The military services are being moved in the direction of performance-based specifications and standards. They are being steered against dictating ''how to'' produce an item since such action foreclose...
The military services are being moved in the direction of performance-based specifications and standards. They are being steered against dictating ''how to'' produce an item since such action forecloses on the ability to gain access to components or technology that may have a commercial equivalent. Why should the engineering community embrace the new approach? Aside from the obvious weight of it being approved policy, therefore currently mandated, it warrants examination because it is the correct approach at this time when applied to appropriate products. Military specifications and standards are to be displaced then, by acceptable alternative contractor design solutions. Industry bidders will be allowed to propose the particular design details, permitting procurement flexibility by contractually citing only system level or interface requirements, both physical and functional. Hopefully, this can broaden the industrial base and increase competition with reduced costs to follow. Conceptually, the approach appears both performance-sensible and cost-attractive (there are, of course, consequent risks) but how does implementation proceed? Is it possible to pursue the goals envisioned along paths that are not in themselves experimental? Can the American postulate, minimal loss of life and limb to U.S. military people, continue to be honored? Experience and track record elsewhere imply encouraging possibilities in select situations-useful prospects are identified and discussed in practical terms.
作者：
MENSH, DRKITE, RSDARBY, PHDennis Roy Mensh:is currently the task leader
Interoperability Project with the MITRE Corporation in McLean Va. He received his B.S. and M.S. degrees in applied physics from Loyola College in Baltimore Md. and the American University in Washington D. C. He also has completed his course work towards his Ph.D. degree in computer science specializing in the fields of systems analysis and computer simulation. He has been employed by the Naval Surface Warfare Center White Oak Laboratory Silver Spring Md. for 20 years in the areas of weapon system analysis and the development of weapon systems simulations. Since 1978 he has been involved in the development of tools and methodologies that can be applied to the solution of shipboard combat system/battle force system architecture and engineering problems. Mr. Mensh is a member of ASNE MORS IEEE U.S. Naval Institute MAA and the Sigma Xi Research Society. Robert S. Kite:is a systems engineer with the Naval Warfare Systems Engineering Department of the MITRE Corporation in McLean
Va. Mr. Kite received his B.S. degree in electronic engineering from The Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore Md. Mr. Kite retired from the Federal Communications Commission in 1979 and served a project manager of the J-12 Frequency Management Support Project for the Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute in Annapolis Md. before joining MITRE. Mr. Kite is presently a member of ASNE the Military Operations Research Society and an associate member of Sigma Xi. Paul H. Darby:has worked in the field of interoperability both in the development of interoperability concepts and systems since joining the Department of the Navy in 1967. He was the Navy's program manager for the WestPacNorth
TACS/ TADS and IFFN systems. He is currently head of the Interoperability Branch Warfare Systems Engineering Office Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command. He holds a B.S. from the U.S. Naval Academy.
JCS Pub 1 defines interoperability as “The ability of systems, units or forces to provide services to and accept services from other systems, units or forces and to use the services so exchanged to enable them to ope...
详细信息
JCS Pub 1 defines interoperability as “The ability of systems, units or forces to provide services to and accept services from other systems, units or forces and to use the services so exchanged to enable them to operate effectively together.” With JCS Pub 1 as a foundation, interoperability of systems, units or forces can be factored into a set of components that can quantify interoperability. These components are: media, languages, standards, requirements, environment, procedures, and human factors. The concept described in this paper uses these components as an analysis tool to enable specific detailed analyses of the interoperability of BFC3 systems, units, or forces for the purpose of uncovering and resolving interoperability issues and problems in the U.S. Navy, Joint, and Allied arenas. Also, as a management tool, the components can help determine potential interoperability characteristics of future U.S. Navy BFC3 systems for compliance with battle force systems architectures. The approach selected for the quantification of interoperability was the development of a set of measures of performance (MOPs) and measures of effectiveness (MOEs). The MOPs/MOEs were integrated with a candidate set of components, which were used to partition the totality of interoperability into measurable entities. The methodology described employs basic truth table theory in conjunction with logic equations to evaluate the interoperability components in terms of MOPs that were aggregated to MOEs. It is believed that this concept, although elementary and based on fundamental principles, represents an operationally significant approach rather than a theoretical approach to the quantification of interoperability. The vehicle used as a means to measure the MOPs and MOEs was the Research Evaluation and systems Analysis (RESA) computer modeling and simulation capability at the Naval Ocean systems Center (NOSC), San Diego, Calif. Data for the measurements were collected during a Tactical I
暂无评论