1 / 28

Presentation to UAT MOPS WG-5 UAT-WP-7-10

Presentation to UAT MOPS WG-5 UAT-WP-7-10. Larry Bachman 240-228-6339 larry.bachman@jhuapl.edu. Core Europe Runs I. Link 16 Baseline, option B No antenna effects Two adjacent channel DMEs 3600 pulse pairs/second for each UAT self-interference Co-site 1030, 1090, DME interference

amandla
Télécharger la présentation

Presentation to UAT MOPS WG-5 UAT-WP-7-10

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Presentation to UAT MOPS WG-5UAT-WP-7-10 Larry Bachman 240-228-6339 larry.bachman@jhuapl.edu

  2. Core Europe Runs I • Link 16 Baseline, option B • No antenna effects • Two adjacent channel DMEs • 3600 pulse pairs/second for each • UAT self-interference • Co-site 1030, 1090, DME interference • Several altitude options • Highest number of other aircraft in view (usually high altitude (FL300-400) • FL150

  3. Core Europe Runs II • Several transmit power options • Nominal • A3: 50-54 dB • A2: 41-45 dB • A0/A1: 37-41 dB • Option A • A3: 48-52 dB • A2: 42-46 dB • A0/A1: 38.5-42.5 dB • Option B • A3: 50-54 dB • A1/A2: 42-46 dB • A0: 38.5-42.5 dB

  4. Core Europe Runs III • Several receiver configuration options • A2/A3: diversity receivers • A1: switched receiver • A0: bottom antenna only • A0 restrictions • Up to FL150 • Transmits on bottom antenna only • Receive filters • A2/A3 have both 0.8 MHz and 1.2 MHz • A0/A1 have 1.2 MHz only

  5. Differences from Previous Results • Link 16: different baseline scenario • DME • Two adjacent channel DMEs instead of one • Excursion: 3 adjacent channel DMEs • Reduced signal level at top antenna (-10 dB) • Comment: This scenario corresponds to an AWACS transmitting at full capacity over Brussels, flying 1000 ft from the aircraft, which is also near 2-3 high-power DMEs each transmitting at the same frequency within miles of each other.

  6. Order of Results • Comparison of power options • Comparison of receive filter options • Reception by various aircraft types

  7. State Vector Update Times for A3 Receivers at FL 400 with 1.2 MHz Filter

  8. TCP Update Times for A3 Receivers at FL 400 with 1.2 MHz Filter

  9. State Vector Update Times for A3 Receivers at FL 400 with 0.8 MHz Filter

  10. TCP Update Times for A3 Receivers at FL 400 with 0.8 MHz Filter

  11. State Vector Update Times for A3 Receivers at FL 150 with 1.2 MHz Filter

  12. TCP Update Times for A3 Receivers at FL 150 with 1.2 MHz Filter

  13. State Vector Update Times for A3 Receivers at FL 150 with 0.8 MHz Filter

  14. TCP Update Times for A3 Receivers at FL 150 with 0.8 MHz Filter

  15. State Vector Update Times for A1 Receivers at FL 400 with 1.2 MHz Filter

  16. State Vector Update Times for A1 Receivers at FL 150 with 1.2 MHz Filter

  17. State Vector Update Times for A0 Receivers at FL 150 with 1.2 MHz Filter

  18. Maximum Range of MASPS Compliance for SV/TCP Broadcasts from A3 Tx

  19. Maximum Range of MASPS Compliance for SV/TCP Broadcasts from A2 Tx

  20. Maximum Range of MASPS Compliance for SV Broadcasts from A1 Tx

  21. Summary of MASPS Compliance for Power Options for Fully Loaded Simulations • For A3 transmissions, the Nominal and B power options perform equally well in fulfilling MASPS requirements, and power option A performs somewhat worse. • For A2 transmissions, power option A outperforms the other two power options. • For A1 transmissions, power option B outperforms the other two power options.

  22. Comparison of A3 Receiver State Vector Update Times at FL 400 for Two Receive Filters Nominal Power Option used for all Tx

  23. Comparison of A3 Receiver State Vector Update Times at FL 150 for Two Receive Filters Nominal Power Option used for all Tx

  24. Summary of MASPS Compliance for Filter Comparison in Fully Loaded Simulation • For both altitudes considered, A3 compliance with the MASPS requirements was better for the 0.8 MHz filter case. • At FL 150, A2 compliance with the MASPS requirements was better for the 0.8 MHz filter. • A1 was compliant with the MASPS requirements for both filters.

  25. Comparison of State Vector Update Rates for Different Receivers from A3 Transmissions

  26. Comparison of State Vector Update Rates for Different Receivers from A2 Transmissions

  27. Comparison of State Vector Update Rates for Different Receivers from A1 Transmissions

  28. Summary and Conclusions • Power option B was chosen based on subjective judgment of overall compliance with MASPS requirements • The 0.8 MHz filter clearly outperformed the 1.2 MHz filter in A3 receivers for the given interference scenarios • Although the interference environment applied in these simulations was severe, the UAT data link appears capable of fulfilling the MASPS requirements in most situations

More Related