completion.22 Finally, RadiantBlue’s process (using the BlueSim simulator) requires iterative customer engagement and collaboration between operators and analysts and is supported by a large, pre-existing, model library of air and space systems.

RadiantBlue provided for the commiteee a second industry example of how a very complex set of assets and vignettes can be evaluated iteratively through an MRA process that is thoroughly documented for transparency, accuracy, and repeatability and can be tailored and scaled to customer desires.23

Both TASC and RadiantBlue identified analysis approaches that are responsive to their customers’ needs by taking full consideration of ISR assets and trade-offs across the enterprise, spanning air, space, and, to a lesser extent, cyber effects. What is most helpful is the approach of pairing physics-based, layered analysis tools, cost-estimating, risk analysis trade-offs, along with the cost projections over various planning horizons (e.g., Analysis of Alternatives and Program Objective Memorandums) when implementing full-spectrum MRA.

Finding 3-6. RadiantBlue’s modeling, simulation, and analysis capability focuses on the physics-based capability and architecture analysis and mission utility analysis found in MRA. The BlueSim tool, combined with RadiantBlue’s methodology, has been used to successfully support trade-space studies of various ISR and processing, exploitation, and dissemination (PED) architectures.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

In the committee’s reviewing of the government and industry CP&A-like processes described in this chapter, it became apparent that multiple tools, including both commercial-off-the-shelf and proprietary tools, are utilized effectively across government and industry for modeling, simulation, and analysis, and that “one size does not fit all.” Second, none of the non-Air Force CP&A-like processes reviewed adequately addresses the emergent challenges posed by the cyberspace domain. Third, most of the non-Air Force CP&A-like processes reviewed do not adequately deal with the complexity of PCPAD, which, in turn, can affect cost, performance, and schedule. This latter issue can also result in capabilities that are not end to end and contributes to information and data that cannot be shared, correlated, or fused by users or customers. Finally, the objective of considering a wide range of government and industry CP&A-like processes was to gain insight into potential best practices to incorporate into this study’s overall recommendations. Table 3-4 maps findings to these best practices.

_______________

22 More information on RadiantBlue’s methodology is available at http://www.radiantblue.com/solutions/software-development/. Accessed February 28, 2012.

23 Congressional professional staff members who spoke with the committee identified RadiantBlue as the best modeling organization at the architecture level.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement