Commenced in January 2007
Frequency: Monthly
Edition: International
Paper Count: 32716
Enhancing the Effectiveness of Air Defense Systems through Simulation Analysis

Authors: F. Felipe


Air Defense Systems contain high-value assets that are expected to fulfill their mission for several years - in many cases, even decades - while operating in a fast-changing, technology-driven environment. Thus, it is paramount that decision-makers can assess how effective an Air Defense System is in the face of new developing threats, as well as to identify the bottlenecks that could jeopardize the security of the airspace of a country. Given the broad extent of activities and the great variety of assets necessary to achieve the strategic objectives, a systems approach was taken in order to delineate the core requirements and the physical architecture of an Air Defense System. Then, value-focused thinking helped in the definition of the measures of effectiveness. Furthermore, analytical methods were applied to create a formal structure that preliminarily assesses such measures. To validate the proposed methodology, a powerful simulation was also used to determine the measures of effectiveness, now in more complex environments that incorporate both uncertainty and multiple interactions of the entities. The results regarding the validity of this methodology suggest that the approach can support decisions aimed at enhancing the capabilities of Air Defense Systems. In conclusion, this paper sheds some light on how consolidated approaches of Systems Engineering and Operations Research can be used as valid techniques for solving problems regarding a complex and yet vital matter.

Keywords: Air defense, effectiveness, system, simulation, decision-support.

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 317


[1] NRC, Aging Avionics in Military Aircraft. National Research Council, Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, May 2001.
[2] G. Niebergall, “Air Sovereignty Alert: America’s Security Blanket:,” tech. rep., Defense Technical Information Center, Fort Belvoir, VA, Apr. 2009.
[3] USA, “JP 3-01: Countering Air and Missile Threats,” 2017.
[4] USA, “Missile Defense Review,” 2019.
[5] P. F. Drucker, Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practises. New York: Harper Business, 1985.
[6] W. L. Perry, “Linking Systems Performance and Operational Effectiveness,” in Methods for Conducting Military Operational Analysis, vol. 13, pp. 657–684, Mar. 2008.
[7] SEBOK, “Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge.”
[8] C. S. Wasson, System Engineering Analysis, Design, and Development: Concepts, Principles, and Practices. Wiley series in systems engineering and management, Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc, second edition ed., 2016.
[9] J. Dick, E. Hull, and K. Jackson, Requirements Engineering. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, fourth edition ed., 2017.
[10] K. A. Yost, “Requirements,” in Methods for Conducting Military Operational Analysis, vol. 13, pp. 379–444, Mar. 2008.
[11] D. M. Buede and W. D. Miller, The Engineering Design of Systems: Models and Method. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley, third edition ed., 2016.
[12] T. P. Lewis, D. A. Fulk, and G. Castro, “Analysis Support for Acquisition: Part I: Analysis of Alternatives,” in Military Operations Research, vol. 13, pp. 174–197, Mar. 2008.
[13] R. L. Keeney, “Applying Value-Focused Thinking,” in Military Operations Research, vol. 13, pp. 7–17, Mar. 2008.
[14] G. S. Parnell, “Value-focused Thinking,” in Methods for Conducting Military Operational Analysis, vol. 13, pp. 619–656, Mar. 2008.
[15] A. M. Law, Simulation Modeling and Analysis. McGraw-Hill series in industrial engineering and management science, Dubuque: McGraw-Hill Education, fifth edition ed., 2013.
[16] VT-MAK, “MAK VR-Forces.”