A Conceptual Framework for Analysis of System Safety Interoperability of United States Navy\u27s Combat Systems

Today\u27s political and military reality requires the optimal use of our legacy systems. The objective is to maximize the effectiveness of our operations by efficient allocation, placement and the use of our forces and war-fighting systems. The synergism drawn from the capabilities of the legacy complex systems enables today\u27s war-fighting needs to be met without substantial increase in cost or resources. This synergism can be realized by the effective integration and interoperation of legacy systems into a larger, more complex system of systems. However, the independently developed legacy systems in this new tactical environment often have different data types, languages, data modeling, operating systems, etc. These differences are impediments to the requirement for interoperability, and can create an environment of confusion, misinformation and certainly un-interoperability, hence hinder the safe interoperation of the metasystem and potentially increase the risk for mishaps. Safe interoperability capability assures that the mission objectives are achieved not only effectively but also safely. The System Safety Interoperability Framework (SSIF) introduced in this dissertation provides the framework for the engineering community to evaluate, from system safety perspective, the interoperability issues between multiple complex systems in the U.S. Navy\u27s system of systems context. SSIF characterization attributes are System of Systems (SoS) tactical environment, SoS Engineering, SoS Safety Engineering, and Safety Critical Data. SSIF is applied to AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense 3.0 Program to explore and analyze the safety interoperability issues in the overall system, by which the SSIF is further validated as an effective approach in analyzing the safe interoperability capability in Navy\u27s combat systems

Scenario-based design and evaluation for capability

Scenarios are frequently used within techniques for planning and designing systems. They are an especially helpful means of visualizing and understanding the incorporation of new systems within systems of systems. If used as the basis for decisions about candidate designs, then it is important that such decisions can be rationalized and quantitative assessment is particularly important. In this paper, an approach for developing complex scenarios, which incorporates the phases of systems development and deployment, is presented and a quantitative method of comparison is described. This approach is based on the development of measures of merit and measures of performance. The techniques are illustrated using cases that are relevant to Network Enabled Capability

THE POLITICS OF SOUTHERN ASIAN BALLISTIC MISSILES: TOWARDS A FRAMEWORK FOR A MUTUAL RESTRAINT REGIME

ABSTRACT Southern Asia is witnessing the rapid proliferation of ballistic missiles in and around the region. This proliferation phenomenon, together with ongoing and enduring conflicts amongst the “competing parties” (China, India and Pakistan) creates a potential surfacing of “nuclear flashpoint” in the region. This research is an endeavour to explore the causes of this nuclear and missile race amongst the Southern Asian powers (China, India, and Pakistan) with the help of the theory of strategic culture. This study proceeds in the following way: it assesses the geo-political forces at work in the region; examines the strategic culture of China, India and Pakistan; traces the motivation of these countries for the strategic weapon programmes and delivery systems; describes their nuclear doctrines and command and control structures; and the current status of their ballistic missile programmes. It then addresses the prospects for Pakistan, India and China to move towards a system of mutual restraint regime, in which international regime theory is discussed as a conceptual framework; cold war models of strategic arms limitation and reduction models are studied and the important role of Confidence and Security Building Measures (CSBMs) is identified. The same procedure is then applied in the context of Southern Asian region; problem areas identified with the help of CSBMs tools; and conclusions reached as to the potential to move beyond CSBMs into full restraint regime. The study finds the very nature of the overlapping threat perceptions and the continuance of the unresolved issues and disputes as the main hurdles in the successful restraint models. Recommendations are therefore made for more comprehensive CSBMs leading to a Southern Asian regional version of cold war prototypes of strategic arms limitation and reduction for a more comprehensive and fruitful restraint model, which might then be applied and adhered to at the global level. The study therefore opens new avenues of research and progress in the discipline

Scenario-based design and evaluation for capability

Scenarios are frequently used within techniques for planning and designing systems. They are an especially helpful means of visualizing and understanding the incorporation of new systems within systems of systems. If used as the basis for decisions about candidate designs, then it is important that such decisions can be rationalized and quantitative assessment is particularly important. In this paper, an approach for developing complex scenarios, which incorporates the phases of systems development and deployment, is presented and a quantitative method of comparison is described. This approach is based on the development of measures of merit and measures of performance. The techniques are illustrated using cases that are relevant to Network Enabled Capability

JSB Composability and Web Services Interoperability Via Extensible Modeling & Simulation Framework (XMSF), Model Driven Architecture (MDA), Component Repositories, and Web-based Visualization

Study Report prepared for the U. S. Air Force, Joint Synthetic Battlespace Analysis of Technical Approaches (ATA) Studies & Prototyping Overview: This paper summarizes research work conducted by organizations concerned with interoperable distributed information technology (IT) applications, in particular the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) and Old Dominion University (ODU). Although the application focus is distributed modeling & simulation (M&S) the results and findings are in general easily applicable to other distributed concepts as well, in particular the support of operations by M&S applications, such as distributed mission operations. The core idea of this work is to show the necessity of applying open standards for component description, implementation, and integration accompanied by aligned management processes and procedures to enable continuous interoperability for legacy and new M&S components of the live, virtual, and constructive domain within the USAF Joint Synthetic Battlespace (JSB). JSB will be a common integration framework capable of supporting the future emerging simulation needs ranging from training and battlefield rehearsal to research, system development and acquisition in alignment with other operational requirements, such as integration of command and control, support of operations, integration of training ranges comprising real systems, etc. To this end, the study describes multiple complementary Integrated Architecture Framework approaches and shows, how the various parts must be orchestrated in order to support the vision of JSB effectively and efficiently. Topics of direct relevance include Web Services via Extensible Modeling & Simulation Framework (XMSF), the Object Management Group (OMG)’s Model Driven Architecture (MDA), XML-based resource repositories, and Web-based X3D visualization. To this end, the report shows how JSB can − Utilize Web Services throughout all components via XMSF methodologies, − Compose diverse system visualizations using Web-based X3D graphics, − Benefit from distributed modeling methods using MDA, and − Best employ resource repositories for broad and consistent composability. Furthermore, the report recommends the establishment of necessary management organizations responsible for the necessary alignment of management processes and procedures within the JSB as well as with neighbored domains. Continuous interoperability cannot be accomplished by technical standards alone. The application of technical standards targets the implementation level of the system of systems, which results in an interoperable solution valid only for the actual 2 implementation. To insure continuity, the influence of updates, upgrades and introduction of components on the system of systems must be captured in the project management procedures of the participating systems. Finally, the report proposes an exemplifying set of proof-of-capability demonstration prototypes and a five-year technical/institutional transformation plan. All key references are online available at http://www.movesinstitute.org/xmsf/xmsf.html (if not explicitly stated otherwise)

Software Frameworks for Model Composition

A software framework is an architecture or infrastructure intended to enable the integration and interoperation of software components. Specialized types of software frameworks are those specifically intended to support the composition of models or other components within a simulation system. Such frameworks are intended to simplify the process of assembling a complex model or simulation system from simpler component models as well as to promote the reuse of the component models. Several different types of software frameworks for model composition have been designed and implemented; those types include common library, product line architecture, interoperability protocol, object model, formal, and integrative environment. The various framework types have different components, processes for composing models, and intended applications. In this survey the fundamental terms and concepts of software frameworks for model composition are presented, the different types of such frameworks are explained and compared, and important examples of each type are described

Proceedings of the 2004 ONR Decision-Support Workshop Series: Interoperability

In August of 1998 the Collaborative Agent Design Research Center (CADRC) of the California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly), approached Dr. Phillip Abraham of the Office of Naval Research (ONR) with the proposal for an annual workshop focusing on emerging concepts in decision-support systems for military applications. The proposal was considered timely by the ONR Logistics Program Office for at least two reasons. First, rapid advances in information systems technology over the past decade had produced distributed collaborative computer-assistance capabilities with profound potential for providing meaningful support to military decision makers. Indeed, some systems based on these new capabilities such as the Integrated Marine Multi-Agent Command and Control System (IMMACCS) and the Integrated Computerized Deployment System (ICODES) had already reached the field-testing and final product stages, respectively. Second, over the past two decades the US Navy and Marine Corps had been increasingly challenged by missions demanding the rapid deployment of forces into hostile or devastate dterritories with minimum or non-existent indigenous support capabilities. Under these conditions Marine Corps forces had to rely mostly, if not entirely, on sea-based support and sustainment operations. Particularly today, operational strategies such as Operational Maneuver From The Sea (OMFTS) and Sea To Objective Maneuver (STOM) are very much in need of intelligent, near real-time and adaptive decision-support tools to assist military commanders and their staff under conditions of rapid change and overwhelming data loads. In the light of these developments the Logistics Program Office of ONR considered it timely to provide an annual forum for the interchange of ideas, needs and concepts that would address the decision-support requirements and opportunities in combined Navy and Marine Corps sea-based warfare and humanitarian relief operations. The first ONR Workshop was held April 20-22, 1999 at the Embassy Suites Hotel in San Luis Obispo, California. It focused on advances in technology with particular emphasis on an emerging family of powerful computer-based tools, and concluded that the most able members of this family of tools appear to be computer-based agents that are capable of communicating within a virtual environment of the real world. From 2001 onward the venue of the Workshop moved from the West Coast to Washington, and in 2003 the sponsorship was taken over by ONR’s Littoral Combat/Power Projection (FNC) Program Office (Program Manager: Mr. Barry Blumenthal). Themes and keynote speakers of past Workshops have included: 1999: ‘Collaborative Decision Making Tools’ Vadm Jerry Tuttle (USN Ret.); LtGen Paul Van Riper (USMC Ret.);Radm Leland Kollmorgen (USN Ret.); and, Dr. Gary Klein (KleinAssociates) 2000: ‘The Human-Computer Partnership in Decision-Support’ Dr. Ronald DeMarco (Associate Technical Director, ONR); Radm CharlesMunns; Col Robert Schmidle; and, Col Ray Cole (USMC Ret.) 2001: ‘Continuing the Revolution in Military Affairs’ Mr. Andrew Marshall (Director, Office of Net Assessment, OSD); and,Radm Jay M. Cohen (Chief of Naval Research, ONR) 2002: ‘Transformation ... ’ Vadm Jerry Tuttle (USN Ret.); and, Steve Cooper (CIO, Office ofHomeland Security) 2003: ‘Developing the New Infostructure’ Richard P. Lee (Assistant Deputy Under Secretary, OSD); and, MichaelO’Neil (Boeing) 2004: ‘Interoperability’ MajGen Bradley M. Lott (USMC), Deputy Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command; Donald Diggs, Director, C2 Policy, OASD (NII

The Four-Minute Warning Drawing Machine: revealing the assemblages of nuclear deterrence

Ph. D. ThesisThis research sets out to use art practice as a critical method to make the social and cultural production of nuclear weapon systems visible in everyday life experience. The research draws upon a critical framework based on new materialist philosophies that see reality as composed of interacting “machinic” assemblages of affects and more-than-human relationships (DeLanda 2015). These philosophies position active processes, such as artmaking, as tacit ways of making visible “the concrete yet complex materiality of bodies immersed in social relationships of power” (Braidotti 2015), which are otherwise invisible to fixed representational ontology. The artworks that have emerged establish entwined relationships between nuclear weapon manufacture and artmaking by making commonalities between workshop configuration, administrative processes and transportation. Insight has also been drawn from immersive work within the Cold War archives at RAF Fylingdales as the station’s – and the RAF’s – first artist in residence. Unprecedented access was given to the site, which reveals the ballistic missile early warning station’s interconnectivity beyond its barbed wire perimeter. These relationships have been conceptualised as the four-minute warning drawing assemblage comprising interactive social parts that include drawing practices and instruments of deterrence, constantly producing new techno–social worlds and novel arrangements of life beyond normative perception. In doing so, the research makes a contribution to new and urgent debates about nuclear weapons and the emerging risk of nuclear war by providing different and innovative ways of thinking about society and our relationships to the bomb

The practices of strategic arms control negotiations: insights from a diplomacy of trusting in the US-Russian relations

This thesis offers a new understanding of the relationship between trust and verification in nuclear arms control negotiations. Combining insights from psychology, sociology, and social constructivism in IR, it develops a new conceptual framework to explain the importance of trust in shaping leaders’ decision-making during nuclear arms control negotiations. The key proposition is that trust can be conceived as a practice – the diplomacy of trusting – and that only by interrogating the diplomatic process by which actors come to trust through negotiations can a proper understanding be gained of how the verification provisions that make an agreement possible are decided. The concept of the Diplomacy of Trusting is predicated on the idea that trust is created and performed through the practices of both the trustor (the actor who trusts) and the trustee (the actor who is trusted). It is this co-creation of trust that constitutes the diplomacy of trusting. To demonstrate the framework’s utility in providing a better understanding of how agreements are reached on verification in strategic nuclear arms control negotiations, it is applied to three case studies: the 1979 SALT II Treaty; the 2002 Moscow Treaty (SORT), and the 2010 New START Treaty