[Sample B: Approval/Signature Sheet] - George Mason University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3 Force Mobility 0.1724 4 Force Support 0.1379 Table A4-11. System Scoring – Force Mobility (SA). 3.1 Aerial Refuel 0.4359 3.2 Airlift 0.5128 3.3 Airlift 0.0513 Table A4-12. System Scoring – Force Support (SA). 4.1 Rescue 0.7692 4.2 Basic Training 0.1538 4.3 Flight Inspection 0.0769 124 A3.1 Fuel capacity A3.2 Receiver K A3.3 Range A3.4 Payload weight K A3.5 Preparedness A4.1 Scope A4.2 Radius of Action A4.3 Pax K A4.4 Multirole A4.5Accurate 0.5000 0.5000 0.0000 0.4211 0.3789 1.2534 1.0000 0.4118 0.2882 0.2471 0.1783 1.0000 1.0000
APPENDIX 5 AIRCRAFT DESCRIPTION All the data was collected from open sources 150 and describes hypothetical aircraft systems, created in order to simulate the decision context of this thesis. Fighter (FTR) 4 th generation light fighter jet. Combat radius of approximately 900 Nm in typical A/A configuration (4 IR missiles, 4 BVR missiles and 1 full 30mm cannon). Combat radius of approximately 600 Nm in typical A/G configuration (8000 lbs of bombs under the wings). NVG capability. AWX A/G attack capability AWX A/A interceptor INS capability Chaffs, Flares, RWR, MAWS A/G radar mode capable to detect moving targets on the ground and on the sea (range 60 Nm) in all weather conditions A/A radar (range 60 Nm with resolution of approximately 5m) Endurance for CAP mission around 3 hours Can perform maritime surveillance using A/G radar Encrypted data link (>35Mbps) and voice communication (2 VHF and 2 UHF), and fully interoperable systems Capable to be air refueled Estimated unit acquisition cost – U$ 60 million. 150 Jackson, Munson, and Peacock, Jane's All the World's Aircraft 2008-2009. 125
Page 2 and 3:
Comparing and Prioritizing Aircraft
Page 4 and 5:
DISCLAIMER This work contains ficti
Page 6 and 7:
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Tabl
Page 8 and 9:
LIST OF TABLES Table Page Table 1:
Page 10 and 11:
Figure 36: Utilities for Cargo (CGO
Page 12 and 13:
ABSTRACT COMPARING AND PRIORITIZING
Page 14 and 15:
Figure 1. Map of South America. 5 R
Page 16 and 17:
- according to recent estimates - c
Page 18 and 19:
transportation to others organizati
Page 20 and 21:
Jobim points out that the lack of r
Page 22 and 23:
2.1 Systems Life Cycle in the BAF 2
Page 24 and 25:
system. The generation of a POR con
Page 26 and 27:
section (OPS) is subordinated to th
Page 28 and 29:
According to Ralph Keeney, the stra
Page 30 and 31:
3. THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS AND METH
Page 32 and 33:
the alternatives under analysis. 3.
Page 34 and 35:
exhaustive representation of the me
Page 36 and 37:
is met but does not directly measur
Page 38 and 39:
Winterfeldt and Edwards argue that
Page 40 and 41:
Moreover, the shape of the utility
Page 42 and 43:
described by Kirkwood. 66 The aggre
Page 44 and 45:
Additive independence is a stronger
Page 46 and 47:
The multiplicative utility function
Page 48 and 49:
4.1 Decision Support 4. MODEL CONST
Page 50 and 51:
of the overarching objective of the
Page 52 and 53:
Figure 9. Decision Frame with Funda
Page 54 and 55:
Force Application Force Awareness A
Page 56 and 57:
The following definitions were adop
Page 58 and 59:
Engagement Attack precisely Attack
Page 60 and 61:
different from engaging a target in
Page 62 and 63:
Figure 19. Fundamental Objectives H
Page 64 and 65:
capability to engage targets in the
Page 66 and 67:
FORCE AWARENESS 2 DETECTION 2.1 INT
Page 68 and 69:
4.3.2 Assumptions As described befo
Page 70 and 71:
Using the objectives hierarchy in f
Page 72 and 73:
The next step was to verify the add
Page 74 and 75:
was found to be utility independent
Page 76 and 77:
An exponential SUF formula was used
Page 78 and 79:
4.3.4 Assessing weights Utility Fig
Page 80 and 81:
A2.4 Endurance ranged from 0 to 5,
Page 82 and 83:
5.1 Populating the Model 5. VALUE M
Page 84 and 85:
to replace Helicopter B (HLB), whic
Page 86 and 87: OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY Utility for
Page 88 and 89: 1.000 Utility 0.000 Utility 1.000 0
Page 90 and 91: the information already provided by
Page 92 and 93: This type of analysis looks for poi
Page 94 and 95: The great variations in the utility
Page 96 and 97: Utility 0.560 0.000 0 100 Figure 42
Page 98 and 99: As before, the weights variations w
Page 100 and 101: used to check the effects of these
Page 102 and 103: The actual thresholds can be define
Page 104 and 105: 8. CONCLUSION Brazil is a huge coun
Page 106 and 107: Finally, this research intends to f
Page 108 and 109: 1.2 Maximize the survivability capa
Page 110 and 111: 4 Maximize the Force Support capabi
Page 112 and 113: A1.6 Scope See A1.2 A1.7 Scope See
Page 114 and 115: A 2.11 Capacity Amount of data that
Page 116 and 117: APPENDIX 3 UTILITY FUNCTIONS 1 Maxi
Page 118 and 119: 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0
Page 120 and 121: 1.2 Maximize the survivability capa
Page 122 and 123: 2.1.2 In the surface. 1 0.8 0.6 0.4
Page 124 and 125: Utility Figure A3.17 - A2.7 Coverag
Page 126 and 127: 2.3.2 Using data 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2
Page 128 and 129: 3.2 Maximize the airlift capability
Page 130 and 131: Utility 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 1 0 0 2
Page 132 and 133: 1Force Application 0.3208 2 Force A
Page 134 and 135: 2 Force Awareness 0.3448 3 Force Mo
Page 138 and 139: CARGO (CGO) Medium lift transport
Page 140 and 141: UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE (UAV) Medi
Page 142 and 143: South Atlantic scenario: National o
Page 144 and 145: 2. Force Awareness Table A7-3. Syst
Page 146 and 147: APPENDIX 8 GLOSSARY anti-submarine
Page 148 and 149: econnaissance aircraft - aircraft e
Page 150 and 151: REFERENCES Bizzi, Luiz Augusto, Jo
Page 152 and 153: ―IMINT - NIIRS National Image Int
Page 154 and 155: Winterfeldt, Detlof von, and Ralph
show all

[Sample B: Approval/Signature Sheet] - George Mason University

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?