Technology Today 2007 Issue 1 - Raytheon

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Raytheon’s Modeling & Simulation Approach Applies to Homeland Security Border security is dominating the headlines both domestically and abroad. Not surprisingly, understanding the customer’s problem in this domain has several challenges. First, the customer may not know exactly what they want or understand the consequences of particular decisions. Second, Raytheon may not be able to differentiate between the “hard” requirements and the “nice to haves.” To address these concerns, Raytheon has developed a comprehensive modeling and simulation (M&S) toolset to demonstrate mission effectiveness and affordability to the customer prior to com- mitting resources to major development efforts. With these tools, Raytheon employs a proven, metrics-based system engineering process to provide agile, flexible solutions for border security needs. In effect, Raytheon’s M&S approach provides a collaborative mechanism for the customer to rapidly review proposed solutions, assess requirements and understand the consequences of any design decision before it’s made. Our M&S process is highly itera- tive, enabling a quick and flexible response. Typically, it includes the following: • Gap analysis • Identification of standard regional configurations • Sensor selection and placement analysis • Communications • Operational analysis • Cost as an Independent Variable (CAIV) analysis onTechnology 20 2007 ISSUE 1 RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGY TODAY ARCHITECTURE & SYSTEMS INTEGRATION The first step is the gap analysis. The purpose of a gap analysis is to identify current areas of vulnerability. The as-is configuration is defined and modeled to determine the current level of performance. The current level of performance is compared to the desired or required level of performance to identify areas of vulnerability and opportunities for improvement. Gaps and opportunities are identified and used to focus the analysis and develop and refine the solution. The second step is to develop a set of standard regional configurations. A border often consists of multiple terrain types (mountains, coastline, desert, etc.) and the “best value” solution for one terrain may be cost-prohibitive or ineffective in another terrain. Sensor line-of-sight coverage, threat types and speeds, and responder types and speeds can vary significantly with the terrain type, therefore directly impacting the responder’s time to react. For each region, computer simulations apply a set of alternatives to expose trends and to provide evidence to develop sensor requirements. The simulation results determine recommendations for a standard configuration for each terrain type. The next step, sensor selection and placement analysis, requires an understanding of the following: • The level of discrimination required (see Table 1) • Sensor system performance • Threat types and speeds • Terrain and possible weather conditions • The infrastructure of the area • Political, cultural, environmental or other restrictions on sensor locations Discrimination Level Meaning Detection An object is present Classification Object class (e.g., human, vehicle) is determined Recognition The specific class (adult, child) to which an object belongs is determined Identification The object is discerned with sufficient clarity to specify the type. Table 1. Discrimination Definitions Sensor models and computer simulations are used to evaluate a sensor network’s effectiveness — given a discrimination task — against specific threats in terrain and weather conditions. Simulation results provide insight into the sensor types (radar, infrared, acoustic, etc.), required sensor range, number of sensors, tower locations and heights, and the mix of ground vs. airborne sensors. Communications analysis — how to get information from point A to point B — is cross-coupled with the other trades and decisions. The range, bandwidth, quality of service, security and power requirements all drive the solution design. A communications model is used to explore tradeoffs, and when combined with an understanding of the infrastructure cost, networking issues, and total life-cycle cost, recommendations can be made for communications architecture to support the sensor network. Operational models incorporate the system performance characteristics and apply them to an entity-level simulation to evaluate the systems in the context of a mission-level scenario. For example, the border security mission is to detect, identify, classify, Y E S T E R D A Y … T O D A Y … T O M O R R O W
Sensor network modeling identifies coverage gaps. respond and resolve illegal border crossings by illegal immigrants, criminals, smugglers and terrorists. To accomplish that mission, agents must aggressively patrol land and sea areas of responsibility while maintaining contact with their assigned post and sector. Monte Carlo Simulations depicting this behavior provide analysis of the patrol characteristics, surveillance characteristics and the people processes that lead to a CAIV analysis identifies best-value solutions. successful interdiction and resolution. Variables include responder numbers and maneuverability, target location errors, terrain trafficability, decision times and detainee processing times. The assessment provides recommendations for refining the sensors, sensor platforms and response platforms, as well as operational guidelines and procedures, to significantly improve the probability of mission success. Y E S T E R D A Y … T O D A Y … T O M O R R O W The system by itself does not equal a solution. The following is a set of common constraints faced in border security: • Infrastructure – The cost of power, communications, towers and other infrastructure can make some locations infeasible. • Land/cultural restrictions – Protected areas, such as sacred ground, wetlands or national parks may not be used. Cost as an Independent Variable (CAIV) analysis is used to identify the best-value solution. This is accomplished through a comparison of system performance with cost. Specifically, we consider life-cycle cost, which includes RDT&E, Acquisition, O&S, government infrastructure and disposal. When these costs are considered, the solution with the best system-level performance may be cost-prohibitive, while the lowest-cost solution may provide unacceptable performance. CAIV aids in finding a balance between mission effectiveness and life-cycle cost. Agility, flexibility and repeatability are keys to our systems engineering and design approach. Our M&S capabilities have been applied and refined on border security projects over the last five years and are part of our systems engineering life cycle to facilitate low-risk and effective program execution. We apply these repeatable processes in partnership with the customer to ensure “best value” and “lowest risk” solutions for cost-effective border control capabilities. • Julie Kamm j-kamm@raytheon.com Nick Coombs nickolia_s_coombs@raytheon.com RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGY TODAY 2007 ISSUE 1 21
Page 1 and 2: Technology Today HIGHLIGHTING RAYTH
Page 3 and 4: Technology Today is published quart
Page 5 and 6: Raytheon’s Homeland Security Stra
Page 7 and 8: “One of the things that sets Rayt
Page 9 and 10: Highlighting Two New Major Raytheon
Page 11 and 12: Emergency Patient Tracking System N
Page 13 and 14: There are, of course, practical lim
Page 15 and 16: Other areas in which the HLS SBA’
Page 17 and 18: Raytheon has worked for decades wit
Page 19: L E A D E R S H I P P E R S P E C T
Page 23 and 24: Figure 2. Performance of the MicroL
Page 25 and 26: additional biometric acquisition de
Page 27 and 28: onTechnology Microfluidic Micro Ele
Page 29 and 30: People NCS Team Wins Prestigious De
Page 31 and 32: Dr. William E. Hoke, a senior engin
Page 33 and 34: P r o v i d e s C u s t o m e r s W
Page 35 and 36: VINH N. ADAMS DENNIS C. BRAUNREITER

Technology Today 2007 Issue 1 - Raytheon

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?