EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 22 (2015) MATEC Web of Conferences, 22 (2015) 05004 References
Open Access
Issue
MATEC Web of Conferences
Volume 22, 2015
International Conference on Engineering Technology and Application (ICETA 2015)
Article Number 05004
Number of page(s) 7
Section Chemical and Industrial Technology
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/20152205004
Published online 09 July 2015
  1. Department of Defense. Memorandum of Agreement on Multi-Service Operational Test and Evaluation and Operational Suitability Terminology and Definitions. 2007. 10. [Google Scholar]
  2. Department of the Army. Test and Evaluation Policy, Army Regulation 73–1. 2006.8.1. [Google Scholar]
  3. Department of the Army. Test and Evaluation Master Plan Procedures and Guidelines, Army Regulation 73–2.1996.10.11. [Google Scholar]
  4. Department of the Navy. Operational Test Director’s Manual, COMOPTEVFORINST 3980.2C.2014.4.14. [Google Scholar]
  5. United States Marine Corps. Marine Corps Operational Test and Evaluation Activity, Operational Test and Evaluation Manual (The Third Edition). 2013.2.22. [Google Scholar]
  6. United States Marine Corps. Integrated Test and Evaluation Manual. 2010.5.6. [Google Scholar]
  7. United States Marine Corps. Marine Corps Operational Test and Evaluation Activity, MCOTEA Journal. 2010.3. [Google Scholar]
  8. United States Marine Corps. Marine Corps Operational Test and Evaluation Activity, MCOTEA Guidebook for Capabilities-Based Testing. 2005.10. [Google Scholar]
  9. Department of the Air Force. Air Force T&E Management Guide, Version 1.0 [R]. 2004.12. [Google Scholar]
  10. Department of the Air Force. AFOTEC OT&E Guide. (The Sixth Edition). 2009.2.12. [Google Scholar]
  11. Department of the Air Force. Operational Test Processes and Procedures, Air Force Instruction 99–101[R]. 2012.10.11. [Google Scholar]
  12. Department of the Air Force. Capabilities-Based Test and Evaluation, Air Force Instruction 99–103. 2013.10.16. [Google Scholar]
  13. Patrick Thomas Biltgen. 2007. A Methodology for Capability-Based Technology Evaluation for Systems of Systems. School of Aerospace Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology, 5. [Google Scholar]
  14. Joseph V. Iacobucci. 2012. A Framework for Capability-Based Analysis of Systems-of-Systems Architectures. School of Aerospace Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology, 5. [Google Scholar]
  15. Joint Publication (JP) 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. April 12, 2001, as amended September 2010: 351. [Google Scholar]
  16. Col Michael W. Kometer. 2011. Operational testing: From basics to system-of-systems capabilities. ITEA Journal, 32: 39–51. [Google Scholar]
  17. Brett Bush, Jennifer Kensler, Francisco Ortiz, etc. Guide to developing an effective STAT test strategies [OL]. Wright-Patterson AFB: STAT T & E Center of Excellence. 24 March 2014 [December 2014] http://www.AFIT.edu/STAT. [Google Scholar]
  18. Anderson-Cook, Christine. 2007. When should you consider a split-plot design? Quality Progress, (10): 57–59. [Google Scholar]
  19. Box, G.E.P., Hunter, J.S., and Hunter, W.G. 2005. Statistics for Experimenters: Design, Innovation and Discovery (2nd ed.), Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
  20. Freeman, L.J., Ryan, A.G., Kensler, J.L.K., Dickinson, R.M., and Vining, G.G. 2013. A tutorial on the planning of experiments, Quality Engineering, 25: 315–332. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  21. Hamada, Michael. 2002. The advantages of continuous measurements over Pass/Fail data, Quality Engineering, 15(2). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. Harman, Michael. 2014. Understanding Requirements for Effective Test Planning, Best Practice, www.AFIT.edu/STAT, January [Google Scholar]
  23. Montgomery, D.C. 2009. Design and Analysis of Experiments (7th edition), Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
  24. National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook of Statistical Methods, http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/, April 2012. [Google Scholar]
  25. Ortiz, Francisco. 2014. Dealing with Categorical Data Types in a Designed Experiment Part I: Why You Should Avoiding Using Categorical Data Types, Best Practice, www.AFIT.edu/STAT, Report 06-2014. [Google Scholar]
  26. Daniel Simon. 2007. A Perspective for hypersonic vehicle flight instrumentation. Proceedings of 30th Aerospace Measurement Technology and Ground Testing Conference, Portland, Oregon. [Google Scholar]
  27. Babilon J. Hypersonics Emphasis Area of Test and Evaluation/Science & Technology. Arnold Engineering Development Center, TN 37389, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  28. Dolvin W. 2009. Hypersonic flight test technology development and flight certification strategy. Proceedings of 16th International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference, Nashville, TN. [Google Scholar]
  29. National Research Council. Improved Operational Testing and Evaluation: Better Measurement and Test Design for the Interim Brigade Combat Team with Stryker Vehicles, Phase I Report. National Academy of Sciences, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  30. National Research Council. Improved Operational Testing and Evaluation: Better Measurement and Test Design for the Interim Brigade Combat Team with Stryker Vehicles, Phase II Report. National Academy of Science, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  31. Johnson, Collie; Cavoli, Christina; Claxton, John D. 2005. Test and Evaluation Management Guide. Defense Acquisition University. FT3 BELVOIR VA, [Google Scholar]
  32. Lockhartr, Fergusonc. 2008. Joint mission environment test capability (JMETC). ITEA Journal, 29(2): 160–166. [Google Scholar]
  33. DoD Architecture Framework Working Group. DoD architecture framework version 1.0.U.S.: Department of Defense, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  34. Soban D S, Vavris D N. 2000. Formulation of a Methodology for the Probabilistic Assessment of System Effectiveness. Published by the Defense Technical Information Center. [Google Scholar]
  35. Sterman. 2000. Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. Irwin McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA, [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.