作者：
GERSH, JRThe authoris a principal staff engineer at The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
where he supervises the AAW Operations Section of the Combat Direction Group. Since joining JHU/APL in 1980 he has been involved in the specification development and testing of advanced surface combat direction systems specializing in the application of rule-based control mechanisms to command and control problems. In 1985-86 he chaired the Doctrine Working Group of the Naval Sea Systems Command's Combat Direction System Engineering Committee. Mr. Gersh served in the U.S. Navy from 1968 to 1977 as a sonar technician and as a junior officer (engineering and gunnery) aboard Atlantic Fleet frigates and as a member of the U.S. Naval Academy's Electrical Engineering faculty. He was educated at Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology receiving S. B. S. M. and E. E. degrees in electrical engineering from the latter. He holds certificates as a commercial pilot and flight instructor and is a member of the U.S. Naval Institute the IEEE Computer Society and the American Association for Artificial Intelligence.
For the last four years the most advanced surface combat direction system (CDS) of the U.S. Navy has employed a limited knowledge-based control mechanism. Implemented in the Aegis Weapon System's command and decis...
详细信息
For the last four years the most advanced surface combat direction system (CDS) of the U.S. Navy has employed a limited knowledge-based control mechanism. Implemented in the Aegis Weapon System's command and decision element, this capability is called control by doctrine, and is a foundation for the Ticonderoga class cruisers' exceptional performance. control by doctrine allows CIC personnel to direct that certain CDS functions be performed automatically upon tracks with specified characteristics. In effect, these CDS functions, from identification to engagement, can now be controlled through the specification and activation of general system response rules rather than by individual operator actions. The set of active rules, called doctrine statements, forms a system knowledge-base. The Advanced Combat Direction System, Block 1, successor to today's Naval Tactical Data System, will also employ control by doctrine. As part of a larger effort investigating Aegis/ACDS commonality issues, a Doctrine Working Group was chartered to consider, among other things, implications for force-wide interoperability of multiple systems with such rule-based control mechanisms. The working group produced a set of design objectives for doctrine statement standardization across CDSs. Principal features of these objectives are described. The prospect of several such ships operating together in a battle group has raised questions as to the methods by which the actions of ships with those doctrinally-automated systems can best be coordinated. Related questions deal with specific design features for the support of such coordinated action. Work is now being carried out to investigate these questions. Combat system automation through doctrine statements is only one kind of rule-based control. Much work in the area of artificial intelligence deals with the use and maintenance of complex systems of rules, usually in non-real-time problem solving applications. Such systems are just now beginning
This paper provides a context within which the role of human factors engineering (HFE) for Naval ship design may be understood. HFE is defined and its history as part of engineering design teams is traced. The role of...
This paper provides a context within which the role of human factors engineering (HFE) for Naval ship design may be understood. HFE is defined and its history as part of engineering design teams is traced. The role of HFE in ship systems design is defined, and the HFE Technology for Ships Program, managed by SEA 061R, is described. The rationale for inclusion of HFE in the design process is presented, the methodology whereby it is incorporated into the design process is detailed, methodology to assess the application of HFE is outlined, and the benefits that will accrue as a result of inclusion of HFE considerations in the design process are documented. The counterpoint to inclusion is illustrated through instances of design-induced human errors. A specific application of HFE in the acquisition process is illustrated through use of the Landing Craft, Air Cushion HFE program plan. The difficulties which may be encountered as the size of the target system expands are described. Potential roadblocks to the required incorporation of HFE are examined for their source and possible ameliorative steps.
暂无评论