A Top-Down, Hierarchical, System-of-Systems Approach to the Design of an Air Defense Weapon

Systems engineering introduces the notion of top-down design, which involves viewing an entire system comprised of its components as a whole functioning unit. This requires an understanding of how those components efficiently interact, with optimization of the process emphasized rather than solely focusing on micro-level system components. The traditional approach to the systems engineering process involves requirements decomposition and flow down across a hierarchy of decision making levels, in which needs and requirements at one level are transformed into a set of system product and process descriptions for the next lower level. This top-down requirements flow approach therefore requires an iterative process between adjacent levels to verify that the design solution satisfies the requirements, with no direct flow between nonadjacent hierarchy levels. This thesis introduces a methodology that enables decision makers anywhere across a system-of-systems hierarchy to rapidly and simultaneously manipulate the design space, however complex. A hierarchical decision making process will be developed in which a system-of-systems, or multiple operationally and managerially independent systems, interact to affect a series of top level metrics. This takes the notion of top-down requirements flow one step further to allow for simultaneous bottom-up and top-down design, enabled by the use of neural network surrogate models to represent the complex design space. Using a proof-of-concept case study of employing a guided projectile for mortar interception, this process will show how the iterative steps that are usually required when dealing with flowing requirements from one level to the next lower in the systems engineering process are eliminated, allowing for direct manipulation across nonadjacent levels in the hierarchy. For this system-of-systems environment comprised of a Monte Carlo based design space exploration employing rapid neural network surrogate models, both bottom-up and top-down design analysis may be executed simultaneously. This process enables any response to be treated as an independent variable, meaning that information can flow in either direction within the hierarchy. URI http://hdl.handle.net/1853/11570 Collections Georgia Tech Theses and Dissertations [21023] School of Aerospace Engineering Theses and Dissertations [1249] About  Terms of Use  Contact Us Emergency Information  Legal & Privacy Information  Accessibility  Accountability  Accreditation  Employment  A top-down, hierarchical, system-of-systems approach to the design of an air defense weapon  insight into its compositional sub-systems Methodological base of development of weapons Programs is a set of techniques and mathematical models to determine the performance effectiveness of combat application of different sets (samples) of IWT in various conditions, as well as a complex economic models designed to determine the cost of development and production of military equipment. in) system constraints, defining ranges of varying parameters to be optimized (in the design of technical systems these constraints are usually referred to as project); g) optimizing a procedure that allows to determine under the given constraints, the best option on the selected system of indicators, or one generalized measure.

[1]  Eberhardt Rechtin,et al.  The art of systems architecting (2nd ed.) , 2000 .

[2]  Dimitri N. Mavris,et al.  Effects of Alternative Wing Structural Concepts on High Speed Civil transport Life Cycle Costs , 1996 .

[3]  Tim Kelly,et al.  Characterisation of Systems of Systems Failures , 2004 .

[4]  Margaret J. Robertson,et al.  Design and Analysis of Experiments , 2006, Handbook of statistics.

[5]  David Miller The Illustrated Directory of Modern American Weapons , 2002 .

[6]  Dimitri N. Mavris,et al.  Development of a Collaborative Capability-Based Tradeoff Environment for Complex System Architectures , 2006 .

[7]  M. Skolnik,et al.  Introduction to Radar Systems , 2021, Advances in Adaptive Radar Detection and Range Estimation.

[8]  Anthony J. Hayter,et al.  Probability and statistics for engineers and scientists , 1996 .

[9]  Loch K. Johnson,et al.  American Foreign Policy: History, Politics, and Policy , 2004 .

[10]  George Ellwood Dieter,et al.  Engineering Design: A Materials and Processing Approach , 1983 .

[11]  Douglas C. Montgomery,et al.  Response Surface Methodology: Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments , 1995 .

[12]  F. W. Lanchester,et al.  Aircraft in Warfare: The Dawn of the Fourth Arm , 1995 .

[13]  Dimitri N. Mavris,et al.  A Probabilistic Approach to the Conceptual Design of a Ship-Launched High Speed Standoff Missile , 2002 .

[14]  D. Cave Systems effectiveness analysis tool for evaluating guided interceptors , 1994 .

[15]  J. S. Przemieniecki Mathematical methods in defense analyses , 1994 .

[16]  Dimitri N. Mavris,et al.  A Stochastic Design Approach for Aircraft Affordability , 1998 .

[17]  John Paterson,et al.  Overview of Low Observable Technology and Its Effects on Combat Aircraft Survivability , 1999 .

[18]  Dimitri N. Mavris,et al.  Forecasting the Impact of Technology Infusion on Subsonic Transport Affordability , 1998 .

[19]  Dewey Benson,et al.  An Optofluidic Control System for Tactical Missiles and Guided Munitions , 1997 .

[20]  Dimitri N. Mavris,et al.  Implementation of a Technology Impact Forecast Technique on a Civil Tiltrotor , 1999 .

[21]  Dimitri N. Mavris,et al.  Assessing the Simultaneous Impacts of Requirements, Vehicle Characteristics, and Technologies During Aircraft Design , 2001 .

[22]  Robert E. Ball,et al.  The fundamentals of aircraft combat survivability analysis and design , 1985 .

[23]  Sejid Tešnjak,et al.  Engineering modeling and simulation through symbolically assisted numeric computation , 2007 .

[24]  Mark W. Maier Integrated Modeling: A Unified Approach to System Engineering , 1996, J. Syst. Softw..

[25]  Dimitri N. Mavris,et al.  Technology Impact Forecasting for a High Speed Civil Transport , 1998 .

[26]  Pin Chen,et al.  Systems and Capability Relation Management in Defence Systems-of-System Context , 2004 .

[27]  R. Lloyd Conventional Warhead Systems Physics and Engineering Design , 1998 .

[28]  John Bessant,et al.  Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market, and Organizational Change, 2nd Edition , 2001 .

[29]  Dimitri N. Mavris,et al.  Elements of an Emerging Virtual Stochastic Life Cycle Design Environment , 1999 .

[30]  R. Jewett,et al.  Systems Engineering , 1959, IRE Transactions on Military Electronics.

[31]  Paul Acarnley,et al.  Closed-loop control , 2002 .

[32]  A. Rollett,et al.  The Monte Carlo Method , 2004 .

[33]  B. C. Twiss,et al.  Forecasting for technologists and engineers: A practical guide for better decisions , 1992 .

[34]  Michael J Hemsch,et al.  Tactical Missile Aerodynamics , 1986 .

[35]  Kevin Massey,et al.  Integrated Numerical and Experimental Investigation of Actuator Performance for Guidance of Supersonic Projectiles , 2006 .

[36]  Benjamin S. Blanchard,et al.  Logistics engineering and management , 1986 .

[37]  Dimitri N. Mavris,et al.  A System-of-Systems Design of a Guided Projectile Mortar Defense System , 2006 .

[38]  Danielle Soban,et al.  A methodology for the probabalistic assessment of system effectiveness as applied to aircraft survivability and susceptibiliy , 2001 .

[39]  Wei Chen,et al.  Methodology for Managing the Effect of Uncertainty in Simulation-Based Design , 2000 .

[40]  Paul C. Clements,et al.  The Gadfly: an approach to architectural-level system comprehension , 1996, WPC '96. 4th Workshop on Program Comprehension.

[41]  Dimitri N. Mavris,et al.  A Hierarchical Aircraft Life Cycle Cost Analysis Model , 1995 .

[42]  Dimitri N. Mavris,et al.  A Stochastic Approach to Multi-disciplinary Aircraft Analysis and Design , 1998 .

[43]  Mark W. Maier,et al.  Architecting Principles for Systems‐of‐Systems , 1996 .

[44]  Luc Huyse,et al.  Solving Problems of Optimization Under Uncertainty as Statistical Decision Problems , 2001 .

[45]  A. Terry Bahill,et al.  Engineering Modeling and Design , 1992 .

[46]  B.M. Aucoin,et al.  Engineering Management , 1997, IEEE Potentials.

[47]  Dimitri N. Mavris,et al.  An Application of a Technology Impact Forecasting (TIF) Method to an Uninhabited Combat Aerial Vehicle , 1999 .

[48]  Michelle Kirby,et al.  Forecasting Technology Uncertainty in Preliminary Aircraft Design , 1999 .

[49]  Elena Garcia,et al.  Affordability Assessment for a Subsonic Transport , 1999 .

[50]  Andrew Paul Baker,et al.  The role of mission requirements, vehicle attributes, technologies and uncertainty in rotorcraft system design , 2002 .

[51]  Benjamin S. Blanchard,et al.  System Engineering Management , 1991 .

[52]  Kevin Massey,et al.  Design and Wind Tunnel Testing of Guidance Pins for Supersonic Projectiles , 2006 .

[53]  Chris Geswender Guided Projectiles Theory of Operation , 2001 .

[54]  V. G. Nebabin Methods and techniques of radar recognition , 1994 .

[55]  David C. Gompert,et al.  Planning a Ballistic Missile Defense System of Systems , 1999 .

[56]  Kevin Massey,et al.  Testing the Maneuvering Performance of a Mach 4 Projectile , 2006 .

[57]  Robert H. M. Macfadzean Surface-Based Air Defense System Analysis , 2000 .

[58]  S. Krantz Fractal geometry , 1989 .

[59]  Sidra I. Silton,et al.  Comparison of Predicted Actuator Performance for Guidance of Supersonic Projectiles to Measured Range Data , 2004 .

[60]  Dimitri N. Mavris,et al.  Building Parametric and Probabilistic Dynamic Vehicle Models Using Neural Networks , 2001 .

[61]  Dimitri N. Mavris,et al.  Development of an Integrated Parametric Environment for Conceptual Hypersonic Missile Sizing , 2002 .

[62]  Garret N. Vanderplaats,et al.  Numerical optimization techniques for engineering design , 1999 .

[63]  Dimitri N. Mavris,et al.  A Parametric Design Environment for Including Signatures Analysis in Conceptual Design , 2000 .

[64]  Murray Cantor,et al.  Thoughts on Functional Decomposition , 2003 .

[65]  Richard M. Lloyd Physics of Direct Hit and Near Miss Warhead Technology , 2001 .

[66]  Eugene L. Fleeman Tactical Missile Design , 2001 .

[67]  Jason Williams,et al.  Conceptual Design of a Guided Interceptor , 2005 .

[68]  Redstone Arsenal,et al.  Enhanced Counter Air Projectile , 2004 .

[69]  C. Chatfield Probability and statistics in engineering and management science , 1973 .