The Experts below are selected from a list of 27678 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Michael L Marshall - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
defense laboratories and Military capability headed for a bracdown
Defense Horizons, 2004Co-Authors: Michael L MarshallAbstract:Overview For 150 years, Military laboratories have made vital contributions to national defense. In recent years, they have been significantly reduced in number by several rounds of base realignment and closure (BRAC). Even so, they remain the primary source of internal technical competence within the Department of Defense (DOD). Their capability in that role will depend on how DOD answers two questions. Is there excess laboratory capacity--too many laboratories relative to forecasts of future force structure? What is their Military Value--their likely contribution to the future operational needs of warfighters. As required by law, DOD has publicly announced the criteria it will use in making BRAC 2005 decisions. None directly acknowledge the Military Value of research and development (R&D). Consequently, excess capacity and Military Value judgments about the labs will depend on metrics now being formulated and the subjective weights they are assigned in computations. This calculus will place greater weight on options that allow DOD to combine separate but similar functions, such as R&D, on single bases. This emphasis on jointness could lead to such recommendations as a single defense research laboratory or to approaches that would parse the current technical work of the labs into a number of bins and then assign responsibility for each to a single service. Experience suggests that reliance on overly-simplified "closure-by-arithmetic" decisions could lead to serious mistakes in deciding which laboratories to close and which to keep. America's ability to wage high-tech warfare depends on avoiding such mistakes. An Illustrious History There is a great deal in the news today about the impending round of base closures by the Department of Defense (DOD). Most of the coverage focuses on large Military bases and major industrial facilities, such as shipyards and aircraft repair depots, and the economic impact of their closure on local and state economies. Lost in the debate is any meaningful discussion of what may become of Military labs and test centers. These are the places that help develop and field weapons and other systems needed to ensure the continued superiority of our Military forces. These labs and centers have a long and distinguished record of achievement. For example, their pioneering work in radar gave us that invaluable tool in time for widespread use in World War II. More recently, they invented and helped develop the Global Positioning System that enables the precision bombing so heavily relied on in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even today, their contributions are helping us win the global war on terrorism. The utility of science and technology as a multiplier of Military force was popularized by Thomas Edison as early as 1917, and demonstrated time and again during the Second World War, when academic and industrial laboratories across the country joined with those operated by the Military to support what became the first truly technological conflict. The success of this partnership led to increasing reliance on federally-funded research and development (R&D) in the post-War period, and the strategy of technologically-based deterrence continued to gain importance as the Soviet Union exploded its first fission device (1949) and hydrogen bomb (1953) and launched SPUTNIK (1957). Indeed, maintaining a technological edge over the Soviet Union became a Cold War imperative for the United States. Historically, the Navy was the first service to understand the importance of science and technology in the conduct of war, a point made in a recent article by Jim Colvard, a prominent former Navy lab director. (1) More importantly, Colvard points out that the Navy was the first Service to recognize "... that the nature of scientists and 'big science' requires institutional environments to foster creativity and support formulation of ideas and discovery." Accordingly, early on it began to create these environments by establishing a community of engineering centers, test stations, proving grounds, weapons labs, and similar facilities. …
-
defense laboratories and Military capability headed for a bracdown defense horizons july 2004
2004Co-Authors: Michael L MarshallAbstract:Abstract : For 150 years, Military laboratories have made vital contributions to national defense. In recent years, they have been significantly reduced in number by several rounds of base realignment and closure (BRAC). Even so, they remain the primary source of internal technical competence within the Department of Defense (DOD). Their capability in that role will depend on how DOD answers two questions. Is there excess laboratory capacity too many laboratories relative to forecasts of future force structure? What is their Military Value their likely contribution to the future operational needs of warfighters. As required by law, DOD has publicly announced the criteria it will use in making BRAC 2005 decisions. None directly acknowledge the Military Value of research and development (R&D). Consequently, excess capacity and Military Value judgments about the labs will depend on metrics now being formulated and the subjective weights they are assigned in computations. This calculus will place greater weight on options that allow DOD to combine separate but similar functions, such as R&D, on single bases. This emphasis on jointness could lead to such recommendations as a single defense research laboratory or to approaches that would parse the current technical work of the labs into a number of bins and then assign responsibility for each to a single service. Experience suggests that reliance on overlysimplified closure-by-arithmetic decisions could lead to serious mistakes in deciding which laboratories to close and which to keep. America s ability to wage high-tech warfare depends on avoiding such mistakes.
United States. Dept. Of Defense. - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
2005 BRAC Commission
2005Co-Authors: United States. Dept. Of Defense.Abstract:DISREGARD RESTRICTION HEADER AND FOOTER - MED 0028 - Co-locates all management activities overseeing biomedical Science and Technology and regulated medical product Development and Acquisition at Fort Detrick, MD INCLUDES: Candidate Recommendation; Capacity Analysis; Military Value Analysis; Force Structure; COBRA Reports; Economic Impact Report(Criterion 6); Installation Profile(Criterion 7); Environmental Impact (Criterion 8) INSTALLATIONS Fort Detric
-
2005 BRAC Commission
2005Co-Authors: United States. Dept. Of Defense.Abstract:Major Admin and Headquarters Military Value. Relative order of Value. FORT BLISS; FORT CARSON; Hurlburt Field; Shaw AFB; Peterson AFB; Saufley Field; Offutt AFB; NAVSTA ANNAPOLIS; FORT SILL; Brooks City-Base; Cannon AFB; FORT RUCKER; Robins AFB; Marine Corps Air Station Miramar; Langley AFB; FORT DETRICK; Fairchild AFB; FORT WAINWRIGHT; Wright-Patterson AFB; FORT MEADE; Kirtland AFB; Eielson AFB; Charleston AFB; FORT LEE; Eglin AFB; Naval Air Station North Island; Davis-Monthan AFB; FORT BENNING; Ellsworth AFB; Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth; Francis E. Warren AFB; Naval Air Station Whiting Field; Tyndall AFB; Vandenberg AFB; Sheppard AFB; Marine Corps Base Hawaii Kaneohe; FORT SAM HOUSTON ; Vance AFB; Barksdale AFB; FORT MONROE; Naval Station Norfolk; FORT MCNAIR; MacDill AFB; McGuire AFB; Nellis AFB; Naval Station San Diego; Joint Reserve Base New Orleans; FORT MCPHERSON; Lackland AFB; National Naval Medical Center Bethesda; Hill AFB; Naval Air Station Key West; Pope AF
-
2005 BRAC Commission
2005Co-Authors: United States. Dept. Of Defense.Abstract:Healthcare Education Training Functional Military Value, BROOKS_CITY-BASE; MCB_CAMP_PENDLETON; PENSACOLA; NH_BREMERTON; SHEPPARD_AFB; NAVSTA_SAN_DIEGO; FORT_BRAGG; FORT_CAMPBELL; ANDREWS_AFB; LITTLE_ROCK_AFB; NAVSTA_GREAT_LAKES; BARKSDALE_AFB; FORT_SAM_HOUSTON; BOLLING_AFB; NMC_PORTSMOUTH; CHARLESTON_AFB; NMC_SAN_DIEGO; FORT_BLISS; KEESLER_AFB; LAUGHLIN_AFB; LACKLAND_AFB; VANCE_AFB; EGLIN_AFB; UNITED_STATES_AIR_FORCE_ACADEMY; NWS_YORKTOWN; FORT_RILEY; FORT_HOOD; SCHOFIELD_BARRACKS; OFFUTT_AFB; RANDOLPH_AFB; WALTER_REED_ARMY_MEDICAL_CENTER; FORT_DETRICK; TRAVIS_AFB; FORT_KNOX; FORT_BELVOIR; MCB_QUANTICO; FORT_CARSON; FORT_MEADE; NNMC_BETHESDA; NAVSTA_NEWPORT; SCOTT_AFB; SHAW_AFB; FORT_BENNING; FORT_LEAVENWORTH; FORT_LEWIS; MCRD_PARRIS_ISLAND; FORT_JACKSON; NTC_AND_FORT_IRWIN_CA; WEST_POINT_MIL_RESERVATION; FORT_SILL; MACDILL_AFB; LUKE_AFB; NELLIS_AFB; NH_GUAM; WRIGHT-PATTERSON_AFB; FORT_STEWART; FORT_EUSTIS; ABERDEEN_PROVING_GROUND; LANGLEY_AFB; FORT_LEONARD_WOOD; MCB_CAMP_LEJEUNE;
-
2005 BRAC Commission
2005Co-Authors: United States. Dept. Of Defense.Abstract:DISREGARD RESTRICTION HEADER AND FOOTER - USAF-0125 - Realign Indian Springs Air Force Auxiliary Airfield. Relocate USAF MQ-1/MQ-9 unmanned aerial vehicle operations squadrons to Holloman AFB, NM to facilitate establishment of a Joint UAV Center of Excellence (COE) at Indian Springs. The MQ-1/MQ-9 flying training unit at Indian Springs will remain as part of the UAV COE. The 49th Fighter Wing’s F-117A aircraft (36 PAA) retire in place at Holloman AFB. INCLUDES: General Counsel Legal Sufficiency Letter; Transmittal Letter; Quad Chart; Candidate Recommendation; Capacity Analysis; Military Value Analysis; Force Structure; COBRA Reports; Economic Impact Report(Criterion 6); Installation Profile(Criterion 7); Environmental Impact (Criterion 8) INSTALLATIONS Indian Springs AFS; Nellis AFB; Holloman AFB
Lünen, Alexander Von - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Under the waves, above the clouds: A history of the pressure suit
2010Co-Authors: Lünen, Alexander VonAbstract:This publication describes the development of so-called “pressure suits” in the 1930s in Europe from a scientific, technical, cultural and political perspective. It is detailed that those suits first and foremost were devised to achieve altitude records in aviation and not for their Military Value, although the majority of the suits that were developed had the air forces involved. This work outlines the manifold entanglements between private sector, Military and science, which was a prerequisite not only for the development of pressure suits, but also for pressure cabins, breathing equipment and other protective garment. The close relation between diving medicine and aviation medical research is exposed in this context
-
Under the waves, above the clouds: A history of the pressure suit
2010Co-Authors: Lünen, Alexander VonAbstract:This publication describes the development of so-called “pressure suits” in the 1930s in Europe from a scientific, technical, cultural and political perspective. It is detailed that those suits first and foremost were devised to achieve altitude records in aviation and not for their Military Value, although the majority of the suits that were developed had the air forces involved. This work outlines the manifold entanglements between private sector, Military and science, which was a prerequisite not only for the development of pressure suits, but also for pressure cabins, breathing equipment and other protective garment. The close relation between diving medicine and aviation medical research is exposed in this context. Please note: It is stated on page 274 of the PDF-document that the images from the Bundesarchiv (German Federal Archive) are generally licensed under the Creative Commons License scheme. This is inaccurate; all images in this publication obtained from the Bundesarchiv can be used by permission of the Bundesarchiv only (cf. http://www.bundesarchiv.de/benutzung/voraussetzungen/bild/index.html.en
Gregory S Parnell - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
use of decision analysis in the army base realignment and closure brac 2005 Military Value analysis
Decision Analysis, 2006Co-Authors: Paul L Ewing, William Tarantino, Gregory S ParnellAbstract:In 2001, Congress enacted legislation that required a 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round to realign Military units, remove excess facility capacity, and support defense transformation. The United States Army used multiple-objective decision analysis to determine the Military Value of installations and an installation portfolio model to develop the starting point to identify potential unit realignments and base closures, providing the basis for all recommendations. Ninety-five percent of the armys recommendations were accepted by the BRAC 2005 Commission. The army expects these recommendations to create recurring savings of 1.5 billion annually after completion of BRAC implementation. This paper offers four contributions to decision analysis literature: an instructive application of multiple-objective decision analysis methods to portfolio selection, a useful method for constructing scales for interdependent attributes, a new method for assessing weights that explicitly considers importance and variation (Swing Weight Matrix), and practical advice on how to use multiple-objective decision analysis methods in a complex and controversial political environment.
Paul L Ewing - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
use of decision analysis in the army base realignment and closure brac 2005 Military Value analysis
Decision Analysis, 2006Co-Authors: Paul L Ewing, William Tarantino, Gregory S ParnellAbstract:In 2001, Congress enacted legislation that required a 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round to realign Military units, remove excess facility capacity, and support defense transformation. The United States Army used multiple-objective decision analysis to determine the Military Value of installations and an installation portfolio model to develop the starting point to identify potential unit realignments and base closures, providing the basis for all recommendations. Ninety-five percent of the armys recommendations were accepted by the BRAC 2005 Commission. The army expects these recommendations to create recurring savings of 1.5 billion annually after completion of BRAC implementation. This paper offers four contributions to decision analysis literature: an instructive application of multiple-objective decision analysis methods to portfolio selection, a useful method for constructing scales for interdependent attributes, a new method for assessing weights that explicitly considers importance and variation (Swing Weight Matrix), and practical advice on how to use multiple-objective decision analysis methods in a complex and controversial political environment.
