WO2001033506A1 - Procede permettant de presenter une situation de menace sur un dispositif d'affichage - Google Patents

Procede permettant de presenter une situation de menace sur un dispositif d'affichage Download PDF

Info

Publication number
WO2001033506A1
WO2001033506A1 PCT/IB2000/001580 IB0001580W WO0133506A1 WO 2001033506 A1 WO2001033506 A1 WO 2001033506A1 IB 0001580 W IB0001580 W IB 0001580W WO 0133506 A1 WO0133506 A1 WO 0133506A1
Authority
WO
WIPO (PCT)
Prior art keywords
threat
circle
objects
possibility
events
Prior art date
Application number
PCT/IB2000/001580
Other languages
English (en)
Inventor
Roberto Roldan Prado
Original Assignee
Roberto Roldan Prado
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Priority claimed from SE9903965A external-priority patent/SE9903965A0/sv
Priority claimed from SE9904283A external-priority patent/SE9904283L/xx
Application filed by Roberto Roldan Prado filed Critical Roberto Roldan Prado
Priority to AU79399/00A priority Critical patent/AU7939900A/en
Publication of WO2001033506A1 publication Critical patent/WO2001033506A1/fr

Links

Classifications

    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06T—IMAGE DATA PROCESSING OR GENERATION, IN GENERAL
    • G06T11/00—2D [Two Dimensional] image generation
    • G06T11/20—Drawing from basic elements, e.g. lines or circles
    • G06T11/206—Drawing of charts or graphs

Definitions

  • the present invention is intended to present the threat situation on a display.
  • the invention is intended to present civilian as well as military threats and others possible events between objects.
  • An object can be an aircraft, an air-defence gun, a ship, an obstacle, etc.
  • An example of a civilian threat is the risk for collision between aircraft.
  • An example of a military threat is the risk for impact with a missile.
  • An example of a military possible event is to get a sensor to lock on a target.
  • Yet another civil possible event is the risk for a ship to collide with other ships and the risk to run aground.
  • the objects are divided into two groups, first objects and second objects.
  • first objects In a military combat situation between a first object (FiObj) and a second object (SeObj) it is interesting to know how to present the threat (tSF) to the first object (FiObj) from the second object (SeObj) and the threat (tFS) to the second object (SeObj) from the first object (FiObj).
  • Important information is the position in space of the object, their performance (speed and so on) and the range of their weapons and so on.
  • An unsophisticated way to present the situation of the threat is to reproduce the space with the first object situated at the origin in a system of polar co-ordinates, where the distance to the others objects are marked.
  • the threat in the shape of the range of the robots can be marked with circles around respective object.
  • Such presentation is, at least in complicated situations with several objects, difficult to rapidly estimate.
  • the invention is characterised by a common circle, called the threat circle, TC, for all the objects, in the general case called the circle of possible events, in relation to which all the threats are presented.
  • the invention is also characterised by that both the threat, tSF, to the first object, FiObj, from the second object, SeObj, and the threat, tFS, to the second object, SeObj, from the first object, FiObj, is marked with its own symbol located in the direction from the centre of the threat circle to the second object, SeObj.
  • the latter makes it possible to overlay the picture of the threat situation plane on the plane of location and in the same time presents the true location and the true threat situation of the different objects.
  • the threat circle, TC marks the boundary between the area inside the threat circle in which the threat exists and the area outside the threat circle in which the threat does not exist.
  • the distance of the threat symbol to the threat circle tells nothing about how close in time the threat symbol is from crossing the threat circle. This, however, is obtained from the radial dynamics of the threat symbol together with their position in the threat situation plane.
  • the invention makes it possible to easy present the uncertainty in forming judgement of the threat, witch normally is important to show.
  • uncertain facts E. g. in a military situation you do not know if the antagonist shall discover the firing of your robot and run away or continue on the same course. Also, you do not have complete information of the robotic ranges of the antagonist, perhaps even insecurity on the range of your own robot. Knowledge on the position and velocity of the antagonist can also be insufficient. All this insecurity and others can, fundamentally, be taken over into the radial range of the symbol in the threat situation plane.
  • the invention makes it possible to change the scale of the location plane and/or the scale of the threat situation plane. It is also possible to move the centre of the threat circle to a suitable position in the location plane and at the same time present the real positions and situations of the threat of the different objects.
  • the situation of the threat i.e. the radial distance of the threat symbol to the threat circle
  • tSF is computed as the quotient of the distance from FiObj to SeObj and the range of the missile of SeObj. A value of tSF less than one leads to a position of the threat symbol inside the threat circle, otherwise the position is outside.
  • tSF is computed as the difference of the distance between FiObj and SeObj and the range of the robot of SeObj. A value of tSF less than zero leads to a position of the threat symbol inside the threat circle, otherwise the position is outside.
  • tSF is computed as the time it takes for SeObj, with preserved velocity, to move the distance to FiObj minus the range of the robot of SeObj. If the range of the robot of SeObj is greater than the distance between FiObj and SeObj, the threat situation, tSF, is positioned inside the threat circle, otherwise the position is outside.
  • the analogous is valid for the threat situation, tFS, of the second object, SeObj, concerning the computation of the threat situation.
  • Fig. 1 shows a picture of the presentation of location
  • Fig. 2 shows a picture of the presentation of the threat situation
  • Fig. 3 shows the threat situation according to fig. 2 superposed (overlaid) on a picture of presentation of location
  • Fig. 4 shows a picture of the threat situation superposed on a picture of presentation of location with two first objects
  • Fig. 5 shows a picture of an one-sided threat situation to the second objects, SeObj, from the first objects, FiObj,
  • Fig. 6 shows a picture of the threat situation with insecurity in the threat
  • Fig. 7 shows a picture of the threat situation superposed on a picture of presentation of location with the second objects (SeObj 1 and SeObj2) close to and nearly at the same bearing, and finally
  • Fig. 8 shows another form of a representation of the threat situation with the second objects close to and nearly at the same bearing.
  • Fig. 1 shows a picture of the presentation of location that can be used together with the picture of the presentation of threat.
  • the current location of one first object, FiObj, and two seconds objects, SeObjl and SeObj2 are presented on a monitor, for example a tactic indicator.
  • a tactic indicator for example a tactic indicator.
  • Fig. 2 presents a situation where the threats (tFS, tSF) are located, in relation to the common threat circle, TC, in radial direction from the centre of the circle to each respective second object.
  • the threat, tS1 F, to FiObj from SeObjl is marked with an unfilled ring in radial direction from the centre of the threat circle to SeObjl .
  • the threat, tFS1 , to SeObjl from FiObj is also marked, with a filled ring, in radial direction from the centre of the threat circle to SeObjl .
  • the circle tells us that the threat is imminent when the threat is inside the circle.
  • the object SeObj2 is a danger threat to the object FiObj, which is evident by the position of tS2F inside the threat circle.
  • Fig. 2 shows also that FiObj is inferior to SeObjl in the sense that tS1 F is more close to the area inside TC, in which the threat exist, than tFS1.
  • a threat can be represented e. g. as a ring in the equipment of presentation.
  • the threat can also be represented as a short line (bar). If you choose a bar instead of a ring to present the threat, you must decide on which end of the bar that indicates the threat position. In the case of rings as well as in the case of bars one may use different colours, for example blue for first threat situation, tSF, and red for second threat situation, tFS.
  • Fig. 3 shows that one may overlay fig. 1 and fig. 2 and at the same time represent both the true location and the threats for the different objects.
  • the threat has be represented for one first object, FiObj, and two second objects, (SeObjl , SeObj2).
  • Fig. 4 presents the threat, tS2F1 , to FiObl from SeObj2 and tF1 S2 presents the threat to SeObj2 from FiObjl .
  • the threat to FiObj2 from SeObj2 is denoted by tS2F2 and the threat to SeObj2 from FiObj2 is denoted by tF2S2.
  • What restricts the number of objects is the fact that the display can be quite messy and difficult to interpret with many objects. It is, of course, possible to let a user choose which objects to display. After that the others are suppressed until new choices are made, after some time has passed or another simple criterion is fulfilled.
  • FiObj2 is located deliberately at long range from SeObjl in order to illustrate that its threat situation is not interesting and for that reason it is not necessary to be presented. It is evident from the figure that the threat, tF1 S2, to SeObj2 from FiObjl is imminent and that the same is valid for tS2F1. It is evident that SeObj2 is somewhat inferior to FiObjl in the sense that tS2F1 is more close to the area outside TC, where the threat does not exist, than tF1S2. It is also evident that FiObjl is somewhat inferior to SeObjl in the sense that tS1F1 is more close to the area inside TC, where the threat exists, than tF1 S1.
  • Fig. 4 shows two first objects where none of them are placed at the centre of the threat circle.
  • FiObjl or FiObj2 could have been selected to lie at the centre or the centre could be selected to lie in some kind of mean value between the objects.
  • FiObjl or FiObj2 could have been selected to lie at the centre or the centre could be selected to lie in some kind of mean value between the objects.
  • the equipment of presentation of threat can easily be designed so that relative transfer between the overlay pictures can be made.
  • Fig. 5 shows one-sided threat to second objects from first objects. It must be pointed out that there are two different scales in the same picture. One is the scale of the threat- situation plane and the other is the scale of the location plane of the objects. If, for example, in the threat situation plane 1 cm corresponds to 10 km then the threat, tF1S2, to SeObj2 from FiObjl is placed about 15 km inside the robot range of FiObjl. This is because the filled ring is placed about 1.5 cm from the threat circle inside it. In the plane of location 1 cm can, for example, corresponds to 5 km and consequently the distance between FiObjl and SeObj2 is about 40 km.
  • a short line is a suitable choose, where the length of the bar indicates the degree of insecurity.
  • the insecurity of the threat can then be presented as a bar in radial direction where the probability that the threat is inside the threat circle is proportional to the quotient between the length of the part of the bar inside the threat circle and the length of the whole bar.
  • the different lengths of the bars state the different degrees of insecurity.
  • equally long bars or rings are use meaning that the insecurity is either unknown or hidden.
  • the threat, tF1S2, to SeObj2 from FiObjl shows more insecurity than the threat, tS2F1 , to FiObjl from SeObj2 .
  • the threat tF1 S2 overlaps somewhat the area inside the threat circle, which means that there is a little probability that FiObjl can impact SeObj2 when its missile is fired.
  • the threat for example the threat from a missile by its range
  • the threat is dependent of several factors like the flying altitude, the relative differences in altitude between aircraft, launch direction, etc.
  • the presentation is constantly changing with respect to the current threat distance, for example the range of the missile.
  • the presentation of the objects can be excellent as can be seen by the figures.
  • the type of object is given by the symbol, which also gives the speed and direction of the speed vector, etc.
  • Fig. 8 shows how one may, by relative removal of the two pictures, render the presentation more clear. If the centre of the threat circle moves near SeObjl and SeObj2, then the angle difference between the objects, as seen from the centre of the threat circle, is bigger and consequently threat bars are more separated in angle. In order to more easily estimate the radial position of the different threats symbols on the display in relation to the threat circle (TC), one or more concentric circles, with respect to the threat circle, can be placed on the display.
  • TC threat circle
  • the threat circle can, more generally, be called the event circle (TC). Inside the event circle it is assumed that possible events occur while outside it, possible events do not occur.

Landscapes

  • Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
  • Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
  • Radar Systems Or Details Thereof (AREA)

Abstract

La présente invention concerne un procédé permettant de présenter sur un dispositif d'affichage au moins une menace (tSF, tFS) s'exerçant entre au moins un premier objet FiObj et au moins un deuxième objet SeObj, procédé caractérisé en ce que un seul cercle de menace, TC, est présenté à l'écran pour tous les premiers objets FiObj et tous les deuxièmes objets SeObj. Les menaces (tSF, tFS) sont représentées par des symboles placés, par rapport au cercle de menace, dans une direction radiale depuis le centre du cercle de menace, TC, jusqu'au deuxième objet, SeObj. Le cercle de menace marque la frontière entre la zone située à l'intérieur du cercle de menace, dans laquelle la menace existe, et la zone située à l'extérieur du cercle de menace, dans laquelle la menace n'existe pas. La distance radiale du symbole de menace jusqu'au cercle de menace constitue la mesure, sur une échelle de menace adéquate (temps, longueur, etc.), de la proximité de la transition entre les deux zones.
PCT/IB2000/001580 1999-11-02 2000-10-31 Procede permettant de presenter une situation de menace sur un dispositif d'affichage WO2001033506A1 (fr)

Priority Applications (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
AU79399/00A AU7939900A (en) 1999-11-02 2000-10-31 Method to present the threat situation on a display

Applications Claiming Priority (6)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
SE9903965-3 1999-11-02
SE9903965A SE9903965A0 (sv) 1999-11-02 1999-11-02 Sätt att på en bildskärm presentera en bild över aktuella möjligheter
SE9904283-0 1999-11-25
SE9904283A SE9904283L (sv) 1999-11-25 1999-11-25 Sätt att på en bildskärm presentera hotsituationsbild
ES200000011 2000-01-04
ES200000011 2000-01-04

Publications (1)

Publication Number Publication Date
WO2001033506A1 true WO2001033506A1 (fr) 2001-05-10

Family

ID=27240808

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
PCT/IB2000/001580 WO2001033506A1 (fr) 1999-11-02 2000-10-31 Procede permettant de presenter une situation de menace sur un dispositif d'affichage

Country Status (2)

Country Link
AU (1) AU7939900A (fr)
WO (1) WO2001033506A1 (fr)

Cited By (1)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US7161500B2 (en) 2001-05-10 2007-01-09 Saab Ab Display device for aircraft and method for displaying detected threats

Citations (3)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US4853700A (en) * 1984-10-29 1989-08-01 Toyo Communication Equipment Co., Ltd. Indicating system for warning airspace or threatening aircraft in aircraft collision avoidance system
WO1995019545A1 (fr) * 1994-01-18 1995-07-20 Honeywell Inc. Procede et systeme de gestion de donnees concernant les menaces aeriennes
EP0928952A1 (fr) * 1998-01-12 1999-07-14 Dassault Electronique Procédé et dispositif d'anti-collision terrain pour aéronef

Patent Citations (3)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US4853700A (en) * 1984-10-29 1989-08-01 Toyo Communication Equipment Co., Ltd. Indicating system for warning airspace or threatening aircraft in aircraft collision avoidance system
WO1995019545A1 (fr) * 1994-01-18 1995-07-20 Honeywell Inc. Procede et systeme de gestion de donnees concernant les menaces aeriennes
EP0928952A1 (fr) * 1998-01-12 1999-07-14 Dassault Electronique Procédé et dispositif d'anti-collision terrain pour aéronef

Non-Patent Citations (3)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Title
DEGRE T ET AL: "A new anti-collision system", NAVIGATION, OCT. 1980, FRANCE, vol. 28, no. 112, pages 412 - 425, XP000986511, ISSN: 0028-1530 *
HERTHER J C ET AL: "A fully automatic marine radar data plotter", JOURNAL OF THE INSTITUTE OF NAVIGATION, JAN. 1971, UK, vol. 24, no. 1, pages 43 - 49, XP000981890, ISSN: 0020-3009 *
PETTERSSON G ET AL: "Temporal decision support and datafusion in BVR-combat", PROCEEDINGS OF EUROFUSIO 98. INTERNATIONAL DATA FUSION CONFERENCE, PROCEEDINGS OF EUROFUSION 98. INTERNATIONAL DATA FUSION CONFERENCE, GREAT MALVERN, UK, 6-7 OCT. 1998, 1998, Malvern, UK, DERA, UK, pages 71 - 75, XP000981852 *

Cited By (1)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US7161500B2 (en) 2001-05-10 2007-01-09 Saab Ab Display device for aircraft and method for displaying detected threats

Also Published As

Publication number Publication date
AU7939900A (en) 2001-05-14

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
US7602478B2 (en) Fused sensor situation display
JP6618562B2 (ja) 船舶用航行支援装置
US7934651B2 (en) Intuitive tactical decision display
KR102012466B1 (ko) 구역 방어 기반의 위협 평가 장치 및 그 방법
EP3019968B1 (fr) Système et procédé de traitement d'informations tactiques dans des véhicules de combat
US5579009A (en) Sensor system
AU780498B2 (en) Method to present the threat situation on a display
WO2001039127A9 (fr) Procede de presentation d'une situation de menace sur un affichage
WO2001033506A1 (fr) Procede permettant de presenter une situation de menace sur un dispositif d'affichage
KR20160082390A (ko) 함정전투체계의 전술금지구역 감시장치
CN110199170B (zh) 用于在至少两个通信伙伴之间传输检测到的对象信息项的通信系统
CN106123692A (zh) 一种三维喷涂隐身的方法
SE521826C2 (sv) Sätt att på en bildskärm presentera en bild över aktuella möjligheter
Fowler The standoff observation of enemy ground forces from Project Peek to JointSTARS-A prolusion
SE521834C2 (sv) Sätt att på en bildskärm presentera en bild över aktuella möjligheter
Müller et al. Net based waterside security applications: From small solutions to maritime security networks
Mishra Network centric warfare in the context of ‘operation Iraqi freedom’
Mitzel Precision Strike Contributions Selected from the Annals of the Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest
Elko et al. Rolling airframe missile: development, test, evaluation, and integration
Shostko et al. The Task of Weapon Guidance onto the Aerial Target Using Optoelectronic Station of Trajectory Measurements
JPH0559360B2 (fr)
Bodenmüller Application of Bayesian reasoning for Military identification and classification
de Vasconcelos Campos et al. Command and Control: A low cost framework to remotely monitor military training
Duhon Tactical decision aid for CEC engage on remote
Filippidis Fuzzy and Dempster-Shafer evidential reasoning fusion methods for deriving action from surveillance observations

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
AK Designated states

Kind code of ref document: A1

Designated state(s): AE AG AL AM AT AU AZ BA BB BG BR BY BZ CA CH CN CR CU CZ DE DK DM DZ EE ES FI GB GD GE GH GM HR HU ID IL IN IS JP KE KG KP KR KZ LC LK LR LS LT LU LV MA MD MG MK MN MW MX MZ NO NZ PL PT RO RU SD SE SG SI SK SL TJ TM TR TT TZ UA UG US UZ VN YU ZA ZW

AL Designated countries for regional patents

Kind code of ref document: A1

Designated state(s): GH GM KE LS MW MZ SD SL SZ TZ UG ZW AM AZ BY KG KZ MD RU TJ TM AT BE CH CY DE DK ES FI FR GB GR IE IT LU MC NL PT SE BF BJ CF CG CI CM GA GN GW ML MR NE SN TD TG

121 Ep: the epo has been informed by wipo that ep was designated in this application
DFPE Request for preliminary examination filed prior to expiration of 19th month from priority date (pct application filed before 20040101)
REG Reference to national code

Ref country code: DE

Ref legal event code: 8642