These F-16s are truly a state of the art addition to the PAF fleet no doubt, and CFTs add to fuel carrying capabilities. These jets are prepared for use by a dedicated Mission Planning System, and some information that is relevant to the operation of these jets may be of interest to some:
(Please note that the fuel management system, which includes the CFTs, is part of this MPS setup, in case anyone is wondering about how this is relevant.)
"This paper will analyze this bottleneck from the perspective of mission planning for
the F-16. As a multirole fighter, the F-16 has been at the forefront of mission planning since the early 1980âs. It has experienced the full spectrum of mission planning systems, from early stovepipes to the large Unix based systems. Examining the impact of Air Force mission planning development on the F-16 community allows us to draw some conclusions, many of which apply to Air Force mission planning in a larger sense. As with most areas in the computer field, things change at such a rapid pace that published sources are oftentimes obsolete by the time they see print. Test reports from mission planning systems provide data on capability and suitability, however this paper is based primarily on interviews with people across the full spectrum of mission planning development. They provide perspectives, which are in tune with the rapidly changing environment of automated mission planning development."
Automated mission planning for the F-16, as with most aircraft, started out as a
luxury. Pilots would spend hours in the planning room with paper, pencil, and charts.
The results of these efforts were recorded on various slips of paper such as lineup cards
and data sheets, and hand entered into the aircraft for flight. As the F-16 mission grew
more complex, the amount of data required to be transferred to the aircraft exceeded the
pilotâs ability to enter it by hand. Thus was born the data transfer cartridge (DTC) for the
F-16C.
DTCâs provided the pilot a quick method for loading preflight data into the aircraft,
and the history of DTC memory capacity increases provides a quick snapshot of the
incredible growth of F-16 mission planning needs:1
⢠Pre-1980: data entered by hand
⢠1981: 8K DTCâs
⢠1987: 64K DTCâs
⢠1990: 128K DTCâs
⢠1996: 32 and 72 megabyte DTCâs
Initially, the capacity of the DTC was small enough that the pilot could easily enter
the critical data into the aircraft by hand if necessary. Soon the amount of data being
loaded into the aircraft exceeded the capability of the pilot to type it in manually. At this
point, mission planning systems moved from being a luxury to a necessity.
The explosive growth of F-16 mission planning data requirements led to the need for
systems capable of loading these DTCâs. The early history of automated mission
planning (depicted in Figures 1 and 2) is a tale of two paths. The first taken was that of
the officially sponsored Air Force systems. This began in 1980 with the Computer-Aided
Mission Planning System (CAMPS). This was soon followed by the Unix based CS2
system in 1981, which matured into the Mission Support System (MSS I) in 1983.3 All
of these systems were large Unix based computers which provided the capability to do
mission planning using a graphical interface with charts, and load DTCâs to transfer data
to the aircraft. The MSS systems went through several upgrades, finally being replaced
by the newer Air Force Mission Support System (AFMSS) in 1992. The AFMSS system
was another Unix based computer system, even larger than its predecessor, the MSS II.
The second path mission planning took was the smaller effort of personal computer
(PC) based planning. These efforts were grass roots based development, literally
beginning in someoneâs garage with no funding at all. Computer savvy pilots, frustrated
with the size and complexity of the official Air Force systems, set out to create something
small, fast, and friendly. In 1981 aircrews wrote DTC Loader Reader (DTCLR). This
was a very rudimentary program allowing pilots to load and read DTCâs quickly without
having to battle the complexities of the large Unix systems.5 In 1984, a small group of
pilots at Myrtle Beach AFB developed Flight Planner (FPLAN) to aid with A-10
planning.6 This DOS based program provided fast efficient text based flight planning
without all the bells, whistles, and complexities of the large systems. The popularity of
FPLAN with the aircrews caused the Air Force to adopt it as a minimally funded effort in
the late 1980âs.
Automated mission planning for the F-16 currently comes in two flavors: MPS and
PFPS. The MPS system is the large Unix based system that was last updated in 1997. A
typical F-16 squadron would have 2 MPS II stations with 2 planning seats each and two
Portable Mission Planning Systems (PMPS). The current PFPS mission planning suite
was updated for the Windows 95 operating system in 1997. In order to equip a typical F-
16 squadron with the same number of planning stations would take 6 PC computers and 6
Ogden Data Device 3 (ODD-3) cartridge load units.
There are differences between the systems that should be identified. The MPS
stations are designed to do far more than the PFPS suite for PCâs. According to MPS
documentation, MPS is âan integrated, networkable, multiple user, deployable mission
planner designed to receive data from various sources to plan a mission and provide both
printed and electronic documentation.â1 The scope of operations for MPS is actually far
more than just mission planning for the individual aircrew member.
The PFPS suite is a set of tools designed specifically for the individual planner.
While they do integrate with each other and will take data from other sources, PFPS is
not designed nor equipped to attempt the full spectrum of integrated planning activities
that an MPS station is designed to perform. With this basic differentiation in mind, the
problems of the status quo can be examined.
Depending on the specific configuration and layout, an MPS I system takes
approximately 75 square feet to set up each station. Figure 3 shows the layout of a
typical two seat station. Due to the nature of some mission planning data the MPS
stations must be set up in a secure location. The demands of these systems for floor
space can cause problems with available secure locations, which is at a premium in most
F-16 squadrons. This problem is more pronounced in a deployed situation
In contrast, the PFPS systems can be as large or as small as the user desires. The
CD-ROM based software can be loaded on any system running Windows 95âfrom a
large desktop system to a portable notebook. Figure 4 depicts a laptop computer based
PFPS system ready to flight plan and load cartridges for an F-16. The ODD-3 device
used to load cartridges is roughly the size of half a loaf of bread. In contrast to the MPS
systems that require specific space intensive hardware, these systems are scaleable. The
requirements for floor space are a far cry from those of the MPS systems.
Automated mission planning is no longer a luxury. Without the proper systems to
support mission planning at the tactical level, the aircraft are just as ineffective as if the
engines are removed. Future development must consider the path mission planning has
taken in the past and actively try to avoid the same pitfalls. Both hardware and software
issues must be addressed.
Past justification for using large Unix based systems is no longer valid. Unix
systems are no longer required for the data processing needs of the user, and are difficult
to use in todayâs PC prevalent society. The cost in dollars, floor space, and training can
no longer be justified.
Software development is particularly susceptible to the problems of the past. The
rush to provide marginal capabilities sometimes tramples the bottom line need for the
basics. Future systems should emphasize providing the basic mission planning features
first - the 80% solution. Once this has been provided, new features can be added in later
releases. Due to the rapid pace of technology growth today, the hunt for the 110%
solution may even result in development paralysis. Releases are constantly held up for
âone more featureâ and never get completedâas there is always one more carrot to delay
for on the horizon. Beyond the individual planner, the system should concentrate on
interoperability with other systems. This will emphasize the sharing of data and files to
improve the mission planning process, but does not mean that all systems are locked into
one master configurationânor that all users inherit the overhead of unneeded features
found in other systems. Emphasis on the PC platform provides the opportunity for
numerous commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) solutions and significantly increases
competition for those contracts. Dollars previously used in the development of expensive
Unix solutions can be directed elsewhere.
The danger of not heeding the lessons of the past will be a failure to meet current and
future operational needs. In the near future mission planning systems must be smaller,
cheaper, easier to use, and PC based to meet the needs of the warfighter. Smaller systems
are needed to support current operational employment concepts such as the Aerial
Expeditionary Force (AEF). Current AEF plans include reducing the airlift requirement
as much as possible to enable quick reaction. Current MPS systems require one to two
pallets to airlift each into the theater of operations. Switching to PC based systems
reduces airlift requirements substantially for an AEF movement. Cheaper systems are
needed to support the lean logistics concept. The MPS systems are larger and more
expensive to repair than PC hardware, which are almost disposable. A much smaller
logistics footprint can be maintained through utilization of PC systems, and any
necessary repairs will be both cheaper and easier to obtain.
Mission planning systems must also concentrate on ease of use. Todayâs battlefield
is a more mobile and lethal arena than ever before. The shift towards precision strike on
almost all platforms puts a larger burden on the mission planning systems since they
become the pacing function in joint precision interdiction timeliness.
It is also becoming
increasingly obvious that the United States will rarely, if ever, fight a purely unilateral
operation. This means that our mission planning systems will have to take into
consideration interoperability with not only US systems, but those of our multinational
partners as well. Many nations have already approached the United States to purchase
mission planning technology. The preponderance of interest has weighed heavily in
favor of PC based planning, due to its low cost.
Moving US mission planning in this
direction will substantially increase our chances of interoperability with our allies.
Mission planning development will also have to consider the implications of the
future battlespace. Joint Vision 2010 lists five areas of dynamic change as we move
towards 2010: multinational operations, enhanced jointness, information superiority,
technological advances, and potential adversaries.
The first four of these directly impact
mission planning systems. As discussed above, increased multinational operations will
require the ability to integrate with alliesâ mission planning systemsâmost likely PC
based systems. Enhanced jointness will require the same integration among our own
services, emphasizing the need for systems that are not unifiedâbut integrated.
Information superiority will require the ability to sort, process, and share data between
multiple systems. Technological advances will have to be embraced and leveraged to
further improve our capabilities. This means being willing to let go of past paradigms
such as Unix based mission planning and seizing the advantages of new technology such
as recent growth in the PC industry.
If the lessons from the past are heeded, the Air Force will produce a system that is
easy to use, cost effective, portable, and scalable. It will provide mission planning
capabilities to support todayâs joint and multinational operations as well as the battlefield
envisioned in the future in Joint Vision 2010. Past problems will teach us how to better
provide the warfighters the tools they need to accomplish the mission, and the mission
planning bottleneck will at last be broken.
