In early 2000, Mr. Bruce Brown (Northrop Grumman), a former F-117 pilot supporting DTRA’s Hard-Target Defeat initiative, began applying advanced design theory to the challenge of hard-target weaponeering. The design theory he used is based on a twopart visualization approach: (1) visualize the place you want to be (aspiration space), and (2) visualize where you can be (design space) in terms of key system variables.² In this context, “aspiration space” represents the penetration depth, “design space” encompasses the guidance kit impact performance, and “key system parameters” refer to impact angle and velocity.

Mr. Brown’s application of this design theory led to the response surface map (RSM), a graphical representation of the variables. To create an RSM, he first plotted lines of constant depth (acquired from multiple PENCRV3D runs) to show how penetration depth changed as impact angle and velocity changed. He then used the same chart to plot guidance kit performance envelopes using results predicted for a variety of weapons release conditions. An advantage of this approach was that all weapons using the same bomb body could be plotted on the same chart, providing nearly all of the information an analyst would need to solve a particular penetration problem.

Prior to implementation of the RSM, mission planners made an initial assumption of release conditions(e.g., 20,000 ft altitude and 500 kts airspeed), ran the PENCRV3D program, and evaluated the results. If the weapon failed to achieve the desired penetration depth, the planner selected either a new set of release conditions or a different weapon and then ran the analysis again. The advent of the RSM technique enabled mission planners to run a single analysis to determine the penetration outcome for multiple guidance kits and release conditions.