Qualitative assessment

Readiness assessment is probably the most diffi- cult task facing the SERT because it requires the ability to provide an up-to-the-minute status of the capabilities and limitations of the combat systems. It also requires the ability to recommend alternate combinations of equipment to meet mission needs. The SERT must know the results of all tests and, in addition, the minute-to-minute availability of the combat systems, its subsystems, equipments, and all support functions, such as primary power, chilled water, dry air, and sound-powered telephones. Although all equipment problems are important, the existing tactical environment can modify their impact on a mission capability. For example, losing the moving target indicator capability can be more important when the ship operates near land masses than when it operates in the open sea. Materiel readiness assessment should be ap- proached from the functional readiness aspect, rather than the equipment up-or-down-status aspect for the following reasons: Complex, multifunction electronic equipment is seldom completely down and less frequently com- pletely up. Normally, one or more functions are in various states of degradation. The impact of a fictional fault maybe dif- ferent for the capability of each mission. The complex design of the combat systems includes some fictional redundancy. The test results and operational fault directo- ries relate problems to their effect on system func- tions rather than to the basic operation of the affected equipment. Readiness assessment uses two basic types of techniques: quantitative and qualitative. Quanitative techniques involve the extensive use of mathematics and reports based on graphs and numbers. Past shipboard experience has shown that without computer support, quantitative assessment is not easily managed. Its numerical reporting lacks meaning or requires extensive explanation. Qualitative assessment (an application of engineering analysis) is based on system knowledge, experience, and judgment. It is usually a verbal re- port. These assessments depend on the personal experience level of the users. Therefore, written guidance and report forms are required. The impact of no-go conditions, revealed by PMS results, must be determined for each mission capability. After an assessment is made, each major function is assigned one of the following four readiness cri- teria: 1. Fully combat-readv status: All equipments as- sociated with a specific function are in the highest state of readiness with respect to that function. 2. Substantially combat-ready: Although all the equipments may not be fully operational, redundancy permits the mission to be continued, resulting in a high probability of success. 3. Marginally combat-ready: A function may be performed, but with a much-reduced probability of success. 4. Not combat-ready: The equipment has a com- plete loss of function. These readiness criteria provide the basis for a summary report of readiness. A combat systems daily fault report should be submitted, listing the sub- function faults of the day, their individual impact, any alternative recommendations, and the expected time of repair. See figure 4-4 for an example of a daily fault report. 4-13