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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

As before, the weights variations were done only on the fundamental objectives of the hierarchy, but now the lower level objectives were also changed according to the scenario. The results showed that there was no significant change in the ranking order of the alternatives (see fig. 44). In the Amazon scenario, the main changes in weights occurred in the objectives related to the subsurface environment, which were decreased. As expected, the ASW alternative had a significant decrease in its utility, due to its very specific anti-submarine warfare capabilities. Even then, it remained the second ranked alternative, due to its other capabilities still applied to the Amazon scenario, showing great flexibility. On the other hand, in the South Atlantic (SA) scenario, the weights related to the subsurface environment were increased. The ASW alternative increased its utility while the other aircraft systems decreased. Even then, ASW remained as the second best alternative among all the options. 86
Figure 44. Utility Variation According to Scenario. Table 9. Utility According to Scenario. Aircraft Standard Amazon SA FTR 0.488 0.522 0.458 ASW 0.415 0.376 0.442 UAV 0.272 0.268 0.246 CGO 0.23 0.231 0.225 HLA 0.167 0.186 0.17 This second part of the sensitivity analysis showed that the different scenarios did not cause changes in the ranking order, although the utilities of the alternatives varied significantly. Marginal Utility Improvement 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Standard Amazon SA HLA CGO UAV ASW FTR Requested Aircraft Systems In conclusion, the robustness of the model could be verified through several variations in the most important weights of the hierarchy. Two different approaches were 87
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 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 136 and 137: 3 Force Mobility 0.1724 4 Force Sup
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?