Home / Technology / AI & IT / System of System’s (SOS) engineering for Integrated and Joint defence capability planning, Acquisition and development of Defense System of Systems (SOS)

System of System’s (SOS) engineering for Integrated and Joint defence capability planning, Acquisition and development of Defense System of Systems (SOS)

Systems Engineering (SE) is defined as the process by which a customer’s needs are satisfied through the conceptualization, design, modeling, testing, implementation, and operation of a working system. Today, engineers and developers have fairly well codified the processes and techniques for building large, complex systems, and when executed properly, resulting in reliable and useful systems that serve users well.


Militaries have realized that although they buy systems in isolation, they do not use systems in isolation. During War, there is often requirements of an ever-changing mix of systems, or reconfiguration of systems to enable their warfighting capabilities, and support their missions.  The  DoD is now very sensitive to the need for spontaneous interconnection among systems previously thought unrelated. For example, in Desert Storm, information from space sensors was determined to be useful in queuing air and missile defense assets. However, the lack of common protocols among those systems forced a long engineering effort to make the relevant systems interoperate.


Increasingly, awareness of the need to support dynamic interconnection among systems has driven the Militaries and systems engineers to start thinking about the demands of system-of-systems configurations and the engineering issues associated with building and supporting them.


System of Systems (SoS) can be described as a collection of constituent systems which are operationally independent i.e., each system is independent and it achieves its purposes by itself. Managed independently and distributed geographically, these systems work collectively to perform unique function(s) which cannot be carried out by any individual constituent system. They have emergent behavior, i.e., a system of systems has capabilities and properties that do not reside in the component systems, and evolutionary development, i.e., a system of systems evolves with time and experience.


One of the examples of the system of systems is the National Airspace System, which involves several transportation systems that are operated independently but have to cooperate to share the same space. Another example is electric power grids which are large-scale, complex, dynamical systems that must operate reliably to supply electrical energy to customers. Sensor networks are another example of multiple sensing devices that work cooperatively and collaboratively.


There are four types of SoS that are commonly found in the DoD

SoS can be categorized based on their degree of centrality.

  1. Virtual: Virtual SoS lack a central management authority and a centrally agreed-upon purpose for the system-of-systems.
  2. Collaborative: In collaborative SoS the component systems interact more or less voluntarily to fulfill agreed-upon central purposes. The Internet is a collaborative system. The Internet Engineering Task Force works out standards but has no power to enforce them. The central players collectively decide how to provide or deny service, thereby providing some means of enforcing and maintaining standards.
  3. Acknowledged: Acknowledged SoS have recognized objectives, a designated manager, and resources for the SoS; however, the constituent systems retain their independent ownership, objectives, funding, and development and sustainment approach. Changes in the systems are based on collaboration between the SoS and the system.
  4. Directed: Directed SoS are those in which the integrated system-of-systems is built and managed to fulfill specific purposes. It is centrally managed during long-term operation to continue to fulfill those purposes as well as any new ones the system owners might wish to address. The component systems maintain an ability to operate independently, but their normal operational mode is subordinated to the centrally managed purpose.


Military System of System’s (SOS) engineering

The traditional military systems were designed and developed individually, however emerging needs like Jointness, and Network centricity call for the need of systems that work together or System of Systems. Operationally, the DoD acts as an SoS as military commanders bring together forces and systems (e.g., weapons, sensors, platforms) to achieve a military objective.


The Defence Force can be considered as a large, complex SoS that functions at different levels and across different levels, at different times, in different places, against different adversaries. It consists of many SoS domains interrelated and interdependent in various ways, for example, force development & management, military operations, capabilities & systems.


The typical characteristics of Military SoS include a high degree of collaboration and coordination, flexible addition or removal of component systems, and net centricity. Some of the examples of Military SoS are C4ISR Systems, Ballistic Missile Defence System and Army Company/Brigade. Military SoS are often composed of both legacy and new systems, as well as existing and newly-designed interfaces between component systems.  Systems of systems exhibit evolutionary development—intermediate systems are developed that perform useful functions and are then integrated into larger systems, similar to defence systems. Their evolutionary development can be driven by the changing environment, technological advancement, or evolving needs of stakeholders. Introducing new technologies can lead to changes to the underlying operational strategy or Concept of Operations (ConOp).


The traits of system-of-systems make it difficult to build and manage it with traditional engineering practices. To deal with these issues, The traditional systems engineering approaches is too complex to be applied solely in complex Net Centric Defence systems of systems hence a new approach System of Systems (SoS) Engineering Approach has been developed. “Whereas Systems Engineering focuses on building the system right, Systems of Systems Engineering focuses on choosing the right system(s) and their interactions to satisfy the requirements”


SoS systems engineering deals with, “[the] planning, analyzing, organizing and integrating of the capabilities of a mix of existing and new development systems into an SoS capability greater than the sum of the capabilities of the constituent parts. SoS may deliver capabilities by combining multiple collaborative, autonomous-yet-interacting systems. The mix of systems may include existing, partially developed, and yet-to-be-designed independent systems. This process emphasizes the process of discovering, developing, and implementing standards that promote interoperability among systems developed via different sponsorship, management, and primary acquisition processes.


The System of System’s (SOS) architecture model is used as the primary artifact for conceptualizing, constructing, managing and evolving the system. SoS Architecture Model provides description of the structure of SOS components, the relationships between those components, and capabilities assigned to those components.  The system architecting starts with SoS Problem. The SoS problem statement provides missions, threats, timeframes, geographical settings, needs for an SoS, mission objectives and constraints.


System of System’s (SOS) architecture model

The System of System’s (SOS) architecture model is used as the primary artefact for conceptualizing, constructing, managing, and evolving the system. SoS Architecture Model provides description of the structure of SOS components, the relationships between those components, and capabilities assigned to those components.


We begin the systems engineering process by defining top-level mission requirements and constraints. Before we set out to solve any problem, we want to make sure we’re solving the right problem. The best way to do this is to clearly state what we really want –our requirements. For this reason, the first and most important step in the systems engineering process is to define the mission requirements.


The SoS problem statement provides missions, threats, timeframes, geographical settings, needs for an SoS, mission objectives, and constraints.



SoS Approach to Defence Planning

The modern security environment is very complex, unpredictable and dynamic. In order to provide National security defence systems ought to possess appropriate capabilities and forces that would enable adequate response to security challenges and threats. Defence planning is the key phase of defence management process that seeks to ensure that a nation has the necessary forces, assets, facilities to fulfil its tasks throughout the full spectrum of its missions. The main outputs from defence planning process are defence goals and objectives as well as ways for achieving them.


There are three main planning time horizons: long-term, middle-term and short-term. Generally its accepted that long-term planning – 10-30 years, mid-term planning – 4-8 years and short-term planning (budget, procurement plans, plans for training and exercises, etc.). There is no universally accepted method for LTDP. Many different analytical approaches have been applied to long-term capability planning over the years. Some of the examples are Top-down planning, threat-based planning, capability-based planning, and scenario-based planning.


System of Systems analysis can assist in Integrated and Joint Defence planning which is a complex multi-dimensional problem that depends on future strategic scenarios, gaps in current capabilities, balancing current and future capabilities, evolving technology and doctrine and budget constraints. It can translate strategic guidance into identifying capability gaps and solution options from consideration of threat assessments, risk assessments, current and future operational concepts, future technology, and the current force structure and planned future force structure.



SoS problem: Defence goals are mainly defined by the political establishment. The SoS problem for Defence planning shall be defined by political guidance.


The First step is Political Guidance analysis that identifies political implication and economical constraints for Defence. This step leads to defence mission and tasks identification as well as defence priorities determination. It takes into account defence policy if available, level of ambition, limitations, role and the importance of allies, and friendly nations etc. Defence policy development begins with an assessment of possible future strategic environments and then links this strategic recognition to the national aim to protect and promote its citizens, territory, vital interests and values.


The second stage in the LTDP process is the Environmental Assessment. In this phase the aim is to identify future opportunities as well as risks and threats to national interests and goals. It Analyses future security, political, economical and social issues as well as to technological development. The last step in the Environmental Assessment is the development of a suitable number of “Future Worlds”. “Future Worlds” are strategic situations and have generalised characteristics that represent future developments in various areas.


Scenario development is the fourth stage of the capability based planning process. In this stage a suitable number of scenarios are designed for each of the previously defined strategic situations.


DOTMLPF-P Analysis

Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership and Education, Personnel, Facilities and Policy (DOTMLPF-P) analysis is the first step in the Functional Solutions Analysis (FSA). It determines/recommends if a non-material approach or a materiel approach is required to fill a capability gap identified in the Functional Needs Analysis (FNA).  It includes the entire life cycle, including the sustainment; Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health (ESOH); and all Human Systems Integration (HSI) domains.


DOTMLPF-P is a tool that allows senior leaders the ability to analyze their organizational capabilities from the perspective of “Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership, Personnel, Facilities, and Policy” when making future strategic decisions. When they determine a change is needed in their current strategic capabilities, a DOTMLPF-P Change Recommendation (DCR) is issued.

DOTMLPF-P stands for:

Doctrine: The doctrine analysis examines the way the military fights its conflicts with emphasis on maneuver warfare and combined air-ground campaigns to see if there is a better way that might solve a capability gap.

  • Is there an existing doctrine that addresses or relates to the business need? Is it Joint? Service? Agency?
  • Are there operating procedures in place that are NOT being followed which contribute to the identified need?

Organization: The organization analysis examines how we are organized to fight; divisions, air wings, Marine-Air Ground Task Forces, and others. It looks to see if there is a better organizational structure or capability that can be developed to solve a capability gap.

  • Where is the problem occurring? What organizations are the problem occurring in?
  • Is the organization properly staffed and funded to deal with the issue?

Training: The training analysis examines how we prepare our forces to fight tactically from basic training, advanced individual training, various types of unit training, joint exercises, and other ways to see if improvement can be made to offset capability gaps.

  • Is the issue caused, at least in part, by a complete lack of or inadequate training?
  • Does training exist which addresses the issue?

Materiel: The materiel analysis examines all the necessary equipment and systems that are needed by our forces to fight and operate effectively and if new systems are needed to fill a capability gap.

  • Is the issue caused, at least in part, by inadequate systems or equipment?

Leadership and Education:  The leadership and education analysis examines how we prepare our leaders to lead the fight from squad leader to 4-star general/admiral and their overall professional development.

  • Does leadership understand the scope of the problem?
  • Does leadership have resources at its disposal to correct the issue?

Personnel:  The personnel analysis examines the availability of qualified people for peacetime, wartime, and various contingency operations to support a capability gap by restructuring.

  • Is the issue caused, at least in part, by the inability or decreased ability to place qualified and trained personnel in the correct occupational specialties?
  • Are the right personnel in the right positions (skill set match)?

Facilities: The facilities analysis examines military property, installations, and industrial facilities (e.g. government-owned ammunition production facilities) that support our forces to see if they can be used to fill in a capability gap.

  • Is there a lack of operations and maintenance?
  • Is the problem caused, at least in part, by inadequate infrastructure?

Policy: Any DOD, interagency, or international policy issues that may prevent effective implementation of changes in the other seven DOTMLPF-P elemental areas.

DOTMLPF-P Change Recommendation (DCRs)

DOTMLPF-P analysis can result in a  DOTMLPF-P Change Recommendation (DCRs) without a change of the Initial Capabilities Document (ICD). DCRs that impact a single Sponsor organization can use their own policy. DCRs that impact multiple organizations can use processes described in the Manual for the Operation of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS). This leads to a Joint DCR for review and validation.



The third stage is Mission Analysis. The function of this stage is to identify what should be done in order to achieve determined operational goals and objectives considering defence missions and operational concepts as inputs. The final output from this stage is multi-level task structure. The main inputs to this stage of the planning process are defence missions and operational concepts.


Identification of types of operations is the first step of Mission analysis. The mission can be subdivided into four main types of military operations: combat operations, peace support operations, operations other than war and national tasks. The possible operation objectives and tasks which would be necessary to perform in order to accomplish supposed objectives are determined. The last step in Mission Analysis is tasks decomposition i.e. development of a multi-level task structure.


The next stage is future capability requirements whose purpose is to identify types and quantities of defence capabilities required to accomplish a given task in a given situation.  Capability is generated by fundamental inputs to capability comprising organisation, personnel, collective training, major systems, supplies, facilities, support, command and management. Capability Requirements should be developed based on: identified tasks, developed planning situations, operational concepts, the possible impacts of future friendly and threat technology etc. The aim of this stage is to identify defence capabilities that are required to achieve desired operational goals and objectives. Determination of capability requirements should take into consideration standards and conditions for operational tasks accomplishment.


Capability Assessment is a stage that follows Capability Requirements Determination. The purpose of this stage is to assess the capability gap between current and required capabilities. Using the identified requirements and current capabilities as primary inputs, Capability assessment produce a list of capability gaps that require solutions and indicates the time frame in which those solutions are needed.


The next stage in capability based planning process is Options Development. Options should provide ways for bridging previously identified capability gap. The options should be based on resource constraints and take into consideration both material and nonmaterial approaches.


Solution Selection is the last stage of capability-based planning process. The result of this stage is the options which provide the best balance between capability requirements and resource affordability. The options are considered for each capability gap. If the options do not fill capability gaps, defence planners will specify the possible risk. Options that are able to fill gaps would be tested in order to choose the optimal one. The test would be combination of cost-benefit and risk analyses. Finally, selected options for filling capability gaps and specified risks would be included into a Long-term defence plan.


Mission Engineering

Missions are almost always conducted by multiple systems coordinating their actions and sharing data. We call these mission-oriented system-of-systems (SoS). Ideally, the mission-oriented SoS could be rapidly conceived, assembled, and deployed by operational commanders to react to immediate threats. A mission describes what the system will do and the purpose of doing it. The mission statement describes Kipling’s “six honest serving-men” – who, what, when, where, why, and sometimes how (Kipling 1902). The mission provides the context for defining measures of effectiveness and for the development of the Concept of Operations (CONOPS).


Mission engineering is closely associated with systems of systems (SoS) because most missions are accomplished through the coordination and interoperability of multiple systems. Mission engineering describes the application of systems engineering to the planning, analysis, and designing of missions, where the mission is the system of interest. Mission engineering analyzes the mission goals and thread, analyzes the available as well as emerging operational and system capabilities, and designs a mission architecture to achieve the mission goal (Gold, 2016). Consequently, mission engineering must simultaneously consider operational, technical, and acquisition issues and their integration in order to design a solution to achieve the mission goal (Van Bossuyt et al. 2019). Lastly, the term “mission” is generally used in the military context, and most mission engineering is for military systems. However, the term, and the process and knowledge it describes, could be applied to space missions or other mission areas.


The mission is accomplished by operational nodes completing one or more operational activities. An operational node can be an organization, individual, or system. Operational activities are actions that either transform one or more inputs into outputs or change the state of the system. A system provides capabilities through the execution of operational activities.


Needs  Analysis: The SoS Needs are analysed that ascertains what functions the SoS must perform to execute the mission(s). Develop Measures of Effectiveness ( MOEs) establishes how well the SoS must do to support the mission(s).  The requirements analysis layer is built upon the output from the needs analysis layer.


Mission Capability Analysis and Definition – The engineer analyzes the SoS problem scenario to determine what capabilities are required and to develop a CONOPS for the mission. Mission analysis consists of determining the threats, defining scenarios and refining the missions. A scenario may include the threats, their signatures, their trajectories, etc., the deployment of the defense forces, and the physical environment in which the mission takes place or executed.


Mission Thread Definition – The engineer analyzes the end-to-end set of operational activities. The starting point is modeling the operational activities, their sequencing, and the information flows between them. For military systems, the mission thread is often a kill chain describing the sequence of activities from searching for a threat to engaging a threat. The engineer develops alternatives for accomplishing the mission and conducts trade studies to determine the best alternative given resources and time available.


SoS Architecture Analysis: The next step in the SA process is to develop alternative architectures to enable the different ConOps identified. SoS CONOPS describes how the functionality of the systems in the SoS will be employed in an operational setting. The CONOPS is developed by the operational users and with active participation from the SoS systems engineers to describe the way users plan to operate and use systems to achieve the objectives, as influenced by the various environments and conditions anticipated.


Rank SoS Architecture Alternatives ranks the SoS architecture alternatives, using the estimated MOPs and MOEs, costs, and risk factors. Conduct Performance Analysis perform M&S of SoS to aid in assessing the performance of the SoS architecture alternatives.  Each option is evaluated thoroughly on its operational effectiveness, using relevant Operational Analysis (OA) techniques as well as Modelling and Simulation tools. Where possible, the cost of each alternative is also assessed.


The most of military investment (and disinvestment) decisions are supported by some form of cost-benefit analysis. When benefits cannot be expressed in monetary terms, cost-effectiveness analysis is done using “measures of effectiveness” (MOEs). Each alternative is evaluated and compared against established criteria (e.g., cost, risk, schedule, effectiveness/benefit) depending on military requirements and by conducting sensitivity analysis. Risk is analyzed in many ways, such as technological maturity, manufacturing capacity, quality standards, manufacturing design, material and supply chain capacity, interoperability, operational survival, schedule, and cost among many others.


One of the techniques used is Multi-criteria Decision-making (MCDM) to estimate the lifecycle costs and operational effectiveness of alternative defense investments. Multiple objectives are combined by way of weighting to enable Multi-Objective Decision Analysis (MODA). Another technique is structuring the military investment problem as a constrained optimization—i.e., maximizing effectiveness subject to a budget constraint (or alternatively minimizing costs of obtaining a given level of effectiveness).


Select SoS will select the best SoS architecture. The key purpose is to identify a “solution” that will fulfil the stated requirements as optimally as possible commensurate with established cost and schedule constraints, at the lowest practicable risk.


Mission Architecting – The engineer develops an operational architecture describing the capabilities, the operational activities, operational nodes, and other relevant elements to model the mission. The iterative SA process refines the architecture over time, with the increasing knowledge of architectural issues and interrelationships among constituent systems till the systems architecture is finalised


Requirements Engineering – The engineer determines the functional and non-functional requirements from the capability analysis, CONOPS, and mission threads. The engineer allocates the requirements to the operational nodes. In many cases, the systems in the operational nodes might require engineering to fulfill the requirements.


It comprises of operational requirements Analysis, functional Analysis, and non functional Analysis. Operational requirements analysis leads to operational requirements. Functional analysis results in a functional description of the SoS and all facets of SoS operations and support and is accomplished through functional decomposition and allocation.  Non-functional Analysis provides quantitative requirements. Flowdown Requirements is then performed using the results from requirements analysis. Finally, MOPs (measures of performance) are developed using the developed MOEs (measures of effectiveness).


SoS Analysis to Support QR Analysis

The formulation of the QR is one of the initial processes of any new capital procurement. QRs are evolved to specify essential parameters of military equipment needed in a specified time period to counter a threat, fulfill other operational needs, or fill an equipment void. It broadly lays down the reason why the equipment is required, its physical and operational details, as well as the maintainability and quality requirements. In other words, they define minimum performance attributes, corresponding to the task or tasks to be performed by the system.


The deficiencies in drafting of QRs could create confusion, lend themselves to misinterpretations, compromise quality of equipment, prove expensive and cause immense delays. The voids/lacunae discovered at later stage may necessitate a fresh start to QR formulation which can further delay the procurement process of the equipment for which the GSQR was formulated. System of System analysis approach to QR formulations can also minimize the lead time in acquisition of critical military capabilities.  It can also avoid failures and delays by providing system analysis support to the users in framing QR (qualitative requirements). QRs depend on many factors including the operational doctrines and operational plans, prospective enemy’s capabilities, his probable plans and tactics. They also depend on likely pattern of employment of the equipment in the obtaining terrain and climatic conditions and the current and anticipated technology levels.


SoS approach maps the mission tasks into capability needs and then into system parameter across the entire spectrum of operational needs. It evaluates mission objectives, the threat, the environment, and Concept of Operations (CONOPS) to determine system functional and performance requirements, and evolve QR requirements. The key performance parameters are derived that must be met in order for a system to meet its operational goals. Each parameter is supported by operational analysis that takes into account technology maturity, fiscal constraints, and schedule before determining threshold and objective values


The requirements must be verified and validated to ensure that these are the correct requirements. This ensures that the requirements meet the overall objective of the system and all stakeholder needs with their associated performance, environmental, and other non-functional requirements.


SOS Interoperability

The transformation of the Armed Forces into a fully networked force operating with network-centric system of systems (SoS) capability is a strategic imperative. Such SoS capability depends critically on interoperable systems. Any shortfalls in interoperability between the system elements may degrade the performance or capabilities demanded of the whole SoS architecture.


In the SoS context, interoperability may be understood as the ability of the system elements to work seamlessly with one another to realise the operational capability enabled by the SoS architecture. The level of interoperability in the SoS architecture is driven by the operational interoperability or capabilities demanded of the SoS architecture, as envisaged in the SoS concept of operations (CONOPS).


Operational interoperability refers to the ability of systems, units, or forces to use the services or information exchanged to operate together effectively. There are four key factors that may influence the level of operational interoperability. They are organisation, people/processes, technology and cost. Technical interoperability provides the means to realise the operational interoperability demanded of the SoS architecture.


Technical interoperability refers to the ability of systems, units, or forces to provide services to and accept services from other systems, units, or forces in the SoS architecture. It addresses issues of connectivity among systems, data and file exchange, networking, and other communications related scenarios. One key attribute of technical interoperability architecture design is robustness, i.e. the ability to adapt to changing operational environments or requirements, handle new technology insertion, and manage legacy systems while incorporating new systems.


Interoperability Analysis – The interoperability between systems completing the mission must occur at both the operational and technical levels (Giachetti et al. 2019). Operational interoperability describes the ability of the systems to coordinate their activities to support completion of the mission thread. Technical interoperability describes the ability of the systems to exchange data with considerations for the timeliness and quality of the data. The interoperability analysis generates additional requirements on the systems.


Mission-Oriented SoS Implementation – The mission-oriented SoS must be implemented through designing and developing new systems, modifying existing systems, and/or modifying doctrine, policies, procedures, and other non-materiel means to help achieve the mission.


Mission Verification and Validation – The engineer verifies that the system as delivered satisfies the requirements and validates that the system fulfills the mission purpose and stakeholder needs.


SoS approach for Defense Acquisition

Armed Forces require the timely and cost-effective acquisition of defense capabilities, in order to meet the goals and objectives of National Security, both external and internal. The delivery of items in time, with desired quality and technology, as also subsequent support and service, are dependent on a number of issues. These include Defence Industrial Base, Public-Private interface, Technology Development and Absorption, Appreciation of Customer needs, and finally, norms for after-sales support.


The acquisition process focuses on enabling effective system acquisition by defining specific user needs and ensuring that new systems meet the specific requirements of those needs. From the point of view of the customer – costs, both Induction as well as Life Cycle Costs, are key areas of consideration. Products offered through the indigenous or Joint Venture routes must establish clear and distinct advantage in costs, so that value for money can be derived. These should be comparable to similar systems in the international market. However, one may find the system to meet all performance specifications, but fail to be operationally effective. Many militaries have shifted their focus from threat based acquisition policy to capabilities-based acquisition.


Capability based assessments examine operational capability needs in a mission or operational context. This approach identifies the effect required to achieve on the battlefield and the capabilities required to achieve that effect. Analysis examines the available options: employment of current or projected material and non-material assets to meet the user capability or mission objectives. Gaps are identified and when analysis shows that non-materiel changes cannot close the gap, a new acquisition may be considered.


SoS approach can be used to define the context that is important to the DoD requirements process. It is core to conducting capability-based assessments and setting user capability needs. By considering these interdependencies, or SoS context at the start of a new acquisition, plans can be made to ensure the full complement of solutions and performance attributes are considered in the decision to invest. Failure to adequately evaluate these interdependencies can result in unplanned cost and schedule growth, as well as redesign due to unforeseen constraints.


At initial stage it is important to assess whether filling a gap with a particular new system will affect the target war fighter operational capability. Particularly if there are multiple gaps and/or system dependencies, a new or upgraded system may not be sufficient to improve capabilities in the field. A new sensor, for example, may need a new downlink or expanded communications capacity to affect the results of a mission engagement.

Some of the advantages of adopting SoS approach in Acquisition are:

  1. Improved clarity on the context within which a new capability will operate.
  2. Clearer and more comprehensive requirements documents.
  3. Improved ability to resolve interoperability issues between systems.
  4. Better understanding of the mapping of system functions to operational needs and hence the ability to conduct improved trade-offs

Discovery and Application of Convergence Protocols

A highly successful convergence protocol for DoD application in a system-of-systems configuration is the use of discovery technologies for information management among its members. One of the key factors dictating the achievement of system-of-systems configurations
that support network centric operations is the availability of mechanisms that promote information sharing among systems. Direct system-to-system linkages presuppose that the systems know a priori about each system that might benefit from any other system. Many combat situations have disproved this assumption. Because of this, a key technology that needs focused attention is intelligent agents to discover and better manage information synergies in dynamic systems-of-systems.



While individual systems are fabricated with the objectives of addressing existing or newly considered CONOPS, the need for synergistic behavior all too often “surprises” the user when they are engaged in wartime activities. Repeatedly, only within the “laboratory” of wartime, do users apply innovative thinking forced by activities of an enemy. That innovative thinking then forces users to consider connecting assets in ways that they never tried before, never trained for before, and perhaps never tested or designed before.


Modeling and data collection during experimentation can enable analyses over widely varying scenarios and configurations that will reveal the value of inter-operability, not just at the network level, but also at the system-to-system application level.



The future success of  Defense will depend on a large extent to how it will able to leverage System Analysis, M&S, Operations research and Wargaming to defence planning, development of strategies doctrines and tactics for future warfare, decision-making, and training. The conduct of future warfare will include combinations of conventional and unconventional, lethal and non-lethal, and military and non-military actions and operations, all of which add to the increasing complexity of the future Security environment.


Under such environment, the military would require System of Systems (SoS) approach that is systems operating as part of an ensemble of systems supporting broader capability objectives. Systems would need be networked and designed to share information and services, to provide a flexible and coordinated set of war fighting capabilities. SoS approach needs to be applied for new concepts exploration, experimentation, test and evaluation, and optimization of sensors, platforms and weapons systems, by testing them in operational scenarios.


The application of SoS approach could enable decision superiority across all phases of defence capability development, including strategic & operational planning, evaluation of warfighting doctrines, strategies and tactics, acquisition of best sensors, platforms and weapon systems, optimum deployment, test and evaluation. The report draws on the international body of knowledge customised to Indian environment.


The application of system analysis to complex and dynamic military environment which also involves human element and behaviour is challenging and requires development of innovative approaches in conceptualisation of military SoS problems, new techniques and tools to model and assess them and training personnel adequately to utilize them.


The analysis and design of military SoS should be conducted in a collaborative way, which involves multiple stakeholders from strategic planners, war-fighters, capability planners, capability analysts and designers of systems and capabilities. Therefore successful implementation is critically dependent on close synergy between different stakeholders such as think tanks, defence forces, research labs and other agencies. There is a clear need to enhance and strengthen our headquarters, institutions, organization and manpower in System Analysis and related disciplines.


References and resources also include:



About Rajesh Uppal

Check Also

Advancing Innovation: The Role of Multi-Domain Testing and Evaluation Facilities in Defense and Aerospace

Introduction: In the ever-evolving landscape of defense, aerospace, and commercial technologies, the importance of rigorous …

error: Content is protected !!