Table 3.2 and

I
Figure 3.3 which present the spatial differences and
distribution of these differences of 80 flights. The four
flights not contained in the data are 1119, 1150, 1241 and
1337. Flights 1119,1150 and 1241 were removed 4rom the
table because they had a limited amount of live-fire data
but the live-fire data that exist compare fauorably with the
simuited trajectories. Flight 1337 was removed because the
simulated trajectory apparently exceeded the look-angle
the 'eby causing a breac In the guidance link. 'The look-
angle Is the angle between the tracker and the missile
flare. This phenomenon rarely occurs, but, when it doesp it
is the result of high frequency noise being present in the
missile system.

A review of the computer plots, Table 3.2 and

Figure 3.3 indicate that flight 2407 does not agree with the
corresponding live-fire elevation trajectory. The live-fire
elevation trajectory is flying erratically below the
Intended LOS. Additionally, the spatial difference for this
flight Is 13.3 feet. A review of the trajecto:y plots
indicates that this is the only live-fire trajectory that
does not demonstrate reasonable agreement with the simulated
flight. The actual flight 2407 was attributed to possibly
faulty equipment.

The spatial differences of the 79 remaining

flights are plotted as a function of the azimuth tracking
error standard deviation and are given In Figure 3.4. There
is a trend in these data that shows an exponential
relationship between the spatial differences and the
tracking error. This relationship is more pronounced If
seven flights are removed from the data. These flights are
1143,P 1152t 1201. 1206y 1217, 1304 and 1362. A review of
the trajectory plots of these seven flights shows that the
larger spatial differences are the result of biases in all
of the flights except 1143 and 1304. Flight 1143 exhibits a
live-fire elevation excursion of 5.0 to 7.0 feet near the
end of the flight which is not apparent In the simulated
trajectory. Flight 1304 exhibits a lerge spatiol difference
of nearly 5.0 feet with smaller than average tracking
errors. This is the result of the actual missile 5till
recovering from tracking error transients that occurred
earlier in the flight.

A review of Figure 3.4 shows that the average

spatial differences between the real missile and the
simulation are about 2.0 feet for tracking error standard
deviations of 0.,)00 mrad or less and exponentially
increasing for larger tracking errors. It is shown In the
next section that the larger spatial differences are due to

14
I LOS motions forcing the missile to its acceleration limits.

15
 TABLE 3.1. TRACKING ERROR STATISTICS

AZIMUTH ELEVATION
FLIGHT MEAN SIGMA MEAN SIGMA

0 -. 1669 .1530 .0195 .0762

1109 -.0248 .1068 .0406 .0707
1117 -. 1392 .1140 .1591 .0490
1118 -. 0685 .1221 .1611 .0458
1121 .0980 .3041 .0363 .1030
1122 .0377 .2211 -.0435 .0458
1124 -. 2065 .1221 .1373 .0954
1127 -. 1814 .1476 -.0245 .0400
1128 -. 1192 .1480 -.0849 .0436
1129 -. 1175 .1578 -.017 .0200
1130 -. 0641 .1619 .0041 .0656
1131 -. 1640 .1841 -.0393 .0469
1135 .0315 .2249 .1281 .0480
1136 -.1622 .2195 -.0027 .0872
1137 .0691 .1526 -.0143 .0500
1138 .0080 .1761 .1273 .0332
1139 -. 0611 .1897 -.0339 .0332
1140 -. 0588 .2642 .0488 .0663
112 -.1918 .1533 -.1121 .0714
1143 -. 0009 .1673 -.0480 .0889
1144 -.1513 .1175 -.1128 .0529
1145 -.1170 .1183 .2302 .0566
1146 .2439 .1652 -.0333 .0608
1151 -. 2531 .2841 -. 2157 .0346
1152 -.4777 .2304 -.4419 .0200
1153 -. 0264 .1327 .0917 .0632
1154 .0007 .1371 .0178 .0510
1155 -.1869 .1393 -.0050 .0608
1156 -.2727 .1606 -.0684 .0548
1157 -.1281 .1010 .1417 .0755
1158 .0019 .1421 .2505 .0781
1159 -.1768 .1192 .0516 .0400
1201 -.5490 .2112 .4597 .0592
1203 .0585 .3464 -.2062 .0721
1204 .4339 .3762 .4399 .0922
1206 .0534 .1975 .4308 .0678
1210 -.0381 .3081 -.0971 .1304
212 -.1587 .2202 .1532 .0592
1217 .0448 .1910 .4580 .0316
1234 --.
0171 .5442 .0561 .1428
1235 -.1749 .2865 -.1029 .0447
1236 .3404 .3782 -.0399 .0714
1237 .3644 .3887 -.0590 .0500
1239 .0361 .1868 .0560 .0539
1240 .2579 .3464 .0180 .0927
1241 -.4226 .6054 -.0991 .0707
1304 --.
0586 .1428 .0190 .0400

16
I
TABLE 3.1. TRACKING ERROR STATISTICS (Continued)

AZIMUTH ELEVATION
FLIGHT MEAN SIGMA MEAN SIGMA

1314 -. 2197 .1490 -. 1167 .0332

1317 .0697 .2066 .0742 .0574
1318 -.1563 .1229 -. 0186 .0574
1324 -.0525 .1992 .0853 .0400
1327 -.0929 .2095 -.1405 .0200
1336 -.1481 .1407 .0661 .0300
1338 -.0165 .1546 -.0786 .0616
1339 -. 1661 .2447 .0715 .0361
1340 .0241 .1349 -.0213 .0387
1342 -.3222 .3341 .0033 .0735
1360 .0185 .1345 -.0891 .0800
1361 .0527 .1703 -.0349 .0424
1362 .3925 .1105 -.0845 .0510
1370 .0994 .3764 -. 1211 .0656
2407 .2231 .2126 .0096 .0557
2409 -. 0634 .2579 -.0503 .0447
2410 -.108 1389 .0373 .0640
2412 -.1123 .3750 -. 1300 .2147
2413 -.0818 .1732 -.0867 .0574
2428 .0409 .1849 -.0134 .0436
2434 -.0076 .1323 -. 1221 .0469
2435 -.0549 .9608 -.0006 .2064
2436 -.0843 .2587 .0720 .0510
2437 -.1546 .1594 -.0555 .0300
2438 -.2233 .1513 .0522 .0480
2441 -.0554 .2076 .0160 .0775
2442 .0980 .2646 .0321 .0721
2446 -.3256 .4712 -. 1517 .1039
2447 -. 1733 .1830 -.0389 .0700
2449 .2381 .3028 -.0754 .0520
2451 -.1767 .194 .1010 .0539
2453 -.2624 .2366 -. 1303 .0436
2454 -.2251 .2345 -.0957 .0412
2457 -.0231 .1513 -.0538 .0346

POOLED STATISTICS

MEAN -. 0612 .2566 .0080 .0698

SIGMA .1765 -- .1439 --

17
 TABLE 3.2. SPATIAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TRAJECTORIES

AVERAGE AVERAGE
SPATIAL SPATIAL
FLIGHT DIFFERENCE FLIGHT DIFFERENCE

0 1.52 1235 2.85

1109 1.63 1236 2.86
1117 1.60 1237 5.48
1118 1.68 1239 2.66
1121 2.63 1240 5.38
1122 1.94 1304 4.84
1124 1.96 1314 1.59
1127 1.80 1317 2.13
1128 1.64 1318 1.75
1129 1.72 1324 1.38
1130 1.26 1327 2.09
1131 2.53 1336 1.41
1135 2.65 1338 2.00
1136 1.54 1339 1.92
1137 2.36 1340 2.21
1138 2.45 1342 4.16
1139 2.21130 1.13ot
1140 2.22 1361 1.69
1142 2.30 1362 2.70
1143 3.23 1370 2.43
1144 1.51 2407 13.23
1145 1.76 2409 3.30
1146 1.68 2410 1.76
1151 2.24 2412 7.55
1152 3.33 2413 2.21
1153 1.77 2428 2.39
1154 2.00 2434 1.26
1155 2.04 2435 7.75
1156 1.58 2436 2.78
1157 1.71 2437 1.67
1158 1.97 2438 2.00
1159 1.11 2441 1.89
1201 5.32 2442 2.70
1203 4.37 2446 5.79
1204 6.35 2447 2.61
1206 4.13 2449 4.48
1210 3.33 2451 1.87
1212 2.34 2453 1.49
1217 4.37 2454 2.83
1234 3.72 2457 1.63

18
 2.0

18 AVERAGE OF 81 PSD'S

1.6-

T1.4-

V6 1.2-
01

.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0
FREQUENCY, H-

Figure 3.1 Azimuth Tracking Error Normaliized Power

Spectral Density.

19
 2.2
AVERAGE OF 81 PSO'S
2.0

1.8

1.6

S1.4

d 1.2

L Ujw1.01
8 -

.6

.4-

.2

0 I I I I
0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0
FREQUENCY, Hi

Figure 3.2 Elevation Tracking Error Normalized Power Spectral

Density.

20
 0

I-u

It
o0

CIR

- a.
CC/)
III-

In~~co In 00n0 0 t

kD~gno3N

21-
 (3)

zi

0 CY

0 z0
00

0 0 Y
00 T
0 z0

00 C04
K ) X
vGo
r 0 0 .

0~

22
4. DISCUSSION

The overall results of this study show that the

missile trajectories of the TEA-TOW prograr are the result
of gunner tracking errors except flight 2407 which does not
follow the gunner tracking error. A more important result
of this study is the agreement demonstrated between the
AMSAA TOW missile simulation anq the actual system. It is
shown in Figure 3.4 that the spatial differences re on the
order of 2.0 feet for tracking errors balow C,2CC mrad.
These differences can be atttibuted to the following! (a)
measurement errors in the tracking error and live-fire
trajectory data (b) differences in the off-nominal
conditions between the real system and the simulation (c)
the actual missile still recovering from tracking error
transients earlier in the flight and (d) modeling errors.

For tracking errors beyond 0.200 mrad, the spatial

differences show increasingly larger values. By making use
of Equation 2.8, It can be shown that these differences are
the result of the larger oscillatory tracking errors
requiring missile accelerations that are not available if
the missile Is to follow the LOS. Using Figure 3.1 and
Equation 2.8, and assuming all gunners exhibit a PSD
equivalent to the average PSD, the resulting average
standard deviation of the LOS acceleration is

°'acc - 'te [j (2'f)4 PSD(f )ndf] 1 2 4.1

Evaluating this integral, using Simpson~s rule, over a

bandwidth of .65 HZr gives

0acc = 5.7-t 4.2

The lateral missile motion required to follow the LOS motion

Is given by

Ym = Rm Sin LOS

where Rmris the missile range. Successively differentiating

Equation 4.3 and using small angle epproxiffations give

Ym- Rm LOS + Rm LOS

23
anA

Y'yrmLOS + 2RnL6S RmLES Rm LOS L6S2

Assuming that

Rm=O 4e6

and for this example

Rm LOS>>2Rm LOS -Rm LOSLOS 2 4.7

Equation 4e5 is reduced to

'm Rm LoS 4.

From Equation 4.8, it can be seen that the maxiffum required

missile acceleration will occur when the missile is near the
target provided the LOS acceleration exhibits stationarity
In a statistical sense, By combining Equations 4.8 and 4.2s
the peak missile acceleration required to follow the LOS
resulting from the tracking error Is given by

= 3 (5"7°'t )
"m (2.85) 499c

where 3 (5 .7 Ot.) is the 3-sigma or peak value of the LCS

angular acceleration in mrad/sec and 2.85 is the target
range in kilometers.

The maximum lateral acceleration capability of the

missile Is shown In Figure 41,. as a function of range. At
a target range near 3.0 km, the maximum available missile
acceleratLon is just over 1,0g, Substituting this value of
acceleration into Equation 4.9 and solving for the tracking
error standard deviation, gives the value of the tracking
error standard deviation which forces the maximum
acceleration capability of the missile. This value is 0.200
mrad which Is where the larger spatial differences start
occurring in Figure 34,t However, there are several flights
which still show reasonable spatial differences above this

24
value.

These results imply that the simulatior is a valid

representation of the TOV missile system up to, and in some
cases beyond, the point where the LOS inputs are such that
the maximum available missile acceleration Is required. In
terms of validity against maheuvering targets, the results
Indicate that the missile simulation is valit against
targets accelerating up to the acceleration limits of the
missile provided the gunner tracking errors ore small. This
level of acceieration is greater then the accelefation
capability of a landborne vehicle.

25
KL J

.0
z I.-
0 c
9 <EU
9 <
CLL

LIJ 3-
0

IL
IC
1 26
4c

j0
co1 q 4I
5. CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study show that all but one of

the TEA-TOW flights followed the gunners' tracking error.
The live-fire traJectory of trial 2407 is not following the
gunner tracking error and may be the result of faulty
equipment.

The average azimuth tracking errors are 2.6 times

larger than the average performance of trained gunners
tracking the target angular rates presented. The elevation
tracking errors are about the same as those of trained
gunners but are smaller then expected, since the elevation
tracking error is usually 60 percent of the azimuth tracking
error. The TEA-TOW elevation tracking errors are about 30
percent of the azimuth tracking error. 'It is therefore
concluded that adoption of the minimum training programs
such as that tested, would result in a degradation in TOW
performance over that which could be achieved with the full
training program.

From both a quantitative and qualitative analysis

it is shown that the AMSAA TOW missile sirulation is valid
over a wide range of LOS inputs. In terms of accelerating
targets the simulation is a valid representation of the
actual missile system and is capable of providing reliable
performance estimates against targets accelerating up to
1.0g at a range of 2.85 %,m.

27
Next page is lank.
APPEND~IX A

A-1

Next page is blank.

 C~C
z

(lO -i

CE L
IfJ

IA-
 0

I r

I I

0 -

LUU
- -z
CD.
cJ
-d - a

F--

-. - -
- --
- -

00' 00ihobl
(tA) L9S H{ AD ..L;N23 W08A. - NSISTG "2H

A-4
w -i
C9 C

UA)IJIA -N4 @A I '-3~i

w A-
C')

LIU

Cc(

-. z
- ~
.~~ - ... --

A-
 -i
U)

VI)
LU -

If) LUj
coJ

z
t~I z - -,

(I- t-
------- -
00, (~d0 0

A-7
 LI

IL -i

0 crl

A-84
 - - - - - - - -
--

w+
Cl)
wJL
-0 0

!If) LUI
CD 7
±

w- -

a,' '.'-

F- F

L~ci

00, 1 00-0 0'h

LLA) 1.fl&JHI AD doiN-3 M~2Hilo lTd

A-9
II 1
CDJ

F--

A-
 CD W

LUJ

0-0

A-1
 LiT
uI.

U
I m

CD)

-l - L

ar oil-

A-1.2
 6A- I-

J jI -

z - -

0Dm00# h-
KL~d {~~IH
~D~±N N INH{SIG
_A 1--4

A-1 3
 T

(~z
LUU

LU
- -

(T. OK-%ClL

c0j -) - 00 -

HAF-
 LfW

0)~

UL
W

or 0

(9CE
a' - O
QCE
CI

zA- 5
 -) T

00 u

-Y-

-z

\J
-
z ~Lu

cec-

00's
0019O-

A-1 6
 1-4 S~

000

C~Co

w i

A-1 7
 6A~

W- -

cI.J-

00 U-
-p1
I - - -
0
LLI4

Lu

Do- C

A-18
 IL C
LLJ 0
/z

00~-
C~l
* I /

C - -

00,t--

LUA- 90
 Ili

U) J

U)J LUi
(D)

CD~2

hij-H

A-20
 L~L

fT
w C)

IIJ ii
NU

) JJ

C~Co

LUJ

CE

A-21.
 U) m L4

co4

C~.1
- .- z

w. -i

CE xY.

DO~ 9--

A-2O
 L

40
. I

(I)
0
rZ

C9 CE
CLII)

A--3
~LiJ

C- T
L~L LL1 -

IL -.. N.4-

0 T.

0,,- tA - I.
CE (3,-

(J)-2
 -. T

I IQ

A-25
 ii
-

cr- 0

co CE

- - - - - --

IA-2
 - CD

Q I (90 f
[I- -%

A-27-
 (LJ~ 0

2:

0)0

w LU
C9 C

F- - - -A2

7 - 4C1

Q: H

A-21
 -.-

I -.

C9C

-L - -

C9 (

I~IZ

A-2
 Noo

Ll. V= I.

0-4

-- 4

AA 3
LUJ

If))

aei --

zE 1<

00 t

LiJ~A--1
LI

CD

ao-, 1-

cc x:

HA-3
U) -d

LI)d

LUi -. L

FA-3
 -i .

Lii
LI
LOf

zz
I--

ui --

t-4

0800-0Doe
(t) 9S Jb AO0 '{ UKDO W d1~N~SOZb

A-34
 x --

U)- -

uJ

0 ua -i

CCu

ooDO

Q9-

A-35
 I ~-1

(Y))
CD~~ -40

A-36
 Lli --

or-- --

A-3
0 J-

--- I 0

UA) b AQ)qN0 -3 M' Z INHSC

A-38-
 z h

ui-1

(ji 0

I N
0 CE

UA) IC)H DdIlq D\A 3IHSG1-

U) ~--.A-39
 U) J-

Ld"

LO u
CMj

A-4
I.
t-4 ~
-

-4
 Ld -4

0 LU

A-42
ii
M-
z

LuL

A-4
 - -

(I)

008 00 08

L~d)L~OW. .O 4N W06 AONHiSIG v~

A-44
 LO

(I) /U

UU4

ui J.--

00' h 00 0Th
(LA~) 119MH4 A1D dA'hIN WQJAi :ANHIGM Ii.

A-45
 >T
LO u

(I) Nd

LIJ LUi
-z

0'i-'
zT - -- --

e- 4
 04-

LLJ a

Luu

I~LlJ

ILf L

z
Cc -

0IDm- Do* 00Th-

LU)i9~HL .~D iN1Kc~ j d flH G 1

A-47
Lu
0u----

2:o

A-4
 I. .

LUd
co0

Ld
U

DO-i

A-49
 IL 4.

LU -

lAD -

A--5-
 II
LUJ

uLJ d. (j

- LI
C\J / -

Do' 009Q02
(-L)U9U ) A N3 W J Ni I

LUA-51
9 T
s-I i~ 1*

+
U
I-
~-oO
-

N iI~1
...-. - =

(NJ vs

~ - - - - - - - - = ±3
III - - - - Iii

- - -~ Vr'
LU ~ - - - - - - - - - - - -

+
(I

- -a

F--- - IAL A- ~
oo.,s.v
(..L.~) .L~S~H-L .dO d~.LN~ WOdZ~ ~JN~LL9IG ZI~

A-52

*1,
 - 4V

Lli 7

Lli- -

CE f-
0 ±E
F-- -- ~

W00, W
UA) - -q,\~ AD-3H OI-

ZA-5
 T

LA U

00F
C')

U)

Co -i

QL)C[--- .- ~

C.'

A-54-
 ui 3

U))

LI)
Ld LUI

c\J -

LI) 9 H AO
- -JI jw~ -OHGO -

2A 5
 low"

U~J U

Gr--

0
(T- - -
+E
MIS 002 DO

130,8bl 40 ~ 1N3 - d- -3SGC

A-5
 1.4 b..

-JJ
rr

LLJ J

(I) -J

0I Cu

2 - i-I

A-5

4 4-
.4i

4 z

uu

u- -i

.000

A-58
 1.:~
U)N

NN

U4.

A-59-
(L 4
MT
K
z4

LL-J

cr-

-6-
 V)V

AI z

UJI 4

LT)

LIr-L

-61
 c%.q

LL-J

I 00 ~ .- ~

-J -4-

F--

(&A) i-~lA 1Nl -- @- -43~sc t

A-62
(V

Ld Ld

w (p
C9
cLU

-A-6
 - 00
C) q.J

z1

A-64,
cI:~OJ ---

-5
LL--

~4 I~4 -

A-6
 ......

p- 14
Z-

LIJ -
(D 4
U)-

U)C)
LI) Lii
00, 0 , t, )

FA-6
 hii

LU 1
CD
EY

A-6
 I T.

IL

1 0)
LI)

ii -J

zLU4
001 CO* 0 o 9 )

UA- LU
0 cc

A-7
 DW

-4-

LU)-

000

11) - C
"9 (1

J
--

Q~A-71
 Q:A

cV a

-i-

T-

-A-7
 -i-

11)
00J
LO -

} O

0 L

w~ -i

0T

A-73
Vd N

(I) --

0C"
CEa

A-44
 IL

-r .

-L - - -

006

-4 --- N3 W , 3 NH S1 -

-75 -
 Eor I -

- -

000

LCd

z
2E

F-H I
00o9 00- DO 91-
rH jqS,,dH4 ADO 17N-4j Wo.I 3NHi9G H

A-76
 BE

(I) - -

cj-:

Ui) T-

0 A-77
 'Ie

*d N

f -

A-78
 I---

LuL

LI0) t)0 -00)"

cA-79
0

Lli- -

W1- -

rl -CK~

A-8
CD- -

A-1
 -4-

- -

+22
I II -

-6-

CO
.1
I4~J
I.-
- a --

Lii - -

1. - I,

- -

(-\J - - - - iT -- -~ - - - - 2
Lii

- -
-

z
uJ.J
- -
~2>~--

F
-4 - -. -I,
H-H- -

~K~-
------------------------------------------
-

F- ~4.I. ~ -F ±
00Th uuTh-
Ld) IS~U.L dO d~IN~ NO~.A ~ONUL9ICt '21A

A-~2
 T-4-

L)I-

A-83
 UJ

II n

04 z

LU)

00~

IUO -~ LUJ

16 - -

zl - -

I..r

A-84;
 - _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _

LdI

Ld

A-8
~~121

-,I>0
4+

- 4

A-8
0 '"
- 1 1

fvy*
CE

A-87
 a-

W- N N.

zY

w~: -i

0 CE

A-88,
 -Jb- -
TI
flu
I~1 L~1

cI~,-J

1
- I

- - t
-(I::
I I~
*11 - - C)
LL~ - o
- ~.

U) -

LI) -\ Lii
(0 - C')
1.

1(0 -
-.- I
Lii
LU ~M ->
(2) *~-~I -
-- - I'~.

1~. C) V

-I
iii -~.' -~

- ~ KI
H I-' .-~ I

- -- t
It-)

001) OO'Ir'
(LA) {~J~JW. ~ ~JThLN4J ~ii :~cJNHi~To

A-8 9
LO -

C9I-

IL] J 9JH- 10
 QLl4

JL

U) U
li'-

Ld C\J

C,

Li -,C.

t-4.

CE (12

0(0EP
N Lii I/N-I- Li

A-9
 I0

IU

( -i

If) 1L8b DU 1 o mA NI-o:Z

A-9
L.

kJ

0 CE

A-93
 I..
03-
S-I T
u-i -.
Ll

CDC

LLLu
(DCE

z- - --

HA-9
 -_I - -, •;c
4

A I
Pu

i.Ll
h. 7/.

[1J) ,, , (.9
t j) --- - - ILL

.. + b
W~ LLJ

Co 2i. ' i LI
[k
- ) .

a-- DOI
u-J -'9

-t "

(1 ' t - - -

(_L-) _L3g3tU 9[0 EJ3LN.q3 ND~Jd 4ONNL9{L 1-I-

A-9 5

V.
 4 ~
- - .<''t <%r

L L-I

LLJ N

0~ Cc

CK-.

A-96
 LI- -- ---

LU (N

I-
Ulj
C.9 a:-
(Ers

00109-
(L.) 130jW. iDQ J.RN90 HD~jZ1 30N~d{9I T'1A
 '-IJ

U-)
0

cl.

00 -00

H-9
 Uli

.1.'

U)

I (I-)
(Y) 2U

cl a_,--- J

P,9
 110

uiO

N
0 .I

,U)
w

OK.
z cou
-S.
I 0
C-I
IM

-I--- .5

C'

C90
cc- ({z' NH9I W~

I''

~ .dDA-100
 z

A- 101
T

I f -

co-

ks W 2;.1 - -. a
I--0

LLI LU_

2: N

V" FI-- I -F---1-- ------ ~+ '

A-1O-
 (1)1

w -I

0 CEO

A-102
 ItI

w 0

LU

Y) C)l

t)2
(II-

Colo jj-

I- -'~
U

00-

CDi

-.
(Di- E
zl (1

A-a0
 - - - -

(I)0

--

CE)

00, -- - 00o00

10A-10
 TE
C~C"

~CE

If) ?Do?-- 0-

AU10
II
lu

I-I All

crr

Q CE

- 4
(I:, t,

H]&~ 4C J OK KU)JW
LiA 107
CD
L
-i

0 CE

Lf) U D J NJW A OHSC LI

A-10)
I ~

zE[Y

00 11 00 0,h

'A-10

---------
 I 'IN

LU 0

LUJ

Cdj
IVz

cc --

I-.
(9G
CD C

8.

A-110
 -j- T

J I J

IU J

()) ji-VOL 81
A-111
V.II

w M~
zz

I0 cc
CE(Y

Dole Do-oe
UA)119jblAD IONIGJiZH
Az1
 LLI

CJo
0 u

CE

z
0 Cc
zEr

0009oo-i010-

A-13
 U)4
w
018
I -

CE~
0 cc

tf
00,0 0081

I--'14
 '-LL
I-a:

-- J

(D~ CE

(Y)

UO'DO -J II

A-11
IM
u~J-J

w
Ui
CE -D
CL
4-- -

(T- (a,
 LL'I

C) 0

uJu

) LL)
C\j

CEJ(Y i

Do* 000 i
HA 0H D8IN3WJ 3~S

uA-11
7 a:
-N

I
w -

Nw
o -

rU

- -

0CE
w Iu C

00, 00 fi

ICA-118
 -zN

Ia
-S 0

LU J

(0

A-119
 LU-
s-4~

U) LQ

w- --

0 Tl

F.7

LVJ)~~~4
{S H.L dDd1N J WMJA71N~LIO~

A-120
 aA

IL
wLJ.
>-

Cl)C)

U)

Cijj

Co (Co

LLJJ
(-l) 7

F-4-

LLIJ 10I Q MAIuso

(AD12
Ix

'-
zz
L4U)

'-4
(r~-J

IJ
_2--
-.

i cf'
CDGm

- - - -

(&J) {9&JU.l AD JIIN 33 WD0JA NH{sB3j

A-122
 I- 1L- , - ti

w I-
4
2.
UNN

I-I. l ' f

1 0
LIJ LU

IC

LuAr 7'0JD J N3 M 9NIIi T

A-12
 w m

-'-

Cl) (

A-12
 I o
I) --
T

0, 0,0

A-125
 L.1 I77

N4C

Ld n

--

Dole

A22
 LLI
L -1 t-

ll_, 0 'C.
W J

A-1
I _ _j

004.
- 00 10 -

A-2
:Db
U)T

Liu
N C)

(T )

I0) W A 3~ilj ±2]N3 I

LiA-129
&0

UJ

00

01

-0 -009

IC) 1 0b O4 DNII --

lAi13

~-al
w
NI-D
I

00 al 0- h 0,h

/i)10JI-D8]N3W8 Jl!I T
 LtLI

-x-

000

C\ -t

0 Cc

-~ - -----

Liell

000 09-00Q
H'H 0H D .9NJW8
- IJHGG"7

cro AK13+
 0
wJNL

C9 C~C

C9 CE

A-133
 > ~CO

-i

(1I) 19& --- AD -JU 2 M Nil

0 A 134
 LO. LAI

I i
I-

CE

w jj

-15
 cLJJ 0 0

)
UC U,

LL L

CD -

cJ

CDCJ -i

A-136
 (0!

'I

I I

1 i

1!)

N ,

CE oo

UCD(

-\- --
--.
- ---

LLI)..9 H±:O JINc NL,-,H~9O 1

. -J "1437
 (n. b.4

I.l

7--

L!) 19C) D MA9N890"Z

A-138 L
 JL.
DLJ

U)

C~C

(- - 4
C if) .W

OD'i 001

H RA-139
Jj-

a-

U
LiiU

LP~ C

ft.) 9OI A I

A-140-
 W~~j

U) i

09
C\j

I OoL

2:

LLJ

0 C-Hh
 00.
C\t,

4 -i

CLU-

I- -

0 Cc
U) L

Dole- 00. -0

co
2-

C?

A-14
 J T0C
(I) -L

*LU -tb

0 N)

C\ -(

A-14
LJ -t

(D CC.

UA)u

CM - - - - -144 A
 7 'K.

N
CD

CD CEL
CE 0

oo* a-

A-14
 (Y4-

'WN

LU
0) V)

C\j - -Lu
zz

(D N

CD E
CE 0C

Do-ofDo 0 0U0O-

A-146
 tLLJ
I-z

U
U)

I) w

00 V)

Aj
fZ
'N
(('S

Lu J- C
z0
0 CE

00, at 0 ,t (9
UA 13&blAD J31 WJA]NH zI

A-14
:1w
z

C)I

I')
00

Y) uJ
zz
CE- - - - -L --

0:: 0-

(LA) 12S3JH{ A40 8J21N ) ND)A.d 9JNH{Sgl- ,-7

A-148
 . 11

7k 1 1- )

CEC If)
o
-

-. _
C']C
cc4
ci'" K.. I -
OW h- GO
Z K. (

A14

H-....-... -... .t :

A-149;

z ... . 00 nnmnau 001) 0Dmuno- w -a -

 -W

LCr,

il~

LUL
zz

CE 0

00 1 0,h-C L u

A115
 ClI J -

(I

A-1 51
,,' , - -q - '0

II-

I "

Lf ~ ,0

00W0

A-152u

( J.)-38Ui_4 I.IN DN) ,-J3 N- i,9[O u

', A-152

:. I_
 \Ir

K U)

LI
CD )
7- L

(ii 21H AD M- 3N -S C u19

F

(DC\A 153
C~C

00' al

(1_A) 193U Q JI O DdDNHI IO

A-1.54
 d.
I-i. I~.
CD JNI
z/

UA) 12-u D 2NOW , 3NII l

A-15
 09

CD N

w - -

LI) (Y-

UA) ADLU 3 M IJHG

A-156
 f 0

2,r

Cd:,
w-

CE L

-15
 ab4,

LUJ

U) ')
05

1~ (0

(9C\N

w C-,

C0 G

00'9LO-Ot~

LU) 4AOJHI AD fliNIJ NOMLA 3NHISTO 02H

A-158
 W~

CCr,

Co /

LU ---

0 CE
(T..

L~t - Q

_0 ?1-
J, 179I A

A-5
 z

UI) -LJ

z~ t- -

0C\J/

w-

C9C. ....
...

z01 00401-

A-16
 z

JAL

fru

'1 0
-- I - - (T3

w o

U)

US) /L-

C\j
Z
I) N

(TC\

C-9 cc

A-16

N\L
-4

i J
QLL

00, ta Do'

A-16
PI

U) u)

00 (f)

(5)

(1: 0

cl 0:c

c'\J AD-INI W% ]NII

-16
co 0

00, S
UA IUU
)D\~NJWJ IN II C-)K

UA)164
 -iLT- i

.LLI 9o
0 0
I-
LU .. S
LO u

w. Is. )
1.0 LU

z
Qolcc

Z -

A--6
 UCr

0))

CE 0--o

DO h CObti
UA- H /2 J N0WJ iusc

1Aj16
 T 0

-D u

- C

W
z:'

G: 4 C)

A-16
 64-

Lu)

C9~i

-- t -

A-168
 Wvi-
b1-

Ld,

U) CD
LON u

( jr N

z
0
1-4
U)

U) -003

C\J
00,I

JrA.169
 i
LiU
9 w
- 0 M

U) LuJ

-J.- w

c\J -

LID C.

A-170
 DISTRIBUTION LIST

No. of Copies

Commander 7
US Army Materiel 'Development~and
Readiness Commandl
ATTN: DRCDE-R,DRCDE-F, DRCPA-P$ DRCPA-S,
DRCQA, DRCBSI-D, DRCBSI-L

Commander1
US Army Armament"Research and
Development Command
Dover, NJ 07801

Commander1
Harry Diamond Laboratories
ATTN: DELHD-SAB
2800 Powder Mill Road
Adelphi, MD 20783

Chief
USA Test & Evaluation Command
ATTN: STEDP-MT-L
Dugway Proving Ground, UT 84022
Commander1
US Army Aviation R&D Command
ATTN: DRDAV-BC
P.O. Box 209
St. Louis, MO 63166

Commander1
US Army Electronics R&D Command
ATTN: DRDEL-SA
Fort Monmouth, NJ 07703

Director 3
US Army TRADOC Systems Analysis
Activity
ATTN: ATAA-SL
ATAA-T
ATAA-TAC
White Sands Missile Range, NM 88002

29
 DISTRIBUTION LIST

No. of ibopies'

'Cbmmandef' 3
US Army ,Missile-Command
ATTN: DRDMI-C (R&D)
DRCPM-DTE (R&D) (2 cys)
Redstone Arsenal, AL 35809

Commander
US Army Troop Support &Aviation
Materiel Readiness Command
ATTN: DRSTS-BA
4300 Goodfellow Blvd
St. Louis, MO 63120

Commander
Defense Technical Information
ATTN: TCA
Cameron Station Alexandria, VA 22314

Commander 2
US Army Tank-Automotive Research
and Development Command
ATTN: DRDTA-UL (Tech Lib)
DRDTA-V
Warren, MI 48090

Commander
US Army Mobility Equipment R&D
Command
ATTN: DRDME-0
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060

Commander
US Army Natick R&D Command
ATTN: DRDNA-O
Natick, MA 01760,

Chief -2
Defense Logistics Studies
Information Exchange
US Army Logistics Management
Center
ATTN: DRXMC-D
Fort Lee, VA 23801

30

LL
 'DISTRIBUTION LIST

No.., of Copies

C0mmahder
US Army oncepts Analysis Agency
8120 Woodmont Avenue
Bethesda, MD 20014
'Commander 6
US Army TRADOC Combined Arms Test
Activity
ATTN: ATCAT-TD (3 cys)
ATCAT-SCI (3 cys)
Ft. Hood, TX 76544

Commander
Office of Missile Electronic
Warfare
ATTN: DELEW-M-STO
White Sands Missile Range, NM 88002

President 2'
US Army Armor and Engineer Board
ATTN: ATZK-AE-CV
Fort Knox, KY 40121

HQDA 2
ATTN: DACS-CV
Washington, DC

Aberdeen Proving Ground

Commander 2
US Army Test & Evaluation Command
ATTN: DRSTE
DRSTE-CS-A
Bldg 314

Director, BRL
ATTN: STINFO Branch
Bldg 305

Director
US Army Human Engineering Laboratory
ATTN. DRXHE-SP
Bldg 520

31

Lr
 "DISTRIBUTIONLIST

No. of Copies
Director
US Army Ballistic Research Laboratory
Bldg 328

Director 9
US ArmyMateriel Systems Analysis
Activity
ATTN: DRXSY-CS (5cys)

DRXSY-GI
DRXSY-GA (2 cys)
Bldg 392

32

,!