An integrated command and control architecture concept for unmanned systems in the year 2030

U.S. Forces require an integrated Command and Control Architecture that enables operations of a dynamic mix of manned and unmanned systems. The level of autonomous behavior correlates to: 1) the amount of trust with the reporting vehicles, and 2) the multi-spectral perspective of the observations. The intent to illuminate the architectural issues for force protection in 2030 was based on a multi-phased analytical model of High Value Unit (HVU) defense. The results showed that autonomous unmanned aerial vehicles are required to defeat high-speed incoming missiles. To evaluate the level of autonomous behavior required for an integrated combat architecture, geometric distributions were modeled to determine force positioning, based on a scenario driven Detect-to-Engage timeline. Discrete event simulation was used to schedule operations, and a datalink budget assessment of communications to determine the critical failure paths in the the integrated combat architecture. The command and control principles used in the integrated combat architecture were based on Boyd's OODA (Obseve, Orient, Decide, and Act) Loop. A conservative fleet size estimate, given the uncertainties of the coverage overlap and radar detection range, a fleet size of 35 should be anticipated given an UAV detection range of 20km and radar coverage overlap of 4 seconds.http://archive.org/details/anintegratedcomm109455244US Navy (USN) authorsApproved for public release; distribution is unlimited

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field