Technological Implementation Plan Report (Other project deliverable)

Transcription

Project no. : 037164
SINBAD
Safety Improved with a New concept by Better Awareness on
airport approach Domain
Instrument: SPECIFIC TARGETED RESEARCH OR INNOVATION PROJECT
Thematic Priority: Priority 4: Aeronautic & Space
D5.4: Technological Implementation Plan Report
(WP500 deliverable)
Due date of deliverable: 01/10/2010
Actual submission date: 20/01/2012
Related to other Contract no.: None
Operative commencement date of contract: 01/07/2007
Duration: 36 months
Organisation name of lead contractor for this deliverable: TR6
Revision: Final issue – f1
Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Sixth Framework Programme
(2002-2006)
Dissemination Level
PU
PP
RE
CO
Public
Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services)
Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services)
Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services)
Ce document et les informations qu’il contient sont confidentiels et sont la propriété
exclusive de SINBAD consortium. Ils ne doivent être communiqués qu’aux personnes
ayant à en connaître et ne peuvent être reproduits ni divulgués à toute autre personne
sans l’autorisation préalable écrite de SINBAD consortium.
D5.4: Technological Implementation Plan Report Final issue
X
This document and the information it contains are property of SINBAD
consortium and confidential. They shall not be reproduced nor disclosed to
any person except to those having a need to know them, without prior
written consent of SINBAD consortium.
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 1 of 92
Technological Implementation Plan Report
FOR
SINBAD
CONTRACT N° TEN07/FP6AE/S07.69019/037164
CDRL SEQUENCE N° D5.4
Prepared for:
European Commission
Prepared by:
THALES Air Systems
3, avenue Charles Lindbergh 94150 RUNGIS France
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 2 of 92
DISTRIBUTION LIST
COMPANY
SHORT NAME
REPRESENTATIVES
European Commission
EC
VU-DUC Hoang
Thales Air Systems
TR6
DIETZI NEYME Florence
FAIVRE Sébastien
FERRIER Jean Marie
ORLANDI Fabrice
FORGEOT Olivier
Thales ATM Ltd
TATM Ltd
HILLIER Chris
National Aerospace Laboratory
NLR
BLOEM Edwin
WEVER Rombout
ECORYS
ECORYS
MODIJEVSKY Michiel
RAHMAN Adnan
German Air Navigation Services
DFS
MALLWITZ Rolland
TERPU Ovidiu
Air Navigation Services of the ANS CR
Czech Republic
KUBICEK Jan
UHLIR Ivan
Thales ATM GmbH
TATM GmbH
KLEINSCHMIDT Jürgen
LÖHR Reginald
MAULER Michael
ADV Systems
ADV
DESENFANS Olivier
Budapest
University
Technology and Economics
of BUTE
ROHACS Jozsef
GATI Balazs
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 3 of 92
SINBAD
DOCUMENT TITLE:
DOCUMENT CONTENT & PURPOSE:
The purpose of this document is to define realistic short term, medium term and long term perspectives
for the implementation of SINBAD. However the scope is not limited to SINBAD like sensors but
expend to Multi Static Primary Surveillance Radar (MSPSR); where SINBAD sensor is a passive
MSPSR relying on opportunity transmitters, we shall also consider active MSPSR system in which
dedicated transmitters are included. The document first describes the MSPSR system as a
generalization of SINBAD and then assesses MSPSR and PSR surveillance means. Two application
cases (Frankfurt and Brno/Karlovy Vary) are then studied to assess how and to what extend these
systems can fulfil the expectations of the main stakeholders of these areas in terms of airports security
and safety. These analyses of operational and economic advantages also provide the roadmap of
MSPSR system development.
INTERNAL APPROVALS
REVISION:
Final issue – f1 14/11/2011
Signature
Date
WRITTEN BY:
Fabrice Orlandi
APPROVED BY:
Sébastien Faivre
PROGRAM APPROVALS
THALES PROGRAM MANAGER:
Fabrice Orlandi
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 4 of 92
CHANGES
Rev.
Date
Ecp n°
Draft
issue– d0
Final issue
– f1
01/12/2010
-
14/11/2011
-
Description
Responsible
First issue.
F. ORLANDI
Final issue
F. ORLANDI
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 5 of 92
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
SCOPE ......................................................................................................................... 12
1.1
IDENTIFICATION.................................................................................................................................... 12
1.2
PROGRAM OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................................... 12
1.3
DOCUMENT OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 13
2.
REFERENCED DOCUMENTS ..................................................................................... 13
2.1
CONTRACTUAL DOCUMENTS............................................................................................................. 13
2.2
CONSORTIUM DOCUMENTS ............................................................................................................... 13
2.3
PROGRAM RELATED DOCUMENTS ................................................................................................... 13
2.4
OTHER REFERENCED DOCUMENTS.................................................................................................. 14
2.5
ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................................... 15
3.
MSPSR SYSTEM DESCRIPTION ................................................................................ 16
3.1
FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 16
3.2
TYPICAL PERFORMANCE FIGURES ................................................................................................... 17
3.3
FUNCTIONAL ARCHITECTURE............................................................................................................ 20
3.3.1
Multistatic architecture benefit for transmitted power....................................................................... 20
3.3.2
Base station architecture.................................................................................................................. 21
3.4
MSPSR SPECTRUM NEEDS ................................................................................................................. 22
3.4.1
Frequency band impact.................................................................................................................... 22
3.4.1.1
Frequency, angular resolution and system size........................................................................ 22
3.4.1.2
Frequency and reflectivity / RCS .............................................................................................. 22
3.4.1.3
Frequency and diffraction fringes ............................................................................................. 22
3.4.1.4
Frequency and attenuation ....................................................................................................... 23
3.4.1.5
Frequency and weather conditions ........................................................................................... 24
3.4.1.6
Frequency and regulations (congestion and man made noise) ................................................ 25
3.4.1.7
Conclusion on the Frequency Band .......................................................................................... 26
3.4.2
Bandwidth impact ............................................................................................................................. 27
3.4.2.1
Bandwidth and range resolution ............................................................................................... 27
3.4.2.2
MSPSR and range resolution ................................................................................................... 27
3.4.2.3
Bandwidth and sensitivity .......................................................................................................... 28
3.4.2.4
Conclusion on Bandwidth ......................................................................................................... 28
3.4.3
Waveform ........................................................................................................................................ 29
3.4.3.1
Spectrum occupancy ................................................................................................................ 29
3.4.3.2
Waveform and frequency ......................................................................................................... 30
3.4.3.3
Conclusion on Waveform ......................................................................................................... 30
3.4.4
Frequency band and bandwidth conclusion ..................................................................................... 31
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 6 of 92
4.
ASSESSMENT OF MSPSR AND PSR SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGIES .............. 32
4.1
DEFINITIONS.......................................................................................................................................... 32
4.1.1
Surveillance Terms .......................................................................................................................... 32
4.1.2
Miscellaneous Terms ....................................................................................................................... 34
4.1.3
Miscellaneous Terms ....................................................................................................................... 35
4.2
ASSESSMENT OF MSPSR TECHNOLOGY ......................................................................................... 37
4.2.1
System description ........................................................................................................................... 37
4.2.1.1
RF footprint ............................................................................................................................... 37
4.2.1.2
Mechanical footprint .................................................................................................................. 37
4.2.1.3
Digital footprint .......................................................................................................................... 38
4.2.1.4
Geographical footprint .............................................................................................................. 38
4.2.2
Technology assessment to Key Performance Areas ....................................................................... 39
4.2.2.1
Access and Equity .................................................................................................................... 39
4.2.2.2
Capacity .................................................................................................................................... 39
4.2.2.3
Cost effectiveness .................................................................................................................... 39
4.2.2.4
Efficiency................................................................................................................................... 40
4.2.2.5
Environmental sustainability ..................................................................................................... 40
4.2.2.6
Flexibility ................................................................................................................................... 41
4.2.2.7
Interoperability .......................................................................................................................... 41
4.2.2.8
Participation .............................................................................................................................. 41
4.2.2.9
Predictability.............................................................................................................................. 41
4.2.2.10 Safety ........................................................................................................................................ 41
4.2.2.11 Security ..................................................................................................................................... 42
4.2.2.12 Human performance ................................................................................................................. 42
4.3
ASSESSMENT OF PSR TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................... 43
4.3.1
System description ........................................................................................................................... 43
4.3.2
Typical performance figures ............................................................................................................. 44
4.3.3
RF footprint ...................................................................................................................................... 46
4.3.4
Geographical footprint ...................................................................................................................... 46
4.3.5
Technology assessment to Key Performance Areas ....................................................................... 46
4.3.5.1
Access and Equity .................................................................................................................... 46
4.3.5.2
Capacity .................................................................................................................................... 47
4.3.5.3
Cost effectiveness .................................................................................................................... 47
4.3.5.4
Efficiency................................................................................................................................... 47
4.3.5.5
Environmental sustainability ..................................................................................................... 47
4.3.5.6
Flexibility ................................................................................................................................... 48
4.3.5.7
Interoperability .......................................................................................................................... 48
4.3.5.8
Participation .............................................................................................................................. 48
4.3.5.9
Predictability.............................................................................................................................. 48
4.3.5.10 Safety ........................................................................................................................................ 48
4.3.5.11 Security ..................................................................................................................................... 48
4.3.5.12 Human performance ................................................................................................................. 49
4.4
5.
COMPARISON ........................................................................................................................................ 49
MSPSR APPLICATION CASES ................................................................................... 51
5.1
FRANKFURT APPLICATION CASE ...................................................................................................... 51
5.1.1
Scenarios to be considered.............................................................................................................. 51
5.1.2
Scenario Assessment ...................................................................................................................... 53
5.1.2.1
Scenario 1- Limited use of new technologies with no volume of interest for the non cooperative
surveillance ................................................................................................................................................. 53
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 7 of 92
5.1.2.1.1 Overall Assessment .............................................................................................................. 54
5.1.2.1.2 Detailed cost assessment ..................................................................................................... 54
5.1.2.1.3 Detailed performance assessment........................................................................................ 55
5.1.2.2
Scenario 2- Medium use of new technologies with performance requirements in the upper part
of the volume of interest.............................................................................................................................. 57
5.1.2.3
Scenario 3- Medium use of new technologies with performance requirements in the entire
volume of interest........................................................................................................................................ 62
5.1.2.4
Scenario 4- Progressive switch to new technologies with performance requirements in the entire
volume of interest........................................................................................................................................ 68
5.1.3
Frankfurt application case summary ................................................................................................ 72
5.2
BRNO/KARLOVY VARY APPLICATION CASE .................................................................................... 73
5.2.1
Scenarios to be considered.............................................................................................................. 73
5.2.2
Assessment of the scenarios ........................................................................................................... 75
5.2.2.1
The « limited use of new technologies» scenario ..................................................................... 75
5.2.2.1.1 Overall assessment ............................................................................................................... 76
5.2.2.2
The « medium use of new technologies » scenario ................................................................. 80
5.2.2.3
The « progressive switch to new technologies » scenario........................................................ 86
5.2.3
Brno/Karlovy Vary application case summary.................................................................................. 91
6.
CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 92
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 8 of 92
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.
PSR and MSPSR EIRP ...................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 2.
MSPSR typical deployment (PCL uses Tx of opportunity). ................................................................ 17
Figure 3.
MSPSR typical horizontal accuracy ................................................................................................... 17
Figure 4.
MSPSR typical vertical coverage at low altitude ................................................................................ 18
Figure 5.
MSPSR typical vertical accuracy........................................................................................................ 18
Figure 6.
Preliminary functional architecture diagram of an MSPSR base station............................................ 21
Figure 7.
Low altitude detection compared capabilities UHF (left) & X-band (right). ........................................ 23
Figure 8.
Atmospheric attenuation and rain attenuation with the operating frequency. .................................... 23
Figure 9.
Atmospheric attenuation with the operating frequency and elevation angle ...................................... 24
Figure 10.
Rain and Ground Clutter Reflectivity models ..................................................................................... 24
Figure 11.
Antenna noise factor/temperature Fa/ta versus frequency ................................................................ 25
Figure 12.
Aircraft sizes/types and resolution distance/bandwidth ...................................................................... 27
Figure 13.
Simulation of the impact of the bandwidth for the MSPSR configuration of §3.2, average Z accuracy
of 185 m for 1 MHz and 60 m for 10 MHz. ....................................................................................................... 28
Figure 14.
Waveform spectral architecture. ........................................................................................................ 29
Figure 15.
Aeronautical surveillance system ....................................................................................................... 33
Figure 16.
Categories of air traffic surveillance sensors ..................................................................................... 34
Figure 17.
Mirror effect for MSPAR ..................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 18.
“Zero-Spare” Maintenance concept ................................................................................................... 40
Figure 19.
PSR and MSPSR EIRP ...................................................................................................................... 43
Figure 20.
Typical PSR installation...................................................................................................................... 44
Figure 21.
Typical S-band PSR coverage with 15 and 28 KW transmitted power, in free space i.e. flat ground
with no obstacles .............................................................................................................................................. 45
Figure 22.
Typical L-band PSR coverage with 20 and 40 KW transmitted power, in free space i.e. flat ground
with no obstacles. ............................................................................................................................................. 46
Figure 23.
Rationale of the scenarios.................................................................................................................. 52
Figure 24.
Scenarios to be considered................................................................................................................ 52
Figure 25.
Scenario 1- Limited use of new technologies with no volume requirements for non cooperative
surveillance ....................................................................................................................................................... 53
Figure 26.
Scenario 1 Assessment ..................................................................................................................... 54
Figure 27.
Scenario 1, cumulated cost index assessment .................................................................................. 55
Figure 28.
Current non cooperative (left) and cooperative (right) surveillance coverage of scenario 1 .............. 55
Figure 29.
Mid term non cooperative (left) and cooperative (right) surveillance coverage of scenario 1 ............ 56
Figure 30.
Long term non cooperative(left) and cooperative (right) surveillance coverage of scenario 1 .......... 56
Figure 31.
Altitude colour code in meters ............................................................................................................ 56
Figure 32.
WAM system HDOP at 3000 ft AGL (left) and covered regions where all perfromance requirements
are met (right) ................................................................................................................................................... 57
Figure 33.
HDOP Colour Code (HDOP is a scalar factor, so no units) ............................................................... 57
Figure 34.
Scenario 2- Medium use of new technologies with performance requirements in the upper part of the
volume of interest ............................................................................................................................................. 58
Figure 35.
Figure 36.
Figure 37.
Long term PSR horizontal accuracy at 4000 ft AGL and region proposed to be covered by MSPSR
gapfiller for Scenario 2 Long term .................................................................................................................... 60
Figure 38.
Position accuracy color code ............................................................................................................. 61
Figure 39.
Scenario 2 MSPSR system covered region at 4000 ft where all performance requirements are met61
Figure 40.
Figure 41.
Scenario 3- Medium use of new technologies with performance requirements in the entire volume of
interest 62
Figure 42.
Figure 43.
Figure 44.
Horizontal accuracy at 500 ft AGL provided by the current (left) and long term (right) PSR
configurations ................................................................................................................................................... 64
Figure 45.
Position accuracy color code ............................................................................................................. 65
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 9 of 92
Figure 46.
Figure 47.
Figure 48.
Figure 49.
Figure 50.
Region proposed to be covered by an MSPSR Gapfiller for Scenario 3 Mid term ............................ 65
Scenario 3 Mid term MSPSR system covered region where all performance requirements are met 65
Region proposed to be covered by an MSPSR Gapfiller for Scenario 3 long term ........................... 66
Scenario 3 Long term MSPSR systerm covered region where all performance requirements are met
67
Figure 51.
Scenario 3 Long term cooperative coverage where all performance requirements are met ............. 67
Figure 52.
Scenario 4- Progressive switch to ne technologies with performance requirements in the entire
volume of interest ............................................................................................................................................. 68
Figure 53.
Figure 54.
Figure 55.
Scenario 4 Long term MSPSR system covered region where all performance requirements are met
70
Figure 56.
Figure 57.
Scenario 4 Long term Cooperative systems covered region where all performance requirements
are met
71
Figure 58.
Rationale of the scenarios.................................................................................................................. 73
Figure 59.
Scenarios to be considered................................................................................................................ 74
Figure 60.
The “Limited use of new technologies” scenario................................................................................ 75
Figure 61.
« Limited use of new technologies » scenario assessment ............................................................... 76
Figure 62.
« Limited use of new technologies » scenario, cumulated cost assessment..................................... 77
Figure 63.
Brno CTA - 2013-2020 and 2025-2031 cooperative (left) and non cooperative (right) Surveillance
coverage of the « Limited use of new technologies » scenario ........................................................................ 78
Figure 64.
Karlovy Vary TMA - 2013-2020 cooperative (left) and non cooperative (right) Surveillance coverage
of the « Limited use of new technologies » scenario ........................................................................................ 78
Figure 65.
Karlovy Vary TMA – 2025-2031 cooperative (left) and non cooperative (right) Surveillance coverage
of the « Limited use of new technologies » scenario ........................................................................................ 79
Figure 66.
Figure 67.
The « medium use of new technologies » scenario ........................................................................... 80
Figure 68.
« medium use of new technologies » scenario assessment.............................................................. 81
Figure 69.
« medium use of new technologies » scenario, cumulated cost assessment ................................... 82
Figure 70.
Brno CTA - 2013-2020 cooperative (left) and non cooperative (right) Surveillance coverage of the
« medium use of new technologies » scenario ................................................................................................ 83
Figure 71.
« medium use of new technologies » scenario ................................................................................................ 83
Figure 72.
of the « medium use of new technologies » scenario ...................................................................................... 84
Figure 73.
of the « medium use of new technologies » scenario ...................................................................................... 84
Figure 74.
Figure 75.
The « progressive switch to new technologies » scenario ................................................................. 86
Figure 76.
« progressive switch to new technologies » scenario assessment .................................................... 87
Figure 77.
« progressive switch to new technologies » scenario, cumulated cost assessment ........................ 88
Figure 78.
« progressive switch to new technologies » scenario....................................................................................... 89
Figure 79.
« progressive switch to new technologies » scenario....................................................................................... 89
Figure 80.
of the « progressive switch to new technologies » scenario............................................................................. 90
Figure 81.
of the « progressive switch to new technologies » scenario............................................................................. 90
Figure 82.
Figure 83.
Overall performance comparison of the scenarios ............................................................................ 92
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 10 of 92
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Contractual documents .......................................................................................................................... 13
Consortium documents.......................................................................................................................... 13
Program related documents .................................................................................................................. 14
Other referenced documents ................................................................................................................. 14
Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................................... 15
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 11 of 92
1. SCOPE
1.1 IDENTIFICATION
Program Name
:
Document Name
:
Work Package Number :
CDRL Number
:
THALES Number
:
Revision
:
Revision date
:
File Name
:
SINBAD
WP500 deliverable
D5.4
TR6/SR/PST-420/10
Final issue – f1
14/11/2011
SINBAD_D5.4_TIP report_- f01 signed.doc
1.2 PROGRAM OVERVIEW
SINBAD aims to perform the proof of application of a new concept, intended to improve aircraft safety and
security at airport approach to 2010 horizon.
Collision avoidance is currently ensured jointly by the Air Traffic Management System (ATMS), and the Airborne
Collision Avoidance System. Both systems actually are ineffective against the risk of accidental or hostile collision
by non-cooperative small or low flying aircraft.
The main targets of SINBAD to overcome these limitations are:
to improve drastically the capability of the ATMS to monitor such non cooperative aircraft, using a
breakthrough low cost sensor technology, the MultiStatic PCL (Passive Coherent Location),
to support controllers by providing them with an Active Hazard Assessment (AHA) capability, allowing
them in case of confirmed danger to quickly alert the adequate authorities and if needed to the relevant
airliners.
The scientific objectives of SINBAD are:
to develop and optimise on live data a mock-up of the MultiStatic PCL sensor, and of the AHA software
component,
to assess MultiStatic PCL improvement in detection and localization performances compared to currently
available sensors,
to assess AHA’s performance in terms of probability to anticipate collision risks between relevant aircraft
and airliners, with a controlled false alarm rate.
To achieve these objectives, a consortium of 9 partners from 6 countries with all the required skills has been
established as follows: 3 industrial partners, 1 SME, 1 academic institute, 2 research centres, and 2 government
end-users institutions.
The project organized in 6 work-packages will allow:
WP100: to refine the operational concept and system requirements,
WP200: to develop MultiStatic PCL new sensor and AHA new algorithms, and implement them into a realtime test bed,
WP300: to validate the concept through live trials at Brno and Frankfurt airports,
WP400: to assess the benefits in terms of safety, security and business efficiency, according to the
Eurocontrol-Operational Concept Validation Methodology.
WP500: to disseminate SINBAD results throughout the community of interested stakeholders, as potential
end-users, industrial partners …
WP600 standing for project management.
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 12 of 92
1.3 DOCUMENT OVERVIEW
The purpose of this document is to define realistic short term, medium term and long term perspectives for the
implementation of SINBAD. However the scope is not limited to SINBAD like sensors but expend to Multi Static
Primary Surveillance Radar (MSPSR); where SINBAD sensor is a passive MSPSR relying on opportunity
transmitters, we shall also consider active MSPSR system in which dedicated transmitters are included. The
document first describes the MSPSR system as a generalization of SINBAD and then assesses MSPSR and PSR
surveillance means. Two application cases (Frankfurt and Brno/Karlovy Vary) are then studied to assess how and
to what extend these systems can fulfil the expectations of the main stakeholders of these areas in terms of
airports security and safety. These analyses of operational and economic advantages also provide the roadmap of
MSPSR system development.
2. REFERENCED DOCUMENTS
2.1 CONTRACTUAL DOCUMENTS
Index
[C1]
[C2]
Reference
Title
TREN07/FP6AE/S07.69019/037164
TREN07/FP6AE/S07.69019/037164
Annex 1
Table 1.
SINBAD Contract
SINBAD Contract : Description of Work
Contractual documents
2.2 CONSORTIUM DOCUMENTS
Index
[S1]
Reference
Title
DJ/PC/204.2006
17 11 2006 Final version SINBAD Consortium Agreement
Table 2.
Consortium documents
2.3 PROGRAM RELATED DOCUMENTS
These documents are available for downloading on SINBAD website sinbad.edufly.net.
Index
[P1]
[P2]
[P3]
[P4]
[P5]
Partners #
ADV issue
BUTE issue
ADV issue
ADV issue
TATM/Gmbh/SINBAD-02/09 -
CDRL #
D1.1
D1.2
D1.3
D1.4
D2.2
[P6]
[P7]
[P8]
TATM/Gmbh/SINBAD-03/09 A
NLR issue
TR6/SR/PST-105/08
D2.3
Di.2.3.1
D2.4
[P9]
[P10]
[P11]
[P12]
[P13]
[P14]
[P15]
[P16]
[P17]
TR6/SR/PST-329/10
TR6/SR/PST-419/10
TATM Ltd & Gmbh issue
ANS CR issue
ANS CR issue
ANS CR issue
NLR issue
DFS/SINBAD-01/09
NLR issue
D2.5
D2.6
D2.7
D3.2
D3.4
D3.5
Di.3.5
D3.6
D4.1
Title
Baseline description of current system WP synthesis
Threat/Danger identification and Scenarios report
SINBAD OCD report
SINBAD system requirements report
Interface Requirement Specification / Interface
Control Document final version
Global Architecture Design
AHA Functional Design
Report describing the targeted performances of the
sensor
High level description of the mock-up
Industrial tests report (sensor)
Report on the industrial test of the Sub System
Validation management (E-OCVM) final version
Test plan for trials in Brno final version
Report of the experiments and 1st validation synthesis
Report of the experiments and 1st validation synthesis
Test plan for trials in Frankfurt draft version
Safety Assessment (FHA)
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 13 of 92
Index
[P18]
[P19]
[P20]
[P21]
[P22]
Partners #
CDRL #
NLR issue
NLR issue
NLR issue
NLR issue
D4.2
D4.3
D4.4
D4.5
D4.6
Safety Assessment (PSSA)
Safety Case report
Threat Assessment report
Initial Security Case report
Report on methodological issues and cost & benefit
taxonomy; user decision criteria
Comprehensive cost-benefit analysis on the
introduction of SINBAD system
Final version of Final Plan for using and
Disseminating knowledge and Report on raising
public participation and awareness
TIP report
Program Management Plan
Final report
18-month activity and management report n°2
Publishable final activity report
ECORYS/SINBAD-01/09
[P23]
D4.7
[P24]
ECORYS issue
TR6/SR/PST-200/08
D5.2
[P25]
[P26]
[P27]
[P28]
[P29]
TR6/SR/PST-420/10
TR6/SR/PST-249/07
TR6/SR/PST-418/10
TR6/SR/PST-421/10
TR6/SR/PST-422/10
D5.4
D6.1
D6.2
D6.3
D6.4
Table 3.
Title
Program related documents
2.4 OTHER REFERENCED DOCUMENTS
Eurocontrol Standard Document for Surveillance Data Exchange:
Index
[O1]
[O2]
Reference #
SUR.ET1.ST05.2000-STD02b-01, Part 2b
SUR.ET1.ST05.2000-STD04-01, Part 4
CDRL #
Title
Edition 1.27
Nov. 2000
Edition 1.15
Nov. 2000
Transmission of Monoradar Service Messages
Category 034
Transmission of Monoradar DataTarget Reports
Category 048
Table 4.
Other referenced documents
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 14 of 92
2.5 ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation
Plain Text
AHA
Active Hazard Assessment
ATC
Air Traffic Control
ATCO
Air Traffic COntroller
ATM
Air Traffic Management
CTR
Control Terminal Region
DBF
Digital Beam-Forming
DVB-T
Digital Video Broadcasting – Terrestrial
NCT
Non-Cooperative Target
PCL
Passive Coherent Location
PMS
Primary Multilateration Surveillance
PoD
Probability of Detection
PSR
Primary Surveillance Radar
RCS
Radar Cross Section
Rx
Receiver
SFN
Single Frequency Network
TMA
Terminal Manoeuvring Area
TR6
THALES Air Systems
TV
Television
Tx
Transmitter
UAV
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
UHF
Ultra High Frequencies (300 MHz – 1 GHz)
VHF
Very High Frequencies (30 – 300 MHz)
WP
Work Package
Table 5.
Abbreviations
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 15 of 92
3. MSPSR system description
3.1 Functional description
MultiStatic Primary Surveillance Radar (MSPSR) is an independent non-cooperative civil and military surveillance
system for Terminal Approach Control and en-route purposes. It is based on a sparse network of stations able to
transmit and receive omni-directional CW waveforms.
While no design or operational requirements are yet available, with SINBAD’s work the concept is sufficiently
mature for our analysis. The following figures are thus design aims.
Two system types are derived from this concept:
•
“active” MSPSR with dedicated (“controlled”) transmitters,
•
“passive” MSPSR relying on transmitters of opportunity.
In all what follows, the active configuration keeps the MSPSR name while the passive configuration is identified
as “PCL” (Passive Coherent Location). Nevertheless the main subject of this document is the active MSPSR and
PCL is mainly used here as a reference.
The strength of this technology is such that localisation of aircraft is now available in the three dimensions and
with a faster update rate compared to current PSR. Existing transmitters (opportunity transmitters as radio or TV
broadcast) can be used by PCL. Dedicated transmitters of active MSPSR will use current PSR frequency bands;
for cost considerations, it is likely that L-Band (1215 – 1370 MHz) will be used for the first deployments. In both
cases, absence of dedicated high power transmitter is remarkably cost-effective. For MSPSR, the use of
CW waveform and omnidirectional antennas (for both transmit and receive), drastically reduces the peak EIRP
compared to current PSR, as it is illustrated on the figure below:
Figure 1.
PSR and MSPSR EIRP
MSPSR coverage can be tailored “on demand” (i.e. extending a current coverage for a new air corridor or to fill a
gap due to terrain constraints or windfarms), and it can be expanded by adding stations to an existing
configuration.
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 16 of 92
Figure 2.
MSPSR typical deployment (PCL uses Tx of opportunity).
MSPSR system involves the use of dedicated transmitters with the optimal waveform and the suitable
transmitter/receiver deployment geometry. In this case, the system parameters are designed in such a way that
the performances shall fully meet the targeted requirements for an operational system.
MSPSR technology suits Approach and En-route continental applications, and it can also be applied for the
replacement of costly specific military ATC functions like PAR (Precision Approach Radar). At a longer term,
oceanic surveillance is also believed achievable with this technology.
Furthermore, MSPSR stations will use a building-block design, in order to avoid the use of cabling communication
networks. This is envisaged by the way of generic stations sharing transmission and reception for detections,
synchronisation and data exchange through the same channel.
3.2 Typical performance figures
The coverage of a typical TMA (50 NM x 50 NM) can be obtained with 3 transmitters and 3 receivers, deployed on
an hexagon, as it is shown on the figure below (showing both the probability of detection and the horizontal
accuracy for a target flying at an altitude of 3500ft AGL).
PoD = 0.99
50 Nm
Figure 3.
MSPSR typical horizontal accuracy
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 17 of 92
The performance figures of MSPSR are very flexible but a typical horizontal accuracy of 20 m is achievable. More
precisely, it was shown that the following accuracies could be achieved:
UAV
Bizjet
Liner
(Z < 30 kft)
(Z < 60 kft)
(Z < 60 kft)
Plot Level
50 m
25 m
20 m
After filtering
25 m
15 m
15 m
XY Accuracy
Note that tracking is possible down to the ground but with PCL the highest covered altitude will depend on the
opportunity transmitters’ characteristics. For example with digital TV transmitters PCL coverage is often limited to
5 000 ft. Above Ground Level (AGL).
A typical MSPSR coverage in a vertical plane is shown below:
50 Nm
Z = 10 m
Figure 4.
MSPSR typical vertical coverage at low altitude
MSPSR provides additional information like the altitude (although the operational requirement is not yet
standardised) and instantaneous 3D velocity vector. As it is done for horizontal target location, altitude is obtained
by a kind of multilateration method, and instantaneous 3D velocity vector is extracted from multiple simultaneous
Doppler measurements on different bistatic paths.
Vertical accuracy depends on the target altitude, and degrades for lower altitudes. It is anticipated that this
information will be delivered together with an estimation of its accuracy, which will allow the ATC centre to use this
data in an optimal way. Typical performances were shown to be as follows:
50 Nm
Z = 3 kft
Figure 5.
MSPSR typical vertical accuracy
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 18 of 92
MSPSR’s 3D capacity is delivered as part of the generic MSPSR product and the performance of the third
dimension measurements results system design parameters and geographical distribution of the stations. If no
specific requirement is placed on the third dimension position accuracy, the system will provide this information as
a by-product of the MSPSR configuration.
Should any requirement be put on the third dimension, the system design will be adapted accordingly; this could
for instance result in a denser repartition of stations or in different antenna technology. An example is a MSPSR
configuration, which in addition to the PSR functionality, should offer the possibility to provide Precision Approach
Radar services, in this case named MSPAR (Multi-Static Precision Approach Radar). In such occasions two
receivers are used when only one is necessary for conventional MSPSR stations.
The below MSPSR figures need to be refined, however existing studies and current works show the following
metrics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2
Typical MSPSR configuration for a TMA (50NM x 50NM, altitude from 0 to 10kft), with PoD > 90% on 1m
RCS:
o 3 Rx
o 3 Tx
Transmitted peak power: 500 W for MSPSR, (0 W for PCL).
Frequency 1215 to 1370 MHz for L-band MSPSR, 2700 to 2900 MHz for S-Band MSPSR, (400 to 800
MHz for PCL,)
Linear Polarisation
Instantaneous bandwidth in the order of 1 MHz
Typical horizontal accuracy 20 m
Renewal rate adjustable from 0.5s up to 5s,
Estimated number of expected failure for a typical MSPSR configuration (50 NM x 50NM, such as defined
above) evaluated to less than one per year
Note that MSPSR is a structurally redundant system in which we have a graceful degradation of the performances
when failures occur. In particular loss of one Transmitter or Receiver does not affect the Operational Service,
which is to provide plot data to the ATC Centre
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 19 of 92
3.3 Functional architecture
The analysis process that permits this functional architecture definition is of course an iterative one with several
return trips to the requirements and user needs. As such while a preliminary functional architecture is presented
here and in the next chapter how it fulfils the major requirements applicable to surveillance Radars, a large part of
the architecture was designed with those requirements in mind.
3.3.1 Multistatic architecture benefit for transmitted power
By principle several sites are needed for MSPSR to cover large zones with low power transmission and also low
EIRP (cf. §3.1). While numerous sites are a constraint it has a tremendous interest when looking at the
transmitted power level. On another hand, multiplicity of sites also provides redundancy to the global system.
The advantage of covering a given zone with several low power Tx, can be found in the fact that for a given signal
to noise ratio the needed transmit power PTxmin to detect an aircraft at a given distance DMax, is of:
4
, where K is a constant defined by aircraft and Radar types.
PTx min = K ⋅ DMax
Note that MSPSR system can have their Tx and Rx at different location hence: PTx min = K ⋅ DTx DRx , where DTx 2
2
DRx are the distance between the Tx - Rx and the aircraft. However this as only a minor incidence for the current
4
discussion as the covered surface can still be expressed as proportional to a DMax , where this DMax is the
geometric average of DTx and DRx:
DMax = DTx DRx .
Now let’s consider multiple systems individually covering area of d radius with: DMax
some overlapping between the small surfaces the covered area is reduced to:
π
2
= n ⋅ d . Taking into account
d² =
2
π DMax
2 n²
need 2n² system to cover the same surface the total transmitted power is only of:
. Hence while you
PT MS =
PTx min
,
n²
2
i.e. the power is then divided by the square of the number of Tx.
There are at least two limits on this rationale:
- Aircraft should also be detected vertically,
- Whatever the size of a Tx element there is probably an installation and operation minimum cost below
which it is not possible to go.
Taking a look at the maximum vertical coverage, it can be found in the needs of en-route ATC so up to 60 Kft.
Considering isotropic transmissions a minimum for d can be fixed at 15 NM with spacing between systems of
about 10 NM. 60 Kft. is nearly equal to 10 NM and so with 15 NM for the maximum range of an individual system
vertical redundancy is ensured when adjacent elements are spaced by 10 NM. Such spacing maybe a seem
dense on the ground but it is of the same order than what was used for the ADT study (in which it has been
evaluated as cost effective and practical.
Note that these issues of power efficiency have a significant impact on the global system cost. Furthermore they
also are a facilitating factor in countries where spectrum usage regulations are becoming more stringent.
The system characteristics given in §3.2 provide a detection range of 30 NM. Should the transmitter be isotropic
this detection range is only effective for a frequency of ~300 MHz. Should higher frequencies be considered as the
power budget is proportional to the square of the wavelength, it has to be compensated in some way.
Here the probably most cost-effective mean is to increase Tx-Rx antennas directivity. As rotating antennas are far
too costly for such small system, directivity is to be found in elevation and not azimuth as in most rotating Radar.
For L (1215 – 1370 MHz) or S-band (2700 – 2900 MHz) MSPSR this means a covered elevation sector of 0° to
30° and 0 ° to 15° respectively.
However the identified first usage of an MSPSR system is to provide coverage of a TMA, especially at low
altitudes. To fulfil this need detection up to 10-15 kft is sufficient and the system aperture in elevation for both L
and S band MSPSR fulfils it.
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 20 of 92
3.3.2 Base station architecture
The below figure shows a preliminary functional architecture diagram of a base station:
Rxi/Txi
Multi-source
Receiver
Analog +
Digital
Direct path
Rejection
Filter
Bistatic Tracking
Direct path
Reference
signals
extraction
and decoding
Txi
CFAR
detections
Cross
Correlations
Rxi/Txi Management
MSPSR data
Rx1, Rx2 …Rxi …Rxn data
Txi encoding and
Waveform
generator
CENTRAL
UNIT
MSPSR Tracker (equipped tracks)
and Management
ATC centre
Asterix Plots/Asterix Tracks
(HW data link)
Figure 6.
MSPSR Local
MMI & Display
Preliminary functional architecture diagram of an MSPSR base station.
In this architecture Tx and Rx are co-localised but do not necessarily use the same antenna.
In the red-blue boxes the red signal from the aircrafts is mixed with the direct path blue signal received directly
from the Txs. The blue boxes are dealing with the fast signal processing of the direct path to extract the
broadcasted data, characterised the reference signal and transmit it.
The green boxes show the functions that use reduced data flows and mainly deal with data processing and base
station management.
The brown part is only required for the central unit of the MSPSR system.
Still along the adaptability of the system to its various sites, the RF-data link can be impaired by a particular base
station lack of Line Of Sight (LOS) to one of the central units. The data rate required for a given station is however
very low compared to the available throughput of the link. The stations are only transmitting some system
management and control data with their detected plots. Then each base station can easily behave as a repeater
for the ones lacking LOS to the central unit. In the end when the base stations sites are chosen they only need to
have LOS between them.
Scalability is then two-fold for an MSPSR system:
-
Scalable in performances: improved accuracy, MSPAR functions, aircraft kinetic information and/or 3D
position functions.
-
Scalable in covered volume.
Both axes are accessible by the simple addition of standard base-stations.
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 21 of 92
3.4 MSPSR Spectrum needs
One issue with active MSPSR is that as they are some dedicated transmitters to implement, the system needs
some part of the spectrum. This chapter analyses the optimal frequencies and waveform for MSPSR, compares to
the available frequency range and proposes one.
3.4.1 Frequency band impact
There is no universal ATM Surveillance radar system design that can serve all purposes. Radars may be
constrained by a lot of factors and considerations.
The aim of this part is to provide some information about the design of a radar, and to understand the choice of
the spectrum consequently to functional and operational needs. However, it is important to note that a radar is a
compromise between multiple parameters and factors. A parameter has often multiple opposed effects, and its
value has to be chosen carefully.
3.4.1.1 Frequency, angular resolution and system size
Angular resolution is directly related to the frequency and to the antenna size. In the typical monostatic Radar the
resolution angles in azimuth and elevation are approximately of:
λ
Antenna width
and
λ
Antenna height
, where λ is the wavelength.
However with the MSPSR angular resolution is only needed to help the tracker between its various hypotheses.
Localisation of the aircraft is obtained by the intersection of the revolution ellipsoids provided by each Rx/Tx
measurement.
Resolution in elevation is nonetheless required for MSPAR functions.
Airport operations often require radar to have a limited size. Indeed, the available physical space is often limited.
Moreover, some system could be designed as portable ones, which limit their weight and their size.
The expressed beamwidth and the given antenna size determine the transmission frequency of the radar.
Inversely, one can choose its frequency for other reasons, and consequently, has to design its antenna in order to
obtain the wanted beamwidth.
3.4.1.2 Frequency and reflectivity / RCS
The reflectivity or the Radar Cross Section (RCS) of a phenomenon or an object illuminated by a radar measures
the ratio of energy scattered back by the phenomenon or the object to the radar on the transmitted energy.
Depending on the phenomenon or the object observed, while the mean value of the RCS does not vary much with
the frequency, RCS variation with the angle of observation increases with the frequency of operation. A strong
influence on the detection is the relative movement of the aircraft compared to the Rx/Tx pair that detects it. As
several pairs observe the aircraft at any given time, the detection should be slightly improved at system level when
the frequency increases.
The reflectivity of weather phenomena appears as a noise in the MSPSR detection budget and should be
minimized through the choice of system design parameters i.e. circular polarisation, MTD algorithms, etc.
3.4.1.3 Frequency and diffraction fringes
Especially at low altitude the detection capability of a radar system can be seriously impaired by the occurrence of
diffraction fringes. This phenomenon is unavoidable and shapes the effective diagram of the system’s antenna in
a set of “petals” or lobes, whose outline envelope is the expected original beam pattern diagram. If the target is in
a ‘detection petal/lobe’ then the actual detection is improved, but between ‘petals/lobes’ it can be degraded to a
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 22 of 92
non-detection. Increasing the frequency and thus the number of petals/lobes can mitigate this. In that case an
aircraft, being a moving target, will not stay long enough outside petals to lose track.
Additionally this effect can be mitigated if the system has frequency diversity between bistatic bases and/or if there
is some height diversity between the altitudes of the deployed antenna elements.
Figure 7.
Low altitude detection compared capabilities UHF (left) & X-band (right).
Conversely this diffraction phenomenon is beneficial is the presence of obstacles on the ground at the lower
frequencies. The above figure clearly shows that in UHF the radar can detect behind the obstacle, whereas in Xband the obstacle creates quite a big radar shadow.
For the MSPSR application, as the system highest level of redundancy is to ensure detection at low altitude, the
best compromise should lay in the direction of higher frequencies, considering that there is always one bistatic
bases behind any significant obstacle.
3.4.1.4 Frequency and attenuation
Attenuation is a frequency-dependent phenomenon, which represents the macroscopical effect of the interaction
between an electromagnetic wave and particles. Those particles can be ashes and hydrometeors (rain, snow, fog,
hail). With increasing frequencies, EM waves tend to be more attenuated by the atmosphere and by weather
phenomena. The associated radar range is thus consequently reduced.
Figure 8.
Atmospheric attenuation and rain attenuation with the operating frequency.
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 23 of 92
When considering operations by clear weather, atmospheric absorption and molecular dispersion are considered.
When considering rainy weather, rain attenuation has to be considered in addition.
The operating frequency thus depends on the range requirement of the radar, the attenuation being an important
parameter to determine the range of the system. (Note that to avoid possible endless discussions, all attenuationnon-directly-dependant parameters are considered constant (antenna size, transmitted power, number of
transmitters…).) Attenuation due to weather phenomena is to be minimized as much as possible while taking into
account all other frequency dependant parameters.
This dependence between the operating frequency and the attenuation leads to the following generalities:
•
•
Long range radars tend to operate on lower frequencies,
Systems operating at high frequencies have short range due to an important attenuation (all other nondependant parameters being constant).
Furthermore attenuation varies strongly with the observation elevation angle:
Figure 9.
Atmospheric attenuation with the operating frequency and elevation angle
Hence the need to position the antennas on high points.
3.4.1.5 Frequency and weather conditions
One of the SESAR requirements for the future ATM systems is that it is necessary to have systems able to
monitor events of interest in nearly all weather conditions. As the surveillance system mission is to detect aircraft,
a candidate operating frequency is one that maximizes the capability to detect aircraft of interest while minimizing
the attenuation and the reflectivity of all weather phenomena. As the improvement in detection is only small, the
lower the frequency the better.
The two figures below show the mean values of the reflectivity of rain and also ground clutter:
Figure 10.
Rain and Ground Clutter Reflectivity models
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 24 of 92
While the ground clutter is not a weather phenomenon it impacts the MSPSR power budget in the same way than
the rain clutter and its effect also decreases with the frequency. S, L and UHF refer to the frequency bands.
3.4.1.6 Frequency and regulations (congestion and man-made noise)
Radio electric systems have to abide by the Radio Regulations, to ensure compatibility and cohabitation between
systems. Hence, frequency bands as determined by definition studies to be the most efficient cannot always be
allowed, for reasons of congestion or compatibility. For instance, radars operating in C band need to share the
spectrum with numerous other systems. This results in the use of multiple slots of operating frequencies to
achieve the mission, leading to a technically more complicated solution.
On top of that, even if a band is deemed available to operate new radar, the current ambient noise has to be taken
into account when designing the sensitivity of the system. Once deployed, any increase in the ambient noise (for
instance due to a new assignment of a neighbouring radio electric system) may impact the radar performance. If
Radio Regulations authorities perform compatibility studies for the introduction of new systems, it may happen that
the scenario of deployment of those new systems far exceeds the anticipated number of transmitters to be
deployed. The consequence is an increase of the man-made noise impacting the radar sensibility.
One has to accept an allowed centre frequency (and corresponding spectrum) defined by the national frequency
authority (for example, the ANFR in France).
The below figure shows the impact of man-made noise on the antenna noise factor and or temperature versus
frequency.
A: Estimated median city area man-made noise
B: Galactic noise,
C: Galactic noise (toward galactic centre with infinitely narrow beamwidth,
D: Quiet Sun (1/2° beamwidth directed at Sun),
E: Sky noise due to oxygen and water vapour (very narrow beam antenna), upper curve 0° elevation
angle, lower curve 90° elevation angle.
F: Black body (cosmic background), 2.7°K, minimum n oise level expected.
Figure 11.
Antenna noise factor/temperature Fa/ta versus frequency
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 25 of 92
While the estimated median city area man made noise (curve A) corresponds to the maximum observable level
for at least 5% of the time, it is still a parameter to take into account. Considered coarsely it nearly compensates
the wavelength factor in the MSPSR budget. Unfortunately no data was found for curve A above 1 GHz, apart
from the fact that man-made noise do not drop sharply to the C, E and F curves few things can be said.
However there is a clear optimum band from 1 to 3 GHz. Furthermore as the man made noise in an airport TMA is
probably not far from a median city one with a trend to increase with time in level and frequency, UHF-band and
maybe lower L-band appear too crowded and noisy for MSPSR usage.
3.4.1.7 Conclusion on the Frequency Band
Conclusion is that the best Frequency Band for MSPSR operation is the radar L-band (1215 – 1370 MHz).
Leading point for this choice is the level of man-made noise.
On another hand several phenomenon are best tackled by lower frequencies, especially in the UHF-band.
However an L-band (1215 – 1370 MHz) system could deal with that for a small cost increment when compared to
UHF-band.
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 26 of 92
3.4.2 Bandwidth impact
3.4.2.1 Bandwidth and range resolution
The range resolution is inversely proportional to the system bandwidth and is given by the following formula:
dcell =
c
2.B
Where:
•
dcell: depth of a cell in km.
•
c: light speed in m/s.
•
B: Bandwidth in Hz.
Range resolution is defined as the smallest visible distance
between two separate cells, for monostatic radar it is along the
radar beam’s centreline, i.e. in the radial direction. Cells that are
closer than this minimum distance will be displayed on the radar
as a single cell. With multi static systems it is more complex, as
the resolution varies slightly with the bistatic angle β.
DRx
Rx
β
B
DTx
Tx
Through bandwidth diversity, high resolution is obtained (usually at short range) whereas for long-range detection,
smaller bandwidths provide increased sensitivity and tend to equalize the along-beam and crossbeam resolutions.
Note: Other practical factors may reduce the actual resolution. For example, if the radar’s signal processor does
not have the capacity to process range bins rapidly enough, resolution will be lost, even though the radar may use
very wide bandwidth.
3.4.2.2 MSPSR and range resolution
Now let’s look at the type of target the MSPSR has to detect. They are aircrafts and as such of a maximum
dimension of 70 m and minimum of a few meters.
According to the above formulae what we can see on the below figure is the size in “MHz” of our aircrafts:
Figure 12.
Aircraft sizes/types and resolution distance/bandwidth
Note that a resolution of 150 m is fully compatible with the most stringent accuracy requirements of positioning of
aircrafts in the ATC scope.
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 27 of 92
Then with bandwidth in excess of 1 MHz, the larger aircraft will be often detected in several range resolution cells.
This is a complex issue for the radar’s tracking algorithm and hence has a significant impact on system costs.
Conversely, at 10 MHz only the smallest aircraft will be detected in one cell.
An additional consideration is that with a ratio of 10 between bandwidths, the number of cells in the detection
volume increases by a factor 1 000, and the computation load also.
However for MSPSR the accuracy issue is more complex when looking at 3D positioning.
As the MSPSR network of antennas and ground stations will be roughly in the same altitude plane, the Geometric
Dilution Of Precision (GDOP) shall be quite high for altitude measurements.
The simulation below shows the impact of bandwidth on altitude accuracy for a typical MSPSR configuration.
Bdw = 1 MHz
Bdw = 10 MHz
V=75 m/s
Figure 13.
V=75 m/s
Simulation of the impact of the bandwidth for the MSPSR configuration of §3.2,
average Z accuracy of 185 m for 1 MHz and 60 m for 10 MHz.
These simulations provide an indication of the accuracy at “plots” level. Considering that at least a factor 2
improvement is feasible with tracking, with only 1 MHz the accuracy level is already sufficient for most ATC
purposes, based on the fact that the required vertical accuracy is approximately 600 m or higher.
Nonetheless, Thales has already run some trials with proof-of-concept prototypes, whose results have proven the
feasibility of altitude measurements with a MSPSR system.
3.4.2.3 Bandwidth and sensitivity
A narrow bandwidth in reception minimizes the power transmitted by adjacent band users and received by the
radar. By decreasing the overall noise received, decreasing the bandwidth thus effectively increases the radar’s
sensibility to the phenomenon/object of interest.
3.4.2.4 Conclusion on Bandwidth
A minimal instantaneous bandwidth of 1 MHz is required.
With 10 MHz, MSPSR systems can improve their 3D position measurements, with 2D horizontal position accuracy
commensurate with the best ATM PSRs presently available.
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 28 of 92
3.4.3 Waveform
3.4.3.1 Spectrum occupancy
One of the most important aspect of the MSPSR transmitted waveform is its spectrum occupancy i.e. the portion
of the spectrum that need to be reserved for the function. Two types of spectral architecture, not necessarily
independent, exist:
TxN
TxN
B
Tx1
Tx1
~ 2.B
~ 2.N.B
~ 2.(1+α).B
Conventional architecture:
Spread Spectrum architecture:
Useful bandwidth: N.B
Spectrum occupancy: ~ 2.N.B
Useful bandwidth: N.B
Spectrum occupancy: ~ 2.(1+α).B
Figure 14.
Waveform spectral architecture.
In the conventional architecture each Tx is using a dedicated B bandwidth isolated from the other by B wide
intervals. In this case independence is fully ensured, but the spectrum occupancy is high requiring 2.N.B.
With the spread spectrum architecture all Tx are using the same band at the same time and segregated from
each other thought he use of a different code pattern. In this code space, the waveforms are orthogonal and
separated from each within the Rx. The level of orthogonally and thus separation power between different codes
varies with the type of code and comes with a scalar shown here by the α parameter. The scalar α is typically well
below 1 and scales with the required level of cross code isolation.
For MSPSR application the system do not required full code isolation, only the capacity to associate the detection
to the relevant Tx. This can be provided by codes with an α value in the order of 10%.
Spread spectrum architecture is then more efficient than the conventional one by nearly a factor N, where N is the
number of Tx of the considered MSPSR system, 6 in our example of §3.2.
However we have also to consider isolation between MSPSR systems. In that
case the conventional architecture is recommended, as the distance between
two MSPSR systems may not permit correct code identification while still
providing a detrimental level of interferences.
Now let’s consider that each MSPSR system shall be covering an area
symbolized by a circle with an overlapping equal to the radius of each circle,
probably a worst case of systems implementation as overlapping is not
necessary for the already highly redundant MSPSR.
B4
B3
B1
B1
B2
B3
B4
As shown in the right hand side figure, only 4 different bandwidths are required to
ensure complete isolation between systems.
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 29 of 92
This interesting property is depicted here for 6 systems but it can be extended to the whole plan by replication of
this elementary pattern.
As this number (4) of different bandwidths is a theoretical value one should consider heavily constrained area,
mountains, non-accessible sites … which may requires an additional bandwidths, hence a factor 5.
The required spectrum occupancy shall then be of 5.2.(1+α).B.
Considering the identified values of B in the preceding paragraphs (from 1 to 10 MHz) and rounding α to 12.5%,
the MSPSR needs between 12,5 MHz and 125 MHz for a worldwide deployment.
3.4.3.2 Waveform and frequency
A worthwhile additional consideration is to analyse the impact of the frequency of the waveform requirements
(here measurement recurrence and multiple waveforms usage are implied in the “waveform requirements”
notion).
As the frequency increases the Doppler frequency of an aircraft at a given speed also increases. Then for a given
measurement update rate the ambiguity in speed decreases. However, to reject the rain clutter the system cannot
accept too low ambiguity in speed.
Therefore, given the ambiguity constraint in speed the system has to tolerate some amount of ambiguity in
distance, which in turn is a problem for near ground clutter rejection.
This can be solved by subtle management of these effects in the waveform, but this management has an impact
on the measurement time that increases with the operating frequency.
3.4.3.3 Conclusion on Waveform
A combined scheme of conventional independent channels with spread spectrum techniques used in each
channel is recommended for MSPSR.
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 30 of 92
3.4.4 Frequency band and bandwidth conclusion
The choice of a radar operating frequency is impacted by different parameters like
•
the available antenna size (linked to angular resolution),
•
the reflectivity (or RCS) of the phenomenon/object of interest,
•
the targeted range (linked to the attenuation),
•
the weather phenomena that could degrade the radar performances,
•
the availability and low noise characteristic of the identified candidate band.
Changing the radar receiver and transmitter’s bandwidth changes the radar’s sensitivity and range resolution.
Unfortunately, those changes oppose each other. As a consequence, the bandwidth should be chosen as the
minimum value to satisfy the range resolution requirement. In addition to those parameters, congestion
constraints can sometimes impose to split the required bandwidth into several sub-slots. However, that kind of
technical solution should to be avoided as it leads to higher system costs.
In terms of computability with existing PSR due to the low level of EIRP of the MSPSR system and its high
capability of adaptation inside its band, it is ensured.
Functional and costs considerations further indicate that the L-band, [1215 MHz – 1370 MHz] RNS/ARNS band,
is best suited to operate civil ATM MSPSR.
The table below illustrates that the spectrum estimation need for a worldwide deployment of MSPSR is somehow
between 12,5 MHz and 125 MHz. The precise value will depend upon the performances required (in particular the
altitude information accuracy) and the specific deployment conditions. Note that different MSPSR systems may
also be proposed to satisfy the different potential requirements of civil and military operations.
Level in the system
MSPSR Base station (instantaneous band width)
MSPSR System
All MSPSR Systems worldwide
Band needs in MHz
Minimal need Maximum need
(Improved 3D)
1
10
2.5
25
12.5
125
Most salient rationales for this choice are the level of man-made noise and the lack of spectrum in the UHF-band.
The S-band (2700 – 2900 MHz) while not rejected appears to be too costly for now. Elements of cost analysis
indicates that it increases for a given area to cover with the square of the frequency, hence today an S-band
MSPSR should be 4 time more expensive than an L-band (1215 – 1370 MHz) one. Note that for the L-band (1215
– 1370 MHz) system this cost increment can be compensated by lesser man made noise and antenna directivity
when compared to UHF-band.
Then there is no need to ask for the introduction of new ITU Services. MSPSR are assessed as compatible with
the other users in the ARNS, RNS or RLS bands already allocated. Studies shall have to be performed to further
assess this compatibility.
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 31 of 92
4. Assessment of MSPSR and PSR Surveillance technologies
This document presents a synthesis on current and anticipated performance of different ATM Surveillance
systems. Most part of the information gathered were extracted from public sources (internet, publications…) and
from THALES own experience.
On top of that, exchanges with dedicated SESAR projects enabled the team to consolidate information and last
trends of evolution.
4.1 Definitions
4.1.1 Surveillance Terms
Aeronautical Surveillance System is defined in ICAO Doc 9924 as a system that “provides the aircraft position
and other related information to ATM and/or airborne users. In most cases, an aeronautical surveillance system
provides its user with knowledge of “who” is “where” and “when.” Other information provided may include
horizontal and vertical speed data, identifying characteristics or intent. The required data and its technical
performance parameters are specific to the application that is being used. As a minimum, the aeronautical
surveillance system provides position information on aircraft or vehicles at a known time.
The requirements for ATS surveillance systems are contained in the Procedures for Air Navigation Services — Air
Traffic Management (PANS-ATM, Doc 4444), Chapters 6 and 8.
The aeronautical surveillance system defined in ICAO Doc 9924 comprises several elements which will be
operated based on the requirements of a specific application. Neither the applications nor the end-users are part
of the aeronautical surveillance system.
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 32 of 92
Figure 15.
Aeronautical surveillance system
This document focuses upon those ground-based components comprising the ICAO term of ‘local surveillance
sub-system’ – namely the surveillance sensor(s)/receiver(s) and surveillance data processing.
The surveillance service delivered to ground users may be based on a number of techniques:
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 33 of 92
Independent Non-Cooperative Surveillance (as defined in ICAO 9924)
The aircraft position is derived from measurement not using the cooperation of the remote aircraft. An example is
a system using PSR, which provides aircraft position but not identity or any other aircraft data.
Independent Cooperative Surveillance (as defined in ICAO 9924)
The position is derived from measurements performed by a local surveillance subsystem using aircraft
transmissions. Aircraft-derived information (e.g. pressure altitude, aircraft identity) can be provided from those
transmissions.
Dependent Cooperative Surveillance (as defined in ICAO 9924)
The position is derived on board the aircraft and is provided to the local surveillance subsystem along with
possible additional data (e.g. aircraft identity, pressure altitude).
The table below summarises the categories that the various existing and new ground-based air traffic Surveillance
sensors fall into:
Air traffic surveillance sensor
Independent
Primary Surveillance Radar (PSR)
Non cooperative
Multi-Static Primary Surveillance Radar (MSPSR)
Independent
Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR) Mode A/C and Mode S
Wide Area Multilateration (WAM) system
MultiLATeration (MLAT) system
Cooperative
Dependent
Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B)
Figure 16.
Categories of air traffic surveillance sensors
Composite Forms of Surveillance are means whereby two or more surveillance techniques are co-located
to achieve either benefits in cost (deploying and maintaining at a single site may be cheaper than for a widely
distributed set of systems) or which could bring functional benefits through the sharing of surveillance data (e.g.
ADS-B collocated with a Mode S ground station could achieve RF efficiencies and improved detection capabilities)
4.1.2 Miscellaneous Terms
Air Navigation Service Provider means any public or private entity providing air navigation services for general
air traffic.
Aircraft Derived Data
Different cooperative surveillance technologies obtain different information from the aircraft.
In its simplest form, the Mode A and Mode C information provided by the aircrafts SSR transponder can be
classified as aircraft derived data or down-linked aircraft parameters.
When implemented SSR Mode-S Elementary Surveillance, SSR Mode-S Enhanced Surveillance and ADS-B the
additional current or short term Aircraft Parameters (also commonly known as Downlinked Aircraft Parameters –
DAPs) may be extracted from the aircraft.
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 34 of 92
ATM Security
ATM security is defined as “Protective measures against both direct and indirect threats, attacks and acts of
1
unlawful interference to the ATM System ”. This includes the role of the ATM system to support aircraft that are
subject to unlawful interference and to maintain the safety of nearby aircraft. Accordingly, ATM security concerns
three aspects:
•
Protection of ATM facilities and systems (e.g. infrastructure, information, operational capabilities) against
attacks;
• Prevention of mis-use of the ATM system for criminal acts;
• Detection of an incident (e.g. a terrorist threat or criminal activity), reporting to appropriate authorities
(e.g. air defence or police) and orderly response, which entails mitigation of the effects, activation of
contingency measures and recovery actions.
Automatic Dependent Surveillance – Broadcast (ADS-B)
ADS-B is a surveillance technique in which an appropriately equipped aircraft periodically broadcasts its position
and other relevant information to potential ground stations and other aircraft with ADS-B-in equipment.
Surveillance Data Users
The users of Surveillance data include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Oceanic ATM Centres
En-Route ATM Centres
TMA/Approach ATM Units
Airports/Tower ATM & Ground Traffic Management Units
Military Centres
Enhanced Tactical Flow Management System
Data processing systems such as Flight Data Processing Systems
ATM Tools, such as Short Term Conflict Alert
The target (in the case of ADS-B IN)
Non ATM functions (e.g. Search and Rescue).
Inherent availability
In accordance with ED-126, availability is considered to be a part of reliability, and is defined as the
probability that a system will perform its required function at the initiation of the intended operation.
Availability is quantified as the ratio of the time the system is actually available to the time the system is
planned to be available.
Availability =
MTBF
MTBF + MTTR
MTBF: Mean Time Between Failure
MTTR: Mean Time To Repair
“Inherent” means that the availability is not site specific and does not take into account constraints like available
resources, proximity of spares...
4.1.3 Miscellaneous Terms
To assess the different Air Traffic Surveillance systems and capabilities, this document uses as rationalisation
criteria the concept of Key Performance Area (KPA) listed below:
•
1
Access and Equity,
NEASCOG: ATM Security Strategy, AC/92 (NEASCOG)D(2006)0001, 13 April 2006
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 35 of 92
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Capacity,
Cost effectiveness,
Efficiency,
Environmental sustainability,
Flexibility,
Interoperability
Participation,
Predictability,
Safety,
Security,
Human performance.
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 36 of 92
4.2 Assessment of MSPSR technology
4.2.1 System description
Please refer to §3. However we have completed our analysis in terms of system footprint.
4.2.1.1 RF footprint
RF footprint is null for PCL (no additional transmission is needed with regards to already existing transmitters)
MSPSR instantaneous bandwidth is in the order of 1 MHz per transmitter; bandwidth consumption for the
complete system is to be more precisely analysed in §3.4.
It is anticipated that the same transmission channel will be used for data exchange between stations and with the
ATC Centre, leading to a fully wireless communication system.
The pressure on the L-band from other spectrum users, mainly telecommunication (GSM), can be seen as
potential threats to ATM Surveillance and needs firm monitoring.
4.2.1.2 Mechanical footprint
MSPSR Tx and Rx are installed on top of mast whose height is driven by LOS considerations. The following
typical arrangement can be proposed:
Rx Antenna
Tx Antenna
(e.g. ¼ Wave)
RF Box
Coaxial Cable
Gbit Ethernet
+ Power Line
30m Mast
(GFE)
30m Mast
(GFE)
Transmitter
Box
Processing
Box
Ethernet
(GFE)
Ethernet
(GFE)
Power Line
(GFE)
Power Line
(GFE)
Receiver
Transmitter
If a WAM system is already deployed in the area to cover, the same location for MSPSR station can be used and
the mechanical footprint is null. If not it is the same than for WAM.
Interfaces are anticipated as follows:
Central
Unit
Mechanical
Electrical
Communication
Logical
Central Unit preferably housed in an existing
building (e.g. ATC Centre)
Power Line
(< 1 kVA)
Ethernet link
(< 100 Mbit/s)
ASTERIX
Power
Line
(< 1 kVA)
Ethernet link or
integrated within
Tx channel
(< 100 Mbit/s)
Standard
Power Line
Ethernet link or
Standard
Rx Antenna and Rx RF Box to be fixed on top of
existing mast.
Rx
Rx Processing Box to be installed near the base
of the mast.
The mast should support cables between RF Box
and Rx Proc. Box (Gbit Ethernet).
Tx
Tx Antenna to be fixed on top of existing mast.
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 37 of 92
Tx Box to be installed near the base of the mast.
The mast should support cables between Tx Box
and Tx Antenna (coaxial cables and Ethernet
link).
(< 5 kVA)
integrated within
Tx channel
(< 10 Mbit/s)
4.2.1.3 Digital footprint
A data-link is required between stations and a central unit. With PCL, a 500 kbps data-link is required, with
MSPSR it is provided by the transmission.
4.2.1.4 Geographical footprint
A footprint spacing is some m².
If no building or natural relief is available to install the antenna, a mast 10 to 30 m high mast is required (for LOS
considerations)
Field deployment constraints are to have the base stations on as high points as possible For PCL there is an
additional constraint, which is a minimal distance of some kilometres to the nearest opportunity transmitter. This
distance may have to be adjusted according to the power level of the opportunity transmitters.
For military MSPAR systems, the envisaged configuration is based on the same elements as MSPSR, but
arranged in a specific way. Furthermore, for achieving the required accuracy in elevation, one relies on the same
“mirror” effect as already used by the ILS.
The ILS uses two (or more) transmitting antenna located near the runway threshold. These antennas have a
broad pattern; they are installed at different altitudes and the terrain in front of the antennas is prepared in order to
act as a mirror. The receiver on board the landing aircraft receives, from each antenna, the combination of the
direct path and the reflected path, which generates a signal having the same properties of a larger transmission
antenna (made up of the true antenna and its “image”).
The pair of transmission antennas is used for generating different patterns, in order for the receiver to realise a
kind of very accurate “monopulse” elevation measurement.
Propagation being reversible, the same physical properties can be used for a primary system, and is applicable to
MSPAR, provided that the target is reradiating towards the receivers the signal coming from transmitter(s), as it is
shown below:
Figure 17.
Mirror effect for MSPAR
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 38 of 92
4.2.2 Technology assessment to Key Performance Areas
MSPSR is anticipated to offer many advantages over conventional PSR. They are detailed in the following
chapters and listed below:
• Lower cost,
•
Scalable and adaptable configurations,
•
Gapfiller capability,
•
3D position and velocity data,
•
Faster update rate (0.5 to 1 s compared to 4-5 s),
•
More flexible maintenance,
•
Graceful performance degradation in case of a failure,
•
Resistant to interferences caused by wind farms,
•
Limited wired infrastructure thanks to an intelligent use of spectrum for detection, synchronization and
data communication between stations (active MSPSR).
4.2.2.1 Access and Equity
MSPSR are independent sensors, as such they impose no requirements on aircrafts or other systems. The limits
to the service are the Radar Cross Section of the aircraft (RCS) and particular propagation effects.
4.2.2.2 Capacity
MSPSR capacity shall be set at the same level than PSR, i.e. tracking capability of about 1000 aircraft at the same
time.
Altitude information and estimation of the MSPSR accuracy will improve capacity.
4.2.2.3 Cost effectiveness
The relative costs given in this section correspond to the acquisition cost for a system providing coverage for a
typical TMA, and no provision for a demonstrator, nor for the design, development and industrialisation (Non
Recurring Costs) is made in this section.
Typical acquisition cost of an L-band MSPSR system is expected to be the same as previously assessed: 55% to
65% of an S-band PSR in a 6 stations (3 Tx and 3 Rx) configuration covering a 50x50 NM square. For such a
system, a cost effective logistic support could be proposed during all the system life-cycle, such as illustrated
below:
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 39 of 92
Customer MSPSR sites
Customer office
MDT < 5 DAYS
PROBLEM REPORTING
TECHNICAL EXPERT INTERVENTION
WITHIN 5 DAYS
INTERVENTION CAPABILITY
TRAINED MANPOWER
FACTORY REPAIR ACTIVITIES
BUFFER STOCK
TEST BENCHES – TOOLS & TEST EQUIPM ENT
M ANPOWER
DOCUM ENTATION
CONFIGURATION. M ANAGEM ENT
SUPPLIERS M ANAGEM ENT
Figure 18.
Industry office
“Zero-Spare” Maintenance concept
One very interesting advantage from the classic PSR is that the traditional logistic support could be reduced for
the MSPSR system, and the logistics and maintenance costs drastically decreased.
In fact, the initial logistic support could be reduced at the minimum:
• No on site human maintenance resources (the industry would come on site for repairs),
• No maintenance facilities (storage, workshop,…),
• No specific maintenance documentation,
• No specific maintenance or Operational training,
• No specific maintenance Tools & Test Equipment,
• No on site spare consumables,
• Possibility to centralize the LRU spare in industrial facilities for all customers common use
4.2.2.4 Efficiency
MSPSR has a high level of efficiency, as it is scalable and adaptable to local needs.
MSPSR will contribute to improve the efficiency with regards to PSR through altitude information (with an
estimation of its accuracy). For instance, if a non-cooperative aircraft enters into controlled airspace, a PSR would
let the ATC know of its presence but not its height. Consequently the ATC would need to clear the airspace above
and below the aircraft. MSPSR shall provide altitude information which should alleviate this inefficient practice.
MSPSR Low power transmission implies low RF footprint and light deployment constraints.
4.2.2.5 Environmental sustainability
MSPSR do not have as a system a significant impact on environment and are part of the ATM that can be seen as
an enabler to improved airline operation, which, in turn contribute to environmental sustainability.
Since MSPSR is envisaged to use transmitted signals for detection, synchronization and data communication
between stations, the wired infrastructure may in some cases be limited to power source. This solution would not
increase the required bandwidth of the system.
MSPSR is inherently resistant to wind-farms effects and is a solution of choice to maintain ATM over such
installation. Indeed, the masking effect of Wind Turbines can be compensated by placing adequately two
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 40 of 92
transmitters for a low additional cost. Moreover, false plots are reduced because of the MSPSR small distance /
Doppler ambiguity.
4.2.2.6 Flexibility
As long as stations can be deployed on the ground, MSPSR is at the epitome of flexibility; it provides coverage
exactly where needed. Furthermore, once installed it is easy to move around, decommission or add stations to
take into account local ATM configuration changes.
The only limitation to flexibility is the limited range over areas where stations cannot be easily deployed (e.g. over
the sea).
4.2.2.7 Interoperability
MSPSR transmit their data in the ASTERIX format and have a high level of interoperability.
Interoperability between MSPSR, when several system need to be installed in the same area, is not an issue as
they can be fused in one network or easily segregated as their radiated power level is low (typically 500 W
omnidirectional).
4.2.2.8 Participation
As an independent surveillance mean MSPSR do not required participation activities. However co-localisation with
WAM systems should be highly cost effective and participation with such systems is pursued.
Providing MET data is anticipated as a growth potential as first simulations confirm its feasibility.
Some MSPSR capabilities (high update rate, altitude information) may benefit from an adaptation of other ATM
systems like ATCs.
4.2.2.9 Predictability
As an independent Surveillance technology, it does not rely on on-board transponders.
MSPSR is a new system but its concept has been tried successfully during several advanced studies program.
Simulation tools are similar to the ones dedicated to PSR and can be used to predict performances with the same
level of confidence.
If the performance depends on propagation effects, recent advances in digital terrain mapping and propagation
tools help in continuously improving the capability to predict MSPSR performance even in difficult situations.
4.2.2.10 Safety
For MSPSR, no safety assessment has been conducted yet. However it is clear that controlling transmission will
be a prominent factor in this area.
When deployed, MSPSR systems will have to be considered as one of the main contributor to ATM safety for
Surveillance because:
•
It does not rely on-board transponders,
•
It is redundant in its design:
o
Resistance to failure (ability to continue providing information to ATC Centre even in case of
failure of a station),
o
re-use of existing PSR software development methods is also expected to positively contribute to
safety (for e.g. ESARR safety procedure),
•
It can provide a high update rate, enabling to monitor rapidly any critical event,
•
It can provide a flexible coverage adapted to the operational need.
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 41 of 92
4.2.2.11 Security
The MSPSR system is in an even more prominent position than PSR regarding security, as:
•
it is an independent mean of surveillance,
•
it is a distributed system (more secure from a defence perspective),
•
it shall provide coverage at low height,
•
it shall have a fast renewal rate which will positively contribute to security by providing a reduced delay for
initiating tracks and a mean to track highly manoeuvring targets.
4.2.2.12 Human performance
MSPSR benefits from the efficient HMI developed for PSR and more generally from all the existing ATM systems
supporting the PSR operation.
In addition, MSPSR can provide an altitude information. ATCO consultation indicates that such a service can
significantly improve human performance.
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 42 of 92
4.3 Assessment of PSR technology
4.3.1 System description
Primary Surveillance Radar (PSR) is a non-cooperative, and thus fully independent, surveillance means for
application in the provision of Air Traffic Services (ATS). As an integral part of Air Traffic Management (ATM), 2D
radar positional data provided by PSR is a constituent of surveillance for the application of aircraft separation
minima and to make non cooperative aircraft visible to Air Traffic Control.
Two broad categories of PSR are used:
•
Airport (or Approach) radars, for the control of major terminal areas (the volume of airspace surrounding
one or more principal aerodromes). In general they use S-band, and they have typical ranges of 60-100
NM,
•
En-route radars, for the control of upper airspace, where the climb, cruise and descent phases of flight
take place. Often in L-Band, they have typical ranges of 100-250 NM.
Performance of the radar surveillance system shall support the controller to support a horizontal separation
minimum of 5 NM in high density en-route airspace, 10 NM in other en-route airspace and 3 NM in major terminal
areas (pending an assessment of local operational requirement for radar services, e.g. in area with low air traffic
area…).
The basic principle of operation of a PSR is to send through space one or several electromagnetic signals and to
process their reflections on aircrafts in a receiver, to construct the air situation of a targeted area.
Older PSR use RF amplifier tubes (like Magnetrons or TWT -Travelling Wave Tube-) when more recent use SolidState amplifiers, more robust and transmitting a much lower peak power. Solid-State also allows tailoring the radar
budget by putting more or less transmitting modules in parallel.
Figure 19.
PSR and MSPSR EIRP
Another consequence of the transition to Solid State amplifiers is that PSR do not need to have two separate
transmitters for redundancy. Indeed, a single Solid State transmitter being composed of several modules that can
operate separately, a failure on one module does not impact the overall performance of the system significantly.
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 43 of 92
Modern PSR use more and more digital processing (e.g. MTD, MTI, CFAR, plot extractor..), which also gives
more flexibility and allows upgrades (for e.g. improved detection in high clutter environments), which remain
simple operations (compared to hardware modifications) when only software is involved.
In terms of operational use, PSR is widely recognized by the Air Traffic Control (ATC) community as a
complement to Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR) information. It improves the airspace control safety as it
complements SSR with its capability to detect aircraft either not fitted with transponders or with faulty/intentionally
switched off ones.
The recent deployment of wind energy presents particular problems because of the size of modern wind turbines,
which can generate false detections and/or prevent/degrade detection of targets flying at low altitude behind wind
farms. In addition, military also have a significant demand regarding PSR (not only for Air Defence in some
States). Indeed, the military has a need to be able to detect small highly manoeuvrable non cooperative targets
that can fly at low altitude. In these conditions, wind turbines present particular problems for current military PSRs.
Figure 20.
4.3.2
Typical PSR installation
Typical performance figures
The basic system parameters and performances figures are given below for a TMA S-band PSR:
• Transmitted peak power
o For tube transmitter: from some tens of kW up to 1 MW
o For solid state transmitter: some tens of KW
• Frequency band 2700 to 2900 MHz,
• Minimum range 0.25 NM,
• Instrumented range 60/80/100 NM,
• Standard deviation accuracy 120 m/0.15° in the hor izontal plane,
• Typical rotation rate 15 rpm,
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 44 of 92
•
•
•
•
System stability > 65 dB,
MTBCF > 40,000 hours (Mean Time Between Critical Failure),
MTTR < 24 min (Mean Time To Repair),
Inherent Availability 99.999 %.
Only accuracy typical value is given, as it will vary with the RCS of a given aircraft and the distance between the
PSR and the aircraft. On the below figure we have an idea of the detection capability of a PSR for two level of
transmitted power, in range and altitude:
Figure 21.
Typical S-band PSR coverage with 15 and 28 KW transmitted power, in free space i.e.
flat ground with no obstacles
For an L-band PSR we typically have:
• Transmitted peak power
o For tube transmitter: around 2 MW
o For solid state transmitter: some tens of KW
• Frequency 1250 to 1350 MHz,
• Minimum range 1 NM,
• Instrumented range 150 - 250 NM,
• Typical standard deviation 90 m/0.25° in the horiz ontal plane,
• Typical rotation rate 5 - 6 rpm,
• System stability > 65 dB,
• MTBCF > 35,000 hours,
• MTTR < 30 min,
• Inherent Availability 99.999 %.
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 45 of 92
Figure 22.
Typical L-band PSR coverage with 20 and 40 KW transmitted power, in free space i.e.
flat ground with no obstacles.
4.3.3 RF footprint
For S-band PSR the RF footprint is of 1-2 MHz in the 2700 to 2900 MHz range.
For L-band PSR the RF footprint is of 2 MHz in the 1250 to 1350 MHz range.
In both cases, they transmit a spectrum of about 1 MHz, and they often transmit at several frequencies in the band
in order to improve detection by frequency diversity.
Solid state transmitters are designed to operate with lower pulse power than the previous tube transmitter
technology. However, in order to maintain the range performance, longer pulses are used. Unfortunately the long
pulse duration deteriorates the minimal measuring range as during the transmitting time the receiver is not
connected with the antenna. To compensate this disadvantage of the long pulses („long-range-pulses”) the radar
can radiate shorter pulses for a dedicated schedule. The shorter pulse is an unmodulated very short pulse. The
limited pulse power causes a shorter maximum range in this period.
In order to overcome some of the aircraft size fluctuations some radars use two or more different illumination
frequencies.
The pressure on the L-band and S-Band from other spectrum users, mainly telecommunication (GSM, WiMAX),
can be seen as potential threats to ATM Surveillance and needs firm monitoring.
4.3.4 Geographical footprint
PSR are systems of significant size and require a safety zone around them to account for their high-transmitted
power: At least 100 m radius for an S-band 28 KW PSR.
Their size, shelter’s requirements and safety zone require some infrastructure. Fences and a road that can
withstand the passage of trucks are required.
The heaviest constraint on such system is their LoS limitations. In particular, ground obstacles can limit aircraft
detection at low altitude. Hence PSR sensors are typically located at high points of the area to cover.
4.3.5 Technology assessment to Key Performance Areas
4.3.5.1 Access and Equity
PSR are independent sensors, as such they impose no requirements on aircrafts or other systems.
Major limitation to “access” to the service lays in the physical properties of targets, in particular in their RCS Radar Cross Section- which is a measure of the energy which is returned by the target after reflection of the signal
that it receives from the radar. Propagation effects are, of course, also limiting factors, in particular for low altitude.
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 46 of 92
4.3.5.2 Capacity
Capacity is normally not an issue for PSR as they do have the capability to simultaneously process about 1000
aircraft at the same time.
4.3.5.3 Cost effectiveness
In the vast majority of ATM cases, PSRs are sold with co-mounted SSRs. The market prices detailed below are
thus for a co-mounted PSR + SSR.
If the solid state PSR is in S-Band, the market prices of a PSR + SSR are typically:
•
The acquisition cost is around 2 to 3 Million € (M€) depending on options and configuration.
•
The initial installation costs are included in the above figures and represent from 200k€ to 300k€. Sitespecific costs are excluded from this evaluation, but as PSR are best deployed on high points, they
usually have more site-specific costs than other surveillance systems.
•
The possession costs are highly dependent on the site specificities and can vary from 50k€ to 800k€ (for
e.g. for new sites or in case there is a need for a satellite communication and regular oil deliveries).
•
The maintenance and decommissioning costs are at the same level than the installation costs (200 to 300
k€).
If the PSR is in L-Band, the market prices of a PSR + SSR are typically:
•
The acquisition cost is around 4 to 7 Million € (M€) depending on options and configuration.
•
The initial installation costs are included in the above figures and represent from 400k€ to 600k€. Sitespecific costs are excluded from this evaluation, but as PSR are best deployed on high points, they
usually have more site-specific costs than other surveillance systems.
•
The possession costs are highly dependent on the site specificities and can vary from 50k€ to 800k€ (for
e.g. for new sites or in case there is a need for a satellite communication and regular oil deliveries).
•
The maintenance and decommissioning costs are at the same level than the installation costs (400 to 600
k€).
4.3.5.4 Efficiency
The high power transmission impacts the RF footprint and the deployment constraints. However, the transition of
amplifier technology from tubes to solid-state is improving the RF footprint (see 4.3.3 RF Footprint).
The availability of increasingly efficient digital devices is enabling improvements in signal processing capabilities.
Difficulties to cover low altitudes often lead to a relative level of overlapping of PSR surveillance at higher altitudes.
However, considering that the typical range of an airport PSR is around 60 / 80 NM, this overlap remains generally
limited to high altitudes. Nonetheless, one of the objectives of SESAR is to promote exchange of information
between neighbouring countries and between civil and military authorities.
4.3.5.5 Environmental sustainability
PSR requires a significant infrastructure and although it does not have a significant impact on environment and is
part of the ATM that can be seen as an enabler to improve airlines operation, which, in turn contributes to the
environmental sustainability.
However PSR coverage is potentially impacted by wind-farms and as such PSR restrain their deployment.
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 47 of 92
4.3.5.6 Flexibility
PSR are, with their site requirements and great size, probably the least flexible ATM system. They provide
coverage in wide areas but once installed they cannot be significantly changed or adapted to new needs, apart
from processing upgrades in the limit of anticipated predispositions.
4.3.5.7 Interoperability
Most PSR transmit their data at least in the ASTERIX format and have a high level of interoperability. This data
link format is not that much represented in military community. Improving this situation could be an efficient
contribution in the rationalisation of the surveillance means between civil and military actors.
Because of the required high power transmission, a constraining frequency/distance (or blanking) separation
exists between close PSRs.
4.3.5.8 Participation
As an independent surveillance mean PSR do not require participation activities. On top of that, as the technology
is well established, it requires no adaptation of other ATM systems.
PSR has the capacity to provide meteorological data.
4.3.5.9 Predictability
PSR had been in use for a long time now and a number of high quality performances evaluation means exist.
These evaluation tools are widely used and provide PSR users with a good indication of their expected system
performances on a given site.
As a non-cooperative Surveillance technology, it does not rely on on-board transponders.
If the performance depends on propagation effects, recent advances in digital terrain mapping and propagation
tools help in continuously improving the capability to predict PSR performance even in difficult situations such as
detection at low altitude and/or in the presence of wind turbines.
4.3.5.10 Safety
PSR systems can be considered as one of the main contributor to ATM safety for Surveillance because It does
not relay on-board transponders,
Typical PSR requirements are as follows:
•
Inherent Availability 99.999 %
•
Standard deviation accuracy 120 m/0.15° in the hor izontal plane,
•
rotation rate for S Band systems: 15 rpm (L Band is less critical)
•
Linked parameters:
-6
o
Probability of False Alarm (PFA) of 10
o
Probability of Detection: 90%
o
Coverage S Band: 60 NM (L Band is less critical)
However, due to the significant required PSR infrastructure/cost/RF footprint, some PSR deployment
configurations may lead to poor coverage at low altitude outside of the airport (For instance in case of
mountainous areas, local adjacent aerodromes…), thus leading to potential breaches in the controlled airspace.
4.3.5.11 Security
PSR is in a prominent position regarding air traffic security, as it is an independent non-cooperative mean of
surveillance.
However, due to the significant required PSR infrastructure/cost/RF footprint, some PSR deployment
configurations may lead to poor coverage at low altitude outside of the airport (For instance in case of
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 48 of 92
mountainous areas, local adjacent aerodromes…), thus leading to potential security breaches in the controlled
airspace.
4.3.5.12 Human performance
Although controlling the airspace with a PSR (in conjunction with SSR) remains a task which needs skilled
operators, this is performed on a daily basis all over the world thanks to continuously improved display systems
and signal processing.
4.4 Comparison
The conclusion of this Surveillance technologies vs KPA assessment can be qualitatively summarised as below:
KPA
PSR
MSPSR
Access and equity
No requirement imposed on Aircraft
The limit to the service are the Radar Cross Section of the
aircraft (RCS) and particular propagation effects
No requirement imposed on Aircraft
The limit to the service are the Radar Cross Section of the
aircraft (RCS) and particular propagation effects
Capacity
PSR meets the current and expected future capacity
needs through a scalable architecture.
MSPSR meets the current and expected future capacity needs
through a scalable architecture.
Altitude information and estimation of its accuracy shall
improve capacity
Cost effectiveness
Proven technology
Still costly life cycle compared to other Surveillance
technologies
Life cycle cost is anticipated to be 55% to 65% cheaper than
an S band PSR for a typical configuration.
Efficiency
Amplifier transition from tubes to solid-state improves the
RF footprint
Use of digital processing to continuously improve
performance.
Overlapping coverage at high altitudes.
High power transmission still impacts RF footprint and
deployment constraints.
Altitude information available with an estimation of its
accuracy
Low power transmission implies low RF footprint and light
deployment constraints
Environmental sust.
Significant required infrastructure
Potentially impacted by Wind Turbines
Light required infrastructure
High compatibility with Wind Turbine
Flexibility
Limited adaptability to air routes evolutions because to its
significant required infrastructure
Scalable system that can adapt to local needs
High adaptability to air routes evolutions due to traffic
increase
Graceful degradation of performance
Limited range where ground stations cannot be deployed (e.g.
over the sea).
Interoperability
Use of ASTERIX format.
Required frequency/distance (or blanking) separation
between two PSRs
Use of ASTERIX format.
Limited required frequency/distance (or blanking) separation
between two stations thanks to low transmit power, use of
autocorrelation waveforms and use of the other station to
improve the performance
Participation
Capacity to produce MET data
As the technology is well established, it requires no
adaptation of other ATM systems
Some MSPSR capabilities (high update rate, altitude
information) may benefit from an adaptation of other ATM
systems
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 49 of 92
Predictability
Proven technology through experience
Not dependent on on-board transponders
Performance depends on propagation effects
Improved predictability due to graceful degradation, space &
frequency diversity,…
Performance depends on propagation effects
Safety
Non Cooperative technology
Redundant system in its design
Poor coverage at low altitude outside of the airport for
some configurations
Redundant system by design
Security
Poor coverage at low altitude outside of the airport for
some configurations
Good coverage at low altitude
Human performance
Proven efficient HMI
Require skilled ATC controllers
Proven efficient HMI (similar to PSR)
Require skilled ATC controllers
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 50 of 92
5. MSPSR application cases
As possible examples of implementation we propose in this chapter two application cases one in Frankfurt area
Germany and the other in Brno/Karlovy Vary Czech Republic.
5.1 Frankfurt application case
5.1.1 Scenarios to be considered
This chapter presents the rationale and the description of different scenarios that are proposed to be considered
for the Frankfurt area study. These scenarios have been built based on information gathered in collaboration with
DFS.
Four scenarios have been identified taking into account the DFS infrastructure evolution strategy over different
timeframes and also the targeted performances for these same timeframes.
The first scenario is based on DFS current infrastructure transition planning. It considers DFS plans to reduce the
number of conventional radars (PSR and SSR) in the long term and to introduce new cooperative surveillance
technologies such as the ADS-B and the multilateration to improve the system performances and open up the way
for new applications. This scenario makes use of alternative and conventional technologies especially in what
concerns the cooperative surveillance. For the non-cooperative part, only the PSR has been specified as no
requirements on the non-cooperative coverage have been identified by DFS in their transition planning.
The second, third and fourth scenarios make use of alternative technologies (both WAM and MSPSR) to
complement conventional ones. These scenarios are not only infrastructure dependant but also performance
dependant. In fact, a volume of interest was defined and agreed with DFS for the Frankfurt area. This volume can
be decomposed into two major sectors representing respectively the upper part and the lower part of the volume
of interest. The lowest limits of the upper part were defined differently for the non-cooperative and cooperative
surveillance. For this reason the generic naming of the airspace section was considered for the scenarios
designation.
Scenario 2 proposes a medium use of new technologies achieving the performance requirements in terms of
coverage and redundancy in the upper part of the Frankfurt defined volume of interest. The upper sector extends
above 3000 ft AGL or above 4000 ft AGL depending respectively on whether the surveillance is cooperative or
non-cooperative.
coverage and redundancy in the entire volume of interest. In fact, this scenario offers a performance improvement
of scenario 2 by introducing the low altitudes in the coverage requirements.
Scenario 4 aims at introducing more new technologies to the surveillance infrastructure. This would be by
extending the MSPSR grid and proposing full alternative cooperative configurations for the long term. In fact, the
possibility for a total switch to new technologies in the long term is considered in this case to investigate on the
advantages such systems could provide with not necessarily increased costs.
Systems and technologies configurations proposed for the above listed scenarios in addition to the rationale
behind the scenarios choice are presented in the tables below.
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 51 of 92
Frankfurt Area
Scenarios
Rationale
scenario "limited use of
new technos" with no
volume requirement for
Consideration of only the sensors planned to be kept/put in
non cooperative
1
place by the ANSP.
scenario "medium use
of new technos"/
Replacement one to one of some current sensors by
Performance
requirement in upper equivalement sensors with consideration of new technologies.
Objective is to avoid having important coverage gaps in the
part of volume of
upper part of volume of interest.
2
interest
of new technos"/
Performance
requirement in entire
volume of interest
3
Replacement one to one of some current sensors by
equivalement sensors with consideration of new technologies.
Objective is to avoid having important coverage gaps in the
entire volume of interest.
scenario "progressive
switch to new technos"/
Performance
Progressive switch to new technologies with a transition
volume of interest
phase where new technologies are used as gapfillers.
4
Figure 23.
Rationale of the scenarios
Frankfurt Area
non cooperative
Scenarios
non cooperative
1
of new technos"/
Performance
requirement in upper
part of volume of
2
interest
of new technos"/
Performance
3
volume of interest
4
switch to new technos"/
Performance
volume of interest
current
mid term
cooperative
long term
current
mid term
long term
4 PSR
7 PSR
4 SSR+ Full WAM + 1
ADS-B
4 PSR + 1 gapfiller
MSPSR
8 PSR
11 SSR
11 SSR + Full WAM
4 PSR + 1 gapfiller
MSPSR
4 SSR+ reduced WAM
+ Full ADS-B
Full MSPSR
Full WAM + Full ADS-B
7 PSR + 1 gapfiller
MSPSR
Figure 24.
Scenarios to be considered
It is to be noted that these scenarios are consistent with the decommissioning roadmap of the current
conventional sensors and the commissioning roadmap of the new WAM and ADS-B systems.
All scenarios have been reviewed and validated by DFS as possible options. However, the DFS surveillance
strategy is currently under review and revision. It has also to be noted that the scenarios above are focussing on
the Frankfurt region as an example. Optimized scenarios are expected to look different when the whole German
area of responsibility is taken into account.
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 52 of 92
5.1.2 Scenario Assessment
5.1.2.1 Scenario 1- Limited use of new technologies with no volume of interest for the non-cooperative
surveillance
Scenario 1 is based on DFS current infrastructure transition planning. It considers DFS plans to reduce the
number of conventional radars (PSR and SSR) in the long term and to introduce new cooperative surveillance
technologies such as the ADS-B and the multilateration to improve the system performances and open up the way
for new applications. This scenario makes use then of alternative and conventional technologies especially in what
concerns the cooperative surveillance. For the non-cooperative part, only the PSR has been specified as no
requirements on the non-cooperative coverage have been identified by DFS in their transition planning.
Frankfurt Area
non cooperative
Scenarios
1
non cooperative
cooperative
current
mid term
long term
8 PSR
7 PSR
4 PSR
Figure 25.
current
mid term
long term
11 SSR
11 SSR + Full WAM
4 SSR+ Full WAM + 1
ADS-B
Scenario 1- Limited use of new technologies with no volume requirements for noncooperative surveillance
This first scenario assessment will be used as the basis for comparison with other scenarios. The assessment
addresses the following aspects:
•
Compliance with the infrastructure strategy requirements,
•
Compliance with external factors requirements,
•
Cost assessment,
•
Performance assessment,
•
Efficiency assessment.
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 53 of 92
5.1.2.1.1 Overall Assessment
Scenario 1 assessment
score
(/10)
weighting
Compliant with the current infrastructure
Compliant with the technology roadmap
Compliant with DFS actual transition plan for cooperative and non
cooperative surveillance
9
4
Compliant with the current and anticipated mandates
Compliant with the traffic type and density
Compliant with the current and anticipated aircraft data
Compliant with the deployment site constraints
No assessment performed regarding the cohabitation with potential
windfarms
7
2
Cumulated cost index over the period 2012 -2031 (reference: 100): 100
8
5
6
5
8
1
cost
assessmen
t
Efficiency
assessment
Performance assessment
Assessment criteria
External factors
Infrastructure
strategy
Assessment
Performance degrading for the non cooperative surveillance when reducing
the number of sensors
- Important Gaps in the long term in the east part of the area of interest at
4000 ft are created due to the decommissioning of some PSRs
- Important Gaps around Hahn airport noticed starting from the mid term
Good performances of the cooperative system thanks to the consideration of
a full WAM system starting from the mid term
Garbling is minimized through the use of clustered Mode S
The consideration of active WAM leads to a greater consumption of spectrum
Figure 26.
Scenario 1 Assessment
5.1.2.1.2 Detailed cost assessment
This scenario is considered as the reference in the comparison, hence with a total cost index value of 100 (total
cost of ownership over the 20 years period).
The resulting cost evolution curve is depicted in the figure below:
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 54 of 92
Scenario 1
Total cost of ow nership
Cumulated cost index
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
30
20
28
20
26
20
24
20
22
20
20
20
18
20
16
20
14
20
12
20
10
0
Years
Figure 27.
Scenario 1, cumulated cost index assessment
Cumulated cost index over the period 2012 -2031 (reference: 100): 100.
5.1.2.1.3 Detailed performance assessment
The Surveillance performance of this first scenario can be synthesized by the following coverage simulations at
the different key milestones of the scenario:
•
Of the non-cooperative (left) and cooperative (right) infrastructure,
•
Where all performance requirements are met,
•
On a Bizjet,
•
Flying at the minimum altitude of each sector of the Frankfurt area of interest
Figure 28.
Current non cooperative (left) and cooperative (right) surveillance coverage of
scenario 1
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 55 of 92
Figure 29.
Mid-term non-cooperative (left) and cooperative (right) surveillance coverage of
scenario 1
No major coverage changes occur between the current and the midterm as the infrastructure remains almost the
same between these two timeframes. In what concern the long term, changes in the cooperative coverage are
more visible as show in the figure below where the performances degrade significantly due to the reduced number
of considered PSR systems.
Figure 30.
Long term non cooperative(left) and cooperative (right) surveillance coverage of
scenario 1
As stated previously, the above three figures show the current, midterm and long term non-cooperative (left) and
cooperative (right) Surveillance coverage of the first scenario, satisfying all listed DFS performance requirements,
on a BizJet flying at the minimum altitude of each sector of the Frankfurt region of interest.
The colour code is the following:
Figure 31.
Altitude colour code in meters
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 56 of 92
Note that for the mid-term time frame, the Full WAM system already defined for Frankfurt region has been
introduced to support en-route operation in addition to the TMA complex operations. Performances provided by
this system are given in the figures below:
Figure 32.
WAM system HDOP at 3000 ft AGL (left) and covered regions where all performance
requirements are met (right)
In order to display the horizontal dilution of precision (on the left in the above figure), the following colour code was
considered:
Figure 33.
HDOP Colour Code (HDOP is a scalar factor, so no units)
5.1.2.2 Scenario 2- Medium use of new technologies with performance requirements in the upper part of
the volume of interest
coverage and redundancy in the upper limit of the Frankfurt defined volume of interest. The upper sector extends
above 3000 ft AGL or above 4000 ft AGL depending on whether the surveillance is cooperative or noncooperative.
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 57 of 92
Frankfurt Area
non cooperative
Scenarios
of new technos"/
Performance
requirement in upper
part of volume of
2
interest
cooperative
current
mid term
long term
current
mid term
long term
8 PSR
7 PSR
4 PSR + 1 gapfiller
MSPSR
11 SSR
11 SSR + Full WAM
4 SSR+ Full WAM + 1
ADS-B
Figure 34.
Scenario 2- Medium use of new technologies with performance requirements in the
upper part of the volume of interest
The assessment of this second scenario addresses the following aspects:
•
•
•
Cost assessment,
•
•
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 58 of 92
score
(/10)
weighting
Multistatic non cooperative systems introduced in addition to the
conventional system mentioned in DFS transition plan
8
4
windfarms
7
2
7
5
8
5
8
1
cost
assessmen
t
Assessment criteria
External factors
Infrastructure
strategy
Assessment
Performance degrading for the non cooperative surveillance when
reducing the number of sensors especially in the Long term
- A combination of non cooperative alternative (MSPSR) and
conventional (PSR) technologies demonstrates to provide the required
good coverage in the upper part of the volume of interest that extends
above 4000 ft AGL.
- A small MSPSR configuration introduced to fill in conventional system
coverage gaps in the long term
--> Improved performances compared to scenario 1 especially for high
altitudes
Efficiency
assessment
Good performances of the cooperative system thanks to the
consideration of a full WAM system starting from the mid term
The consideration of active WAM leads to a greater consumption of
spectrum
Figure 35.
The scenario has been modelled in reference to scenario 1 with a final cost normalized to 100.
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 59 of 92
Scenario 2
20
30
20
28
20
26
20
24
20
22
20
20
20
18
20
16
20
14
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
20
12
Years
Figure 36.
In comparison with scenario 1, scenario 2 considers the same conventional systems configurations at the key
milestones.
For the cooperative surveillance, in addition to the conventional sensors, the same alternative systems than in
scenario 1 are considered. For this reason, no additional cooperative coverage simulations are needed for this
scenario.
In what regards the non-cooperative coverage, an improvement of the non-cooperative coverage is proposed for
the long term timeframe. This improvement aims to achieve the required coverage in the upper sector of the area
of interest that extends above 4000 ft AGL. In fact, it can be clearly noticed from the below figure that some
regions at 4000 ft are not within the conventional coverage provided by the four PSR.
Figure 37.
Long term PSR horizontal accuracy at 4000 ft AGL and region proposed to be covered
by MSPSR gapfiller for Scenario 2 Long term
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 60 of 92
The colour code considered to display the above horizontal RMS results is the following
RMS scales for position accuracy
0m ->70m
70m ->140m
140m ->210m
210m ->280m
>280
Figure 38.
Color
Position accuracy colour code
Three coverage gaps were mainly identified. Only the biggest one was considered to be filled in using the
alternative technology, MSPSR, considering the operational environment. This decision was validated by DFS.
A small MSPSR configuration was defined therefore to cover the eastern part of the Frankfurt area of interest. The
MSPSR system performances at 4000ft (only big rectangle) are shown in the figure below.
Figure 39.
Scenario 2 MSPSR system covered region at 4000 ft where all performance
requirements are met
This figure shows the MSPSR system coverage satisfying all listed DFS non cooperative requirements, on a Bizjet
flying at the minimum altitude upper sector of the Frankfurt region of interest that extends above 4000ft.
It can be clearly concluded that the introduction of MSPSR allows filling in all gaps in coverage at high altitude in
the east part of the area of interest.
The considered colour code is the following:
Figure 40.
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 61 of 92
Note that the MSPSR simulations made for the different scenarios have been performed without considering the
terrain and that an extension of the proposed configurations could be required if there is a need to compensate
some terrain masking effects. In this case, additional WAM sites could be considered for the deployment of
directional MSPSR antennas.
5.1.2.3 Scenario 3- Medium use of new technologies with performance requirements in the entire volume
of interest
coverage and redundancy in the entire volume of interest. In fact, this scenario offers a performance improvement
of scenario 2 by introducing the low altitudes in the coverage requirements.
Frankfurt Area
non cooperative
Scenarios
of new technos"/
Performance
volume
of interest
3
cooperative
current
mid term
long term
current
mid term
long term
8 PSR
7 PSR + 1 gapfiller
MSPSR
4 PSR + 1 gapfiller
MSPSR
11 SSR
11 SSR + Full WAM
4 SSR+ reduced W AM
+ Full ADS-B
Figure 41.
Scenario 3- Medium use of new technologies with performance requirements in the
entire volume of interest
The assessment of this third scenario addresses the following aspects:
•
•
•
Cost assessment,
•
•
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 62 of 92
score
(/10)
weighting
More multistatic non cooperative systems introduced, in addition to the
conventional systems mentioned in DFS transition plan, than in scenario 2
7
4
windfarms
7
2
6
5
6
5
9
1
cost
assessmen
t
Efficiency
assessment
Assessment criteria
External factors
Infrastructure
strategy
Assessment
Limited performance of the non cooperative system especially at low
altitudes (500ft, 1000ft)
- A combination of non cooperative alternative (MSPSR) and conventional
(PSR) technologies demonstrates to provide the required good coverage in
the lower part of the volume of interest
- Two small MSPSR configurations proposed to be used as gapfillers in the
mid term and the long term to improve the PSR performances
--> Improved performances compared to scenarios 1 and 2 especially at low
altitudes
Degraded performances of the cooperative system in the long term due to
the reduction of the number of WAM sensors while keeping the redundancy
requirement.
spectrum
A reduced configuration of WAM stations is proposed for this scenario for
the long term. This could reduce the spectrum consumption
Figure 42.
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 63 of 92
20
30
20
28
20
26
20
24
20
22
20
20
20
18
20
16
20
14
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
20
12
Scenario 3
Years
Figure 43.
Scenario 3 aims at defining configurations that provide good coverage especially at low altitudes.
The main altitudes considered in this scenario are 500 ft and 1000 ft AGL. Performances of conventional
surveillance systems at these altitudes were considered.
The figures below show the performances at 500 ft AGL for different timeframes. Simulations have been
performed on a bizjet flying at 500 ft.
Figure 44.
Horizontal accuracy at 500 ft AGL provided by the current (left) and long term (right)
PSR configurations
The colour code considered to display the above horizontal RMS results is the following:
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 64 of 92
RMS scales for position accuracy
0m ->70m
70m ->140m
140m ->210m
210m ->280m
>280
Figure 45.
Color
Position accuracy colour code
It can be clearly noted from figure 44 that non cooperative coverage requirements are met at 500 ft AGL within
the required volume.
The same conclusion cannot be made at 1000 ft AGL as shown in the figure below:
Figure 46.
Region proposed to be covered by an MSPSR Gapfiller for Scenario 3 Mid term
A clear coverage gap exists in the western part of the sector which minimum altitude is at 1000 ft. The use of the
MSPSR technology in this case is a mean to meet the requirements over the Hahn area. Details about the
proposed MSPSR configuration coverage are given in the figure below.
Figure 47.
Scenario 3 Mid-term MSPSR system covered region where all performance
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 65 of 92
This figure shows the mid-term MSPSR “gapfiller” coverage of scenario 3, satisfying all listed DFS performance
requirements, on a Bizjet flying at 1000 ft. The MSPSR considered configuration demonstrates to provide the
required performance in the regions where conventional coverage gap was noticed.
Figure 48.
In what concerns the long term, DFS plans to keep only four PSRs. The combined performance
provided by those systems demonstrates to be not sufficient to well cover the airspace volume
extending above 1000ft. The accuracy provided by such a system at the altitude of interest is shown in
the below figure:
Figure 49.
Region proposed to be covered by an MSPSR Gapfiller for Scenario 3 long term
The introduction of a multistatic non cooperative system could compensate this coverage gap induced
by the withdrawal of about half the number of the primary radars currently deployed. Details about the
MSPSR gapfiller performances are given in the figures below:
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 66 of 92
Figure 50.
Scenario 3 Long term MSPSR system covered region where all performance
This figure shows the long term MSPSR “gapfiller” coverage of scenario 3, satisfying all listed DFS performance
requirements, on a Bizjet flying at 1000 ft. The MSPSR considered configuration demonstrates to provide the
required performance in the regions where conventional coverage gap was noticed.
The considered colour code is described in figure 48.
It is to be noted that the main objective while determining the MSPSR system configuration was to fill in the most
important Gap standing in the west of Frankfurt. The small coverage gap in the south east of the sector was not
considered to be covered in agreement with DFS.
In what concerns the cooperative surveillance, performances obtained considering the long term configuration,
are given below.
Figure 51.
Scenario 3 Long term cooperative coverage where all performance requirements are
met
This figure shows the long term cooperative surveillance coverage of scenario 3, satisfying all listed DFS
performance requirements, on a Bizjet flying at the minimum altitude of each sector of the Frankfurt region of
interest. The considered colour code is described in figure 48.
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 67 of 92
The coverage shown in this figure represents the fusion of three systems’ separate coverages which are listed
below:
-
Four SSR systems: only the coverage satisfying DFS cooperative performance requirements (including
the n-1 redundancy was considered for the fusion) was taken into account
-
Reduced WAM system: only the coverage satisfying DFS cooperative performance requirements
(including the n-1 redundancy was considered for the fusion) was taken into account
-
Full ADS-B system: only the coverage satisfying DFS cooperative performance requirement for the
detection was taken into account
The large non covered area especially within the low altitude sectors could be explained by the reduced number of
WAM sensors considered for this scenario 3 long term simulations. Moreover, requiring an n-1 redundancy from
both the conventional and the alternative systems demonstrates to reduce significantly the size of the covered
regions especially around Frankfurt airport.
5.1.2.4 Scenario 4- Progressive switch to new technologies with performance requirements in the entire
volume of interest
Scenario 4 aims at introducing more new technologies to the surveillance infrastructure. This would be by
extending the MSPSR grid and proposing full alternative cooperative configurations for the long term. In fact, the
possibility for a total switch to new technologies in the long term is considered in this case to investigate on the
advantages such systems could provide with not necessarily increased costs.
Frankfurt Area
non cooperative
Scenarios
4
switch to new
technos"/ Performance
volume of interest
cooperative
current
mid term
long term
current
mid term
long term
8 PSR
7 PSR + 1 gapfiller
MSPSR
Full MSPSR
11 SSR
11 SSR + Full WAM
Full WAM + Full ADS-B
Figure 52.
Scenario 4- Progressive switch to new technologies with performance requirements in
the entire volume of interest
The assessment of this last scenario addresses the following aspects:
•
•
•
Cost assessment,
•
•
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 68 of 92
Assessment
score
(/10)
weighting
Infrastructure
strategy
Compliant with the current infrastructure and DFS technology roadmap
for the current and mid terms
Proposed consideration of only alternative non cooperative and
cooperative technologies for the long term
--> More multistatic sytsems than in scenarios 1, 2 and 3
--> Less monostatic sites (long term) than the other scenarios
8
4
External factors
windfarms
Scenario reliant in the long term only on distributed systems. The total
number of considered sites for both cooperative and non cooperative
systems should be reduced. All issues linked to the sites should be
therefore reduced.
8
2
cost
assessmen
t
9
5
Introduce configurations based only on alternative technologies
--> Improved performance compared to scenarios 1 and 2
--> System better balanced thanks to the complementarity between
WAM, ADS-B and MSPSR
--> Performances are also improved compared to scenario 3 as all
critical and small gaps are filled
9
5
Efficiency
assessment
Assessment criteria
spectrum
8
1
Figure 53.
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 69 of 92
Scenario 4
20
30
20
28
20
26
20
24
20
22
20
20
20
18
20
16
20
14
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
20
12
Years
Figure 54.
The surveillance performance of this scenario can be synthesised by the coverage simulations at the
different key milestones of the scenario. Only performance results in the long term are shown in the
section as the current and mid-term configurations are the same than in scenario 3.
MSPSR technology was proposed in this scenario to cover the entire volume of interest including low
altitude sectors. The objective was to not consider conventional radar for which no strategy was
defined, and to try to define the best optimised multistatic primary system configuration that meets all
coverage requirements. Details about this full MSPSR system performances are given in the figure
below.
Figure 55.
Scenario 4 Long term MSPSR system covered region where all performance
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 70 of 92
This figure shows the long term non cooperative surveillance coverage of scenario 4, satisfying all listed DFS
performance requirements, on a Bizjet flying at the minimum altitude of each sector of the Frankfurt area of
interest.
Figure 56.
The full MSPSR system demonstrates to cover the entire region of interest according to the DFS requirements.
This shows that conventional radar could be completely replaced by MSPSR which sensors’ locations were
optimised thanks to the collocation with the WAM defined ones.
In what regards the cooperative coverage, a full alternative configuration is proposed in this “progressive switch
to new technologies” scenario. This configuration aims to introduce a total switch to new technologies in the long
term through the deployment of a full WAM and a full ADS-B systems and the decommissioning of all remaining
conventional surveillance systems.
Performances of such a system are given in the figure below. The same colour code described in figure 45 was
considered.
Figure 57.
Scenario 4 Long term Cooperative systems covered region where all performance
This figure shows the long term cooperative surveillance coverage of scenario 4, satisfying all listed DFS
performance requirements, on a Bizjet obtained following the fusion of the two following system coverages.
-
Full WAM system: only the coverage satisfying DFS cooperative performance requirements (including
the n-1 redundancy was considered for the fusion) was taken into account
-
Full ADS-B system: only the coverage satisfying DFS cooperative performance requirement for the
detection was taken into account
The combination of these two alternative cooperative systems demonstrates to provide the required coverage in
the entire Frankfurt region of interest.
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 71 of 92
5.1.3 Frankfurt application case summary
This Application Case addresses a rationalisation of the surveillance infrastructure in dense airspace. The
airspace in the Frankfurt TMA was chosen as not only are the traffic densities very high but the RF environment is
also known to be very dense.
The key findings of this study demonstrate the need for a pluralist approach to rationalisation.
In fact, the consideration of the four scenarios and their assessment provided a clear overview on the different
rationalisation opportunities. These scenarios are not only infrastructure dependent but also performance
dependent. The comparison of the scenarios from technical, operational and economic point of views allowed to
conclude that a migration towards a system fully based on alternative technologies represents the best cost
efficient strategy for the DFS, as the synergies between WAM, ADS-B and MSPSR can provide a high performing,
safe and cost balanced infrastructure. However, the transition is the key to a cost efficient use of alternative
technologies. Indeed, the required time to get familiar with the alternative technology capabilities should always be
balanced with the increased exploitation cost resulting from the use of those new capabilities as "additions only" to
the traditional sensors.
The initial cost-based assessment provides an infrastructure acceptable in simple, low density airspace. It
identifies benefits that could be realised through the deployment of new surveillance techniques however the more
complex analysis of the scenarios from an RF perspective confirm that concentrating solely upon a cost based
rationalisation or by deploying omni-directional WAM transmitters rather than some form of sectorised solution,
would not alleviate the RF congestion in the Frankfurt region. It should be noted that what might be right in a small
area may not be optimal for the whole region. Optimized scenarios may look different when regional or even FAB
aspects are taken into account.
The study identifies that the RF congestion does not really drop when rationalizing the civil surveillance
infrastructure in Germany only. Sensors outside the control of DFS – namely military sensors and sensors located
outside Germany (but within RF vicinity) lead to the need to operate the wide area multilateration system also in a
partly non-passive mode.
An approach whereby all States minimise 1030/1090 MHz transmissions by sharing data, rationalising their
surveillance infrastructures (in particular the Mode A/C type SSR sensors), clustering interrogators and by
introducing other measures could provide gains in excess of those achieved by a move to new technologies alone.
The density of the air traffic does not impose an excessive influence upon the surveillance architecture (except in
terms of R.F usage). A surveillance system must meet a bottom line set of performance requirements to meet a
defined set of separation minima and apart from system processing capabilities, this does not impose a
fundamental re-arrangement of the proposed infrastructure.
The study raises a number of issues pertinent to the airspace around Frankfurt however in reality further analysis
to develop and refine a long term plan for the Frankfurt region is necessary. This would take into account an
evolution of traffic densities (omitted from the study to permit easy comparison of results) and the
recommendations and proposed best practices that stem from an analysis of the results of this study. Examples
include an assessment regarding the wide-spread clustering of Mode S ground-stations and an analysis of the key
source of interference and prioritisation of its removal – for instance, the Nuremburg Mode A/C SSR sensor.
Limiting the scope of the study paints an artificial and unnecessarily pessimistic view of the future. In reality many
of the Mode A/C SSR ground stations are already scheduled for removal or for upgrade, the WAM transmitters
configured in the simulations can be adapted to better suit the environment and wider system adaptations are
already under consideration. The study does however provide ample material which is used to identify a number of
recommended practices.
In summary, the trend becomes quite clear: just substituting Mode A/C interrogators by Mode S is not sufficient to
cope with the increased traffic. Instead, the number of active interrogators needs to be reduced to maintain the
required surveillance performance for the remaining systems.
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 72 of 92
5.2 Brno/Karlovy Vary application case
5.2.1 Scenarios to be considered
This chapter presents the rationale and the description of the three scenarios that are to be assessed
for both sites under consideration: Brno CTA and Karlovy Vary TMA, Czech Republic.
Scenario 1 (“limited use of new technologies”) is based on technologies already in use in the country
(PSR, SSR, WAM). As much as possible, it is a “one to one replacement” of the existing components
infrastructure at their date of obsolescence. When external sensors are decommissioned and not
expected to be replaced, if relevant, national sensors may be added. This scenario is considered as
the reference for cost comparisons.
Scenario 2 (“medium use of new technologies”) proposes to use alternative technologies (WAM, ADSB, MSPSR and PCL) to complement conventional ones.
•
Regarding the conventional technologies (PSR and SSR), this scenario policy is to propose a
“one to one replacement” of the existing components infrastructure at their date of
obsolescence,
•
Alternative technologies are then used as gapfillers to conventional technologies when needed
to improve the current performance or when needed because of the decommissioning of
external sensors.
Scenario 3 (“progressive switch to new technologies”) proposes a smooth migration to alternative
technologies considering their availability on the market (the manufacturer strategy being: now for
WAM, from 2015-2020 onwards for MSPSR) and taking into account the obsolescence of the existing
systems. Beyond 2025, the surveillance of the Brno CTA and Karlovy Vary TMA would be fully ensured
by:
•
a WAM & ADS-B network for the cooperative part,
•
an MSPSR network for the non-cooperative part.
Scenarios
2
scenario "medium use of new Keep most internal sensors.
technologies"
Use of new technos to fill the gaps.
Rationale
Reference scenario for comparison
with other.
Minimise any evolution of the
infrastructure.
Improve the performance through the
use of different technologies
3
scenario "progressive switch to
Progressive switch to new technos.
new technologies"
Improve the performance through the
progressive use of new technologies.
1
Key evolutions
Keep internal sensors.
scenario "limited use of new
The only changes can be the
technologies"
decommissioning of external sensors.
Figure 58.
Rationale of the scenarios
All scenarios are consistent with the decommissioning roadmap of the current sensors.
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 73 of 92
All scenarios consider that the lifespan of the sensors is 15 years. Sensors are thus decommissioned
(and possibly replaced) every 15 years.
In-between dates between periods are transition phases.
B rn o
co op e ra tive
2 01 3 -2 0 2 0
p erio d
2 0 25 -20 3 1
p erio d
"Lim ite d u se o f
new
tech n olog ie s"
1 SSR
+ 1 exte rn a l
SSR
+ 2 lim ite d
W AM
1 SSR
+ 1 exte rn a l
SSR
+ 2 lim ite d
W AM
"M e diu m u se of
new
tech n olog ie s"
1 SSR
+ 1 e xtern al
SSR
+ 2 lim ite d
W AM
+ A D S -B
1 SSR
+ 1 e xtern al
SSR
+ 1 lim ite d
W AM
+ 1 e xten d e d
W AM
+ 1 e xten d e d
A D S -B
curren t
1 SSR
+ 2 exte rn a l
SSR
+ 2 lim ited
W AM
1 SSR
+ 1 e xtern al
SSR
+ 1 lim ite d
W AM
+ 1 e xten d e d
W AM
+ A D S -B
"P ro g ressive
sw itch to ne w
tech n olog ie s"
cu rre n t
n on coo p e ra tive
2 01 3 -2 0 2 0
2 0 25 -20 3 1
pe rio d
p e rio d
2 PSR
2 PSR
1 PSR
+ 1 g a pfille r
MSPSR
2 PSR
2 PSR
+ 1 g a pfiller
PCL
1 e xten d ed
W AM
+ 1 lim ite d
W AM
+ 1 e xten d e d
A D S -B
1 e xten d e d
MSPSR
K . V a ry
curren t
"Lim ite d u se o f
new
tech n olog ie s"
"M e diu m u se of
new
tech n olog ie s"
"P ro g ressive
sw itch to ne w
tech n olog ie s"
2 SSR
+ 3 e xtern al
SSR
+ 1 lim ite d
W AM
co op e ra tive
2 01 3 -2 0 2 0
p erio d
2 0 25 -20 3 1
p erio d
2 SSR
+ 1 e xtern al
SSR
+ 1 lim ite d
W AM
2 SSR
+ 1 e xtern al
SSR
+ 1 lim ite d
W AM
1 SSR
+ 1 e xtern al
SSR
+ 1 lim ite d
W AM
+ A D S -B
1 SSR
+ 1 e xtern al
SSR
+ 1 e xten d e d
W AM
+ e xte n d ed
A D S -B
1 SSR
+ 1 e xtern al
SSR
+ 1 e xten d e d
W AM
+ A D S -B
1 e xten d ed
W AM
+ e xte n d ed
A D S -B
Figure 59.
1 PSR
+ 1 e xte rna l
PSR
1 PSR
+ 1 exte rna l
PSR
1 PSR
+ 1 e xte rna l
PSR
+ 1 g a pfiller
PCL
2 PSR
1 PSR
+1 ga p fille r
PCL
1 e xten d e d
MSPSR
Scenarios to be considered
cu rre n t
n on coo p e ra tive
2 01 3 -2 0 2 0
2 0 25 -20 3 1
pe rio d
p e rio d
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 74 of 92
Note that the above figure do not show potential replacement of sensors every 15 years but focuses on
significant infrastructure evolutions impacting performance.
5.2.2 Assessment of the scenarios
5.2.2.1 The « limited use of new technologies» scenario
Scenario 1 (“Limited use of new technologies”) is based on technologies already in use in the country
(PSR, SSR, WAM). As much as possible, it is a “one to one replacement” of the existing components
infrastructure at their date of obsolescence. When external sensors are decommissioned and not
expected to be replaced, if relevant, national sensors may be added. This scenario is considered as
the reference for cost comparisons.
B rn o
c oo p erative
20 13 -2 0 20
pe rio d
c urre nt
s ce na rio
"lim ite d u s e of
n ew
te ch n olo g ies "
20 2 5-20 31
pe riod
c u rre n t
1 SSR
+1 e xterna l S S R
+ 2 lim ited W A M
1 SSR
+ 2 e xte rn al S S R +
2 lim ite d W A M
n on c oo p erative
2 01 3-20 2 0
2 02 5-20 3 1
p erio d
p eriod
2 PSR
K . V a ry
c oo p erative
20 13 -2 0 20
pe rio d
c urre nt
s ce na rio
"lim ite d u s e of
n ew
te ch n olo g ies "
2 SSR
+ 3 ex te rna l S S R
+ 1 lim ite d W A M
Figure 60.
20 2 5-20 31
pe riod
c u rre n t
2 SSR
+ 1 lim ited W A M
n on c oo p erative
2 01 3-20 2 0
2 02 5-20 3 1
p erio d
p eriod
1 PSR
+ 1 e xterna l P S R
2 PSR
The “Limited use of new technologies” scenario
The “limited use of new technologies” scenario assessment will be used as the basis for comparison
with other scenarios. The assessment addresses the compliance to the baseline (constraints) and to
the following objectives:
•
•
•
Cost assessment,
•
•
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 75 of 92
5.2.2.1.1 Overall assessment
score
(/10)
weighting
Compliant with the current infrastructure and the technology roadmap
Full reuse of existing sites
9
4
windfarms
More dependent to neighbouring sensor data than scenarios 2 and 3 which
rely on local Surveillance means (distributed systems)
7
2
cost
assessment
9
5
Performance
assessment
Limited performance.
Important gaps of coverage at low altitude in the inner areas of both sites
for both the cooperative and non cooperative Surveillance.
3
5
Efficiency
assessment
« Limited use of new technologies » Scenario assessment
9
1
Assessment criteria
External factors
Internal
strategy
Assessment
Figure 61.
« Limited use of new technologies » scenario assessment
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 76 of 92
The resulting cost evolution curve is depicted in the figure below. The total cost of ownership is taken
as the reference (index: 100) for comparison with the other 2 scenarios.
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
20
30
20
28
20
26
20
24
20
22
20
20
20
18
20
16
Total cost
20
14
20
12
Scenario 1
Years
Figure 62.
« Limited use of new technologies » scenario, cumulated cost assessment
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 77 of 92
The Surveillance performance of the scenario “Limited use of new technologies” can be synthesized by
the following coverage simulations:
•
Of the 2013-2020 and 2025-2031cooperative (left) and non-cooperative (right) infrastructure,
•
Where all performance objectives are satisfied,
•
On a fighter,
•
Flying at the minimum altitude of each sector of the volumes of interest (Brno CTA and Karlovy
Vary TMA).
Figure 63.
Brno CTA - 2013-2020 and 2025-2031 cooperative (left) and non-cooperative (right)
Surveillance coverage of the « Limited use of new technologies » scenario
Note that the figure above is showing the performances for both the 2013-2020 period and the 2025-2031 period.
Figure 64. Karlovy Vary TMA - 2013-2020 cooperative (left) and non-cooperative (right)
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 78 of 92
Figure 65. Karlovy Vary TMA – 2025-2031 cooperative (left) and non-cooperative (right)
Figure 66.
The gaps in coverage for the cooperative and non-cooperative Surveillance have been analysed to be
visibility issues due to terrain masks. These low altitude gaps in coverage prevent the detection of
some VFR aircraft that are a potential danger to the IFR traffic.
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 79 of 92
5.2.2.2 The « medium use of new technologies » scenario
Scenario 2 (“medium use of new technologies”) proposes to use alternative technologies (WAM, ADSB, MSPSR and PCL) to complement conventional ones.
•
Regarding the conventional technologies (PSR and SSR), this scenario policy is to propose a
“one to one replacement” of the existing components infrastructure at their date of
obsolescence.
•
Alternative technologies are then used as gapfillers to conventional technologies when needed
to improve the current performance or when needed because of the decommissioning of
external sensors.
B rn o
c oo p erative
20 13 -2 0 20
pe rio d
c urre nt
"M ed iu m us e of
n ew
te ch n olo g ies "
1 SSR
+2 e xterna l S S R
+ 2 lim ited W A M
1 SSR
+ 1 e xterna l
SSR
+ 2 lim ite d
W AM
+ A D S -B
20 2 5-20 31
pe riod
c u rre n t
1 SSR
+ 1 e x terna l
SSR
+ 1 lim ited
W AM
+ 1 e xten de d
W AM
+ 1 e xten de d
A D S -B
2 PSR
n on c oo p erative
2 01 3-20 2 0
2 02 5-20 3 1
p erio d
p eriod
2 PSR
+ 1 ga pfille r
PCL
1 PSR
+ 1 ga pfille r
M SPSR
K . V a ry
c oo p erative
20 13 -2 0 20
pe rio d
c urre nt
"M ed iu m us e of
n ew
te ch n olo g ies "
2 SSR
+ 1 lim ite d W A M
1 SSR
+ 1 e xterna l
SSR
+ 1 lim ite d
W AM
+ A D S -B
Figure 67.
20 2 5-20 31
pe riod
c u rre n t
1 SSR
+ 1 e x terna l
SSR
+ 1 e xten de d
W AM
+ ex te nd ed
A D S -B
1 PSR
+ 1 e xterna l
PSR
n on c oo p erative
2 01 3-20 2 0
2 02 5-20 3 1
p erio d
p eriod
1 PSR
+ 1 ex te rn al
PSR
+ 1 ga pfille r
PCL
1 PSR
+ 1 g a pfille r
PCL
The « medium use of new technologies » scenario
The assessment addresses the following aspects:
• Compliance with the infrastructure strategy requirements,
• Compliance with external factors requirements,
• Cost assessment,
• Performance assessment,
• Efficiency assessment.
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 80 of 92
score
(/10)
weighting
7
4
Compliant with the current and anticipated aircraft data. However without a local
mandate to equip all aircraft with ADS-B transponders, the ADS-B layer of
coverage will only serve for IFR aircraft (see the SPI IR)
No assessment performed regarding the cohabitation with potential windfarms
8
2
Cumulated cost index over the period 2012 -2031 (reference: 100): 142,5
4
5
Performance
Improved performance compared to scenario 1.
All critical gaps in coverage are filled after 2025-2031.
However, for the non cooperative coverage, the use of PCL as gapfiller cannot
guarantee the continuity of service in the covered gaps unless the ANS CR can
obtain an agreement with the non ATM transmitter operators.
8
5
Efficiency
« medium use of new technologies » Scenario assessment
The use of redundant technologies leads to a greater overall consumption of
spectrum than in the other two scenarios.
The use of redundant technologies leads to a continuity of service exceeding the
objective, as each technology independantly would have been sufficient (for the
targeted continuity of service).
8
1
cost /
budget
Assessment criteria
External factors
Internal
strategy
Assessment
Limited reuse of existing sites (because of distributed sensors):
. more multistatic sites than scenario 1
. same number of monostatic sites than scenario 1
Figure 68.
« medium use of new technologies » scenario assessment
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 81 of 92
The resulting cost evolution curve is depicted in the figure below in reference to total cost of scenario 1
(100):
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
20
30
20
28
20
26
20
24
20
22
20
20
20
18
20
16
Total cost
20
14
20
12
Scenario 2
Years
Figure 69.
« medium use of new technologies » scenario, cumulated cost assessment
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 82 of 92
The Surveillance performance of the scenario « medium use of new technologies » can be synthesized
by the following coverage simulations:
•
•
•
On a fighter,
•
Vary TMA).
Figure 70.
Brno CTA - 2013-2020 cooperative (left) and non-cooperative (right) Surveillance
coverage of the « medium use of new technologies » scenario
It should be noted that the good non cooperative performance is achieved mainly by the PCL gapfiller
contribution which benefits from non ATM very high power ground stations.
Figure 71.
coverage of the « medium use of new technologies » scenario
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 83 of 92
Here, for the non-cooperative coverage, the PCL gapfiller has been replaced by an MSPSR gapfiller in
order to ensure that the service becomes independent from non ATM transmissions and to improve
high altitude performance (not simulated). As a counterpart, the proposed MSPSR gapfiller
configuration do not benefit from the very high power non ATM ground stations and the performance is
partially reduced to achieve the best cost / performance ratio for the proposed scenario policy in terms
of technology use.
Surveillance coverage of the « medium use of new technologies » scenario
Surveillance coverage of the « medium use of new technologies » scenario
Here, the reduction of performance between the 2013-2020 and the 2025-2031 periods is due to the
decommissioning of an external PSR (AUERS) which is not scheduled to be replaced (report hypothesis).
Figure 74.
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 84 of 92
The gaps in coverage for the cooperative and non-cooperative Surveillance have been analysed to be
visibility issues due to terrain masks. These low altitude gaps in coverage prevent the detection of
some VFR aircraft that are a potential danger to the IFR traffic..
Given the remaining gaps, one could have proposed to add sensors to fill them in. However, the
proposed approach here has been to target a cost efficient solution improving the 2025-2031 period
performance of scenario 1 using emerging technologies. Had it been deemed relevant by the ANS CR,
an even more improved performance with additional sensors could have been investigated.
The good cooperative coverage for both volumes of interest beyond 2025 needs to be compensated
by the fact that no local mandate is expected to equip more aircraft (i.e. VFR) than what is expected in
the SPI IR. As a result, the cooperative coverage will need to rely on the WAM and SSR infrastructure
for non-ADS-B equipped aircraft. The ADS-B infrastructure will be better exploited once complemented
by local mandates to increase the number of aircraft equipped.
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 85 of 92
5.2.2.3 The « progressive switch to new technologies » scenario
Scenario 3 (“progressive switch to new technologies”) proposes a smooth migration to alternative
technologies considering their availability on the market (the manufacturer strategy being: now for
WAM, from 2015-2020 onwards for MSPSR) and taking into account the obsolescence of the existing
systems. Beyond 2025, the surveillance of the Brno CTA and Karlovy Vary TMA would be fully ensured
by:
•
a WAM & ADS-B network for the cooperative part,
•
an MSPSR network for the non-cooperative part.
B rn o
c urren t
"P rog re ss ive
sw itch to n e w
te ch n olo g ies "
1 SSR
+ 2 ex te rn al
SSR
+ 2 lim ite d
W AM
c oo p erative
2 0 13 -2 02 0
pe rio d
1 SSR
+ 1 e xte rn a l
SSR
+ 1 lim ite d
W AM
+ 1 ex te nd e d
W AM
+ A D S -B
20 2 5-20 31
p eriod
cu rren t
1 ex te nd ed
W AM
+ 1 lim ited
W AM
+ 1 e xten de d
A D S -B
2 PSR
no n co o pe ra tive
2 01 3-20 2 0
2 02 5-20 3 1
p eriod
p eriod
2 PSR
+ 1 g a pfille r
PCL
1 ex te nd e d
MSPSR
K . V ary
c urren t
"P rog re ss ive
sw itch to n e w
te ch n olo g ies "
2 SSR
+ 3 ex te rn al
SSR
+ 1 lim ite d
W AM
c oo p erative
2 0 13 -2 02 0
pe rio d
1 SSR
+ 1 e xte rn a l
SSR
+ 1 ex te nd e d
W AM
+ A D S -B
Figure 75.
20 2 5-20 31
p eriod
cu rren t
1 ex te nd ed
W AM
+ ex te nd ed
A D S -B
1 PSR
+ 1 ex te rn al
PSR
no n co o pe ra tive
2 01 3-20 2 0
2 02 5-20 3 1
p eriod
p eriod
1 PSR
+ 1 ex te rn al
PSR
1 ex te nd e d
MSPSR
The « progressive switch to new technologies » scenario
Note that the figure above does not show potential replacement of sensors every 15 years but focuses
on significant infrastructure evolutions impacting performance.
The assessment addresses the following aspects:
• Compliance with the infrastructure strategy requirements,
• Compliance with external factors requirements,
• Cost assessment,
• Performance assessment,
• Efficiency assessment.
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 86 of 92
« progressive switch to new technologies » Scenario assessment
score
Assessment
(/10)
8
4
Compliant with the current and anticipated aircraft data. However without a local
mandate to equip all aircraft with ADS-B transponders, the ADS-B layer of
coverage will only serve for IFR aircraft (see the SPI IR)
No assessment performed regarding the cohabitation with potential windfarms
8
2
Cumulated cost index over the period 2012 -2031 (reference: 100): 116,5
7
5
Performance
Improved performance compared to scenario 1.
All critical gaps in coverage are filled after 2013-2020 (sooner than scenario 2).
9
5
9
1
cost /
budget
External factors
Internal
strategy
Limited reuse of existing sites (because of distributed sensors):
. more multistatic sites than scenario 1
. less monostatic sites than scenarios 1 and 2
Efficiency
Assessment criteria
weighting
Figure 76.
« progressive switch to new technologies » scenario assessment
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 87 of 92
The resulting cost evolution curve is depicted in the figure below in reference to total cost of scenario 1
(100):
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
20
30
20
28
20
26
20
24
20
22
20
20
20
18
20
16
20
14
Total cost
20
12
Scenario 3
Years
Figure 77.
« progressive switch to new technologies » scenario, cumulated cost assessment
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 88 of 92
The Surveillance performance of the scenario « progressive switch to new technologies » can be
synthesized by the following coverage simulations at the different key milestones of the scenario:
•
•
•
On a fighter,
•
Vary TMA).
Figure 78.
coverage of the « progressive switch to new technologies » scenario
Figure 79.
coverage of the « progressive switch to new technologies » scenario
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 89 of 92
Surveillance coverage of the « progressive switch to new technologies » scenario
Surveillance coverage of the « progressive switch to new technologies » scenario
Figure 82.
The good cooperative coverage for both volumes of interest beyond 2025 needs to be compensated
by the fact that no local mandate is expected to equip more aircraft (i.e. VFR) than what is expected in
the SPI IR. As a result, the cooperative coverage will need to rely on the WAM and SSR infrastructure
for non-ADS-B equipped aircraft. The ADS-B infrastructure will be better exploited once complemented
by local mandates to increase the number of aircraft equipped.
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 90 of 92
5.2.3 Brno/Karlovy Vary application case summary
This Application Case addresses a rationalisation of a part of the Czech Surveillance infrastructure from
both a technical and an economic perspective.
The rationalisation starts with the identification of the case specificities (i.e. a recent increase in VFR
traffic flying in the vicinity of the major airports). The main objective of the rationalisation and upgrade
is thus to provide improved detection of VFR aircraft operating at very low altitudes around the airports
studied. With this established as an objective three scenarios were proposed and assessed through a
quantitative analysis.
The main lessons from this application case are that:
• Distributed technologies are especially adapted to provide low altitude coverage over wide
areas,
• If different technologies can be used to complement each other gaps of coverage or to improve
the global continuity of service, an overachievement of these objectives may lead to high
maintenance costs. That has been the case for instance in scenario 2, where the strategy to
have one layer of coverage of each cooperative technology leads to an over redundancy and to
high maintenance costs,
• SINBAD PCL is a good alternative to fill gaps especially in low density traffic areas:
o where traditional technologies would prove to be too expensive,
o where suitable opportunity transmitters are available
o Where there is a possibility to guarantee a sufficient continuity of service through
agreement with the owners of the opportunity transmitters.
•
•
ADS-B will be better exploited once complemented by local mandates to increase the number
of aircraft equipped,
All distributed technologies (WAM, ADS-B and MSPSR) have similar constraints (nearly similar
optimum mean distance between stations, similar topographic constraints to compensate the
masks, similar required infrastructure). Thus collocating different technologies seems to give
optimum cost / performance results.
The conclusion points to the fact that a smooth migration towards alternative technologies represents
the best balance cost / performance for the ANS CR, as it would enable to cover the main current gaps
of Surveillance, at a limited additional cost compared to scenario 1.
It should be noted that this conclusion is very dependent on the ANSP’s priorities and that another
ANSP may have considered a different set of candidate scenarios and may then have settled for
another rationalised scenario.
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 91 of 92
6. Conclusion
This document presents a view of the future SINBAD and SINBAD like systems: MultiStatic Primary Surveillance
Radar (MSPSR).
These new kind of Radar products are now on their tracks to complement, at first, PSR as WAM is
complementing SSR, with Europe in leading position. After SINBAD we now know for sure that the future of PSR
functions lies with MSPSR technology.
In particular the two application cases studied shows that the introduction of such technology is performance and
cost effective. Over the period studied we have evaluated the saving between 10 to 20%, depending off the case.
Moreover these reductions in expenses are not detrimental to the performances and looking at Brno CTA and
Karlovy Vary TMA cases:
Figure 83.
Overall performance comparison of the scenarios
We clearly see the improvement in coverage with scenario 3, which implements SINBAD-MSPSR, and that:
• Distributed technologies are especially adapted to cover low altitude coverage over wide areas (needed
for e.g. in case of close airports or aerodromes).
• SINBAD is a good alternative to fill gaps especially in low density traffic areas:
o where traditional technologies would prove to be too expensive,
o where suitable opportunity transmitters are available
o Where there is a possibility to guarantee a sufficient continuity of service through agreement with
the owners of the opportunity transmitters.
TR6/SR/PST-420/10 – f1
Page 92 of 92

Technological Implementation Plan Report (Other project deliverable)

Transcription

Documents pareils

Tablette PC Durcie Tablette PC Durcie AG-Z71

Major Adjective comparison Student Answer key

i-Composites - Microwave Curing to Increase Rate

Central Morzine apartment in a superb location

Reality TV - Anglais en LP

Infectious diseases in schools Infectious diseases in schools are

Linutop TV User manual

Cosmic Culture -- Song Lyrics -- E Cosmic Culture - OPS

les corrigés 2016 - The Big Challenge