PROCESS BASED APPROACH FOR DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT OF MISSION CONTROL SOFTWAREA Project report

submitted in the partial fulfilment ofthe requirements for the award of the degree of

Bachelor of Technology

In

Information Technology

Submitted by

MARUVADA LAKSHMI PRIYANKA

(09KD1A1225)

Under the esteemed guidance of

K.RAJASEKHARAMHEAD,IV&V DRDL HYDERABAD

LENDI INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (Approved by AICTE. Affiliated to JNTUK.) Jonnada, Vizianagaram-535005.

1

2009-2013

CONTENTS

1. ABOUT THE ORGANISATION

1.1 History 3

1.2Projects 4

2. SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGIES

2.1Corporate Methodologies 9

2.1.1. Spiral Vs Incremental 9

2.2Ground System Design

2.2.1. General 10

2.2.2. Automation 12

2.3 Enhancement Methodologies

2.3.1. Characteristics of Agile Methodologies 14

2.3.2. Implementation of Agile Process in S/W Organisations 18

2.4 Onboard Computer System Design

2.4.1 DSP vs. General Purpose CPUs 24

2.4.2. Missile guidance for onboard systems 24

3. TESTING AND QUALITY ASURANCE 30

4. CASE STUDY ON AIR DEFENSE

4.1. Health Care 32

4.2. Communications 34

2

5.REFERENCES 36

1. About the Organisation:

1.1History:

Realizing the importance of guided missile weapon systems in the modern warfare, a

Special Weapon Development Team (SWDT) was formed in 1958. This team was later

expanded into DRDL, a full-fledged laboratory in June 1961 at the campus of Defence

Science Centre, Delhi. The laboratory was moved to Hyderabad in Feb' 1962, from where

starts the story of guided missiles in India. 

Realizing the importance of guided missile weapon systems in the modern warfare, a

Special Weapon Development Team (SWDT) was formed in 1958. This team was later

expanded into DRDL, a full-fledged laboratory in June 1961 at the campus of Defence

Science Centre, Delhi. The laboratory was moved to Hyderabad in Feb' 1962, from where

starts the story of guided missiles in India. 

During the initial phase, the laboratory successfully developed an anti tank missile system

and indigenous rockets and proved them through flight trials. IBM 1620 was installed in

DRDL as early as in 1965, which was used, for flight simulation studies.

In 1972, Project Devil, a medium range Surface-to-Surface Missile was initiated. A large

number of infrastructure and test facilities were established during this period. The main

facilities established during this period included Aerodynamic, Structural and

Environmental test facilities, Liquid and Solid propulsion facilities; fabrication and

engineering facilities; Control, Guidance, FRP, Rubber and computer centers, ground and

flight instrumentation and onboard power supplies development facilities. The

development of components / systems for Project Devil formed the technology bricks for

the future IGMDP Programme.

1982 onwards DRDL took a quantum jump by taking design and development of various

types of missiles systems simultaneously leading them to limited series production under

Integrated Guided Missiles Development Programme (IGMDP). Prithvi- a surface to

surface missile system, Trishul- a quick reaction short range, surface to air missile

3

system, Nag- a third generation anti tank missile system and Akash- a medium range,

surface to air missile system, besides Agni- a technology demonstrator were taken up

under the Programme.

In order to meet the growing demands of development, integration, testing and quality

assurance, three establishments namely Research Center Imarat (RCI), Composite

Products Development Centre (CPDC), and Interim Test Range (ITR) came out under the

parenthood of DRDL and a separate qualification agency Missile Systems Quality

Assurance Agency (MSQAA) were established during this period. Later these

establishments acquired independent status. In the year 1999 another laboratory called

'Advanced System Laboratory' was carved out of DRDL to meet the specific

requirements of long range systems. This group of laboratories is now called Missile

Complex.

Today DRDL, along with other Missile Complex Laboratories is the pioneer Missile

Research Institutes in the country.

1.2 PROJECTS:

AKASH :

The supersonic surface to air missile ‘AKASH’ has a range of about 25Km and carries

fragmentation warhead which is triggered by radio proximity fuse. The missile uses state-

of-technology integral ramjet rocket propulsion system and the onboard digital autopilot

ensures stability and maneuvers. The multi function phased array radar tracks the targets

and guides missiles towards them. The weapon system has a network of radar sensors to

effectively manage the air threats.

Salient Features

Multidirectional, Multitarget Engagement

Fully automated operation

4

Targets – Fighter A/C, UAV, Helicopter, Cruise Missile

All Terrain mobility

All weather operation

Advanced ECCM

Custom configured to meet user requirements

NAG (Third Generation Anti-Tank Missile)

 

Third generation Anti-Tank Missile System ‘NAG’ has “fire and forget” and “top attack”

capabilities. The Lock-on-before Launch Imaging Infra Red (IIR) homing provides

capability for Day & Night operation. The Missile excels as a formidable support weapon

for the Mechanised Infantry and Attack Helicopter formations. The Imaging Infra Red

homing seeker has all-weather day and night capability.

The Nag system is for deployment on “NAMICA”, A tracked vehicle and on a

Helicopter. Top attack mode using the advanced homing guidance system and tandem

shaped charge warhead is used to defeat heaviest armour. In addition, high energy,

smokeless propellant, light weight, high strength composite airframe with foldable wings

and fins, onboard real-time processor with fast and efficient algorithms, compact sensor

package and electric actuation system, digital autopilot and high immunity to counter

measures make this missile a state-of-art Anti-Tank Guided Missile System.

 Salient Features

RANGE-4.0Km

Fire & Force capability in lock-on-before-launch mode

“Day & Night operation (imaging infrared seeker)

5

‘Top-Attack’ capability

High SSKP (Single Shot Kill Probability

Capability to defeat future tic tanks & other hard target

NAMICA:

     

Salient Features

8 Nos. Ready-to-fire missiles on the turret

Option for additional 4 missiles in storage

4 missiles can be fired in 1 minute

Mobility matching BMF-11

ASTRA:

 

ASTRA is a Beyond Visual Range (BVR) air to air missile indigenously designed and

developed to engage and destroy highly maneuvering supersonic aerial targets. This

highly agile and accurate missile can intercept high speed, highly maneuvering targets

and can pull High level maneuvers. The kill boundary of this vehicle gives the enemy no

chance of survival. This is one of its class with a low all up weight to have high launch

6

range capability, this weapon system is meant for platforms like SU 30MKI, Mirage 2000

of Indian Air force and LCA developed by DRDO.

Salient Features

Airborne Launcher adaptable to Different Fighter Aircrafts

Smokeless Propulsion

Inertial Mid-Course & Terminal Homing

State-of-art ECCM features

All weather capability

Launch Speed 0.4M to 2M

Launch Altitude SL to 20Km

Launch Range 80Km

PJ-10:

 

BrahMos is a Supersonic Cruise Missile System developed by DRDL with foreign

collaboration. DRDO's share of the work is being executed under the Programme PJ10.

Salient Features:

Integral Booster & High Performance Ramjet System

Fuel based Actuation System

Nose Cap Control Thrusters

Inertial Navigation System

Active Radar Seeker

7

HELINA (Helicoptor launched Anti tank Missile):

 

A variant of NAG Missile to be launched from Helicopter is being developed under the

Project named HELINA. The missile will have a range of 7 Km with all other features

similar to NAG Missile system.

HSTDV (Hypersonic Technology Demonstrator Vehicle)

Mission:

Project HSTDV is a technology demonstrator aimed to demonstrate autonomous Flight of

a Scramjet Integrated Vehicle using kerosene. The related technologies are new not only

for India but for the entire aerospace community in the world and have potential

applications in the areas of civil, military and space sectors.

A demonstrator flight vehicle has been conceptualise to demonstrate the Scramjet

technology for a short duration of about 20 seconds.

Mach No                                             6.5

Altitude                                               32.5 KM

Flight duration of cruise vehicle             20 seconds

8

2.Software Development Methodologies:

Spiral - Iterative Model:

It is an Iterative model that uses the systematic and formal approaches of the

linear model. The idea of minimizing risks by the use of prototype and other

means is the concept underlying the spiral model. After each iteration, the

different aspects like risk and the number of iterations to be completed are

adjusted.

A spiral model is divided into a number of framework activities also called

as Task Regions. Typically there are between three to six task regions – Customer

Communication, Planning, Risk Analysis, Engineering, Construction and

Release, Customer Evaluation. Each of the regions is populated by a set of work

tasks called a task set that is adapted to the characteristics of the project. As the

evolutionary process begins the team moves around the spiral in a clockwise

direction beginning at the center. The first circuit around the spiral might result in

the development of specifications; subsequent passes around the spiral might be

used to develop a prototype and then progressively more sophisticated versions of

the software. Each pass through the planning region results in adjustments to the

project plan

9

This model can be applied to small and large projects with more complex

comprehensive and numerous tasks. It may be difficult to convince the customers

that the development process is controllable. Also its success relies heavily on the

success of the risk analysis expertise used. This model is particularly well suited

to the development of object-oriented system.

2.1 Corporate (Spiral Vs Incremental):

The spiral model, also known as the spiral lifecycle model, is a systems development

lifecycle (SDLC ) model used in information technology (IT). This model of development

combines the features of the prototyping model and the waterfall model . The spiral

model is favoured for large, expensive, and complicated projects. 

The steps in the spiral model can be generalized as follows:

The new system requirements are defined in as much detail as possible.

This usually involves interviewing a number of users representing all the

external or internal users and other aspects of the existing system.

A preliminary design is created for the new system.

A first prototype of the new system is constructed from the preliminary

design. This is usually a scaled-down system, and represents an

approximation of the characteristics of the final product.

A second prototype is evolved by a fourfold procedure: (1) evaluating the

first prototype in terms of its strengths, weaknesses, and risks; (2) defining

the requirements of the second prototype; (3) planning and designing the

second prototype; (4) constructing and testing the second prototype.

At the customer's option, the entire project can be aborted if the risk is

deemed too great. Risk factors might involve development cost overruns,

operating-cost miscalculation, or any other factor that could, in the

customer's judgment, result in a less-than-satisfactory final product.

The existing prototype is evaluated in the same manner as was the previous

prototype, and, if necessary, another prototype is developed from it

according to the fourfold procedure outlined above.

The preceding steps are iterated until the customer is satisfied that the

refined prototype represents the final product desired.

The final system is constructed, based on the refined prototype.10

2.2Ground System Design:

2.2.1General:

Consider providing on-line organized access to all mission telemetry that makes it

extremely easy and convenient to perform any on-demand science or engineering

investigation. With today’s computer technology and the decreasing prices for

storage media, this strategy may well provide an excellent return on investment

interms of data analysis and results. A trending product like ITPS could provide

thiscapability.

Choose fast, reliable, flexible, open-ended, fault-tolerant, and proven data storage

systems whose capacity can be upgraded to handle a great deal more data than the

mission originally may envision.

Maximize the use of technologies like Redundant Array of Independent

Disks(RAID) that promote reliability and minimize downtime. Mission critical

hardware and software (e.g. command system) should have hot backups or other

technologies that promote reliability and minimize downtime. All ground systems

should be configured to simplify backup procedures by using centralized data

storage. Data storage systems should be configured to provide maximum data

protection against disk failures.

Use a highly robust operating system (OS) that is reliable, powerful, flexible, and

customizable. (e.g., Red hat Linux, Mac OS X). An OS that provides shell

scripting capabilities allows all personnel—not only programmers—to implement

incremental, yet potentially significant, improvements across all areas of a project

in a rapid-response fashion. The downsides that may be experienced with this

approach are a need for more sophisticated user training and requiring more

knowledgeable system administrators. In addition, strict adherence to established

CM processes must still be enforced! (This really isn’t a downside, but some users

see CM as more a burden than a benefit.)

Missions which include data distribution among multiple locations should ensure

that their networks can handle the amount of network traffic. This is particularly

important given the general migration for satellite operations and data

transmission and delivery via the Internet. Pay close attention to NASA security

11

policies and network bandwidth needs when purchasing routers, switches,

firewalls and other network equipment.

Missions should use a common standard computer communications protocol. This

will preclude the need for proprietary protocols and their associated

hardware/software, and will greatly simplify system development,

implementation, operation, and maintenance. The current ubiquity of TCP/IP

makes it an obvious candidate for the near future.

The use of relational databases or object-oriented databases is extremely valuable

for managing data such as command and telemetry definitions and long term

engineering trending statistics. However, it is crucial that these databases be

properly designed and implemented by a knowledgeable database programmer. If

poorly implemented, such databases can lead to major maintenance headaches and

expenses. Also, database software will typically add overhead time to processes

that use them and require special expertise to administer.

Make maximum use of the Internet for any project requiring diverse geographic

data distribution, as it can greatly simplify global communications. Its inherent

ease of use and platform-independent nature make it an ideal means of on-line

communications, and a great way to save money (e.g., paper, phone, and mailing

costs). A local web server does, however, require some maintenance time, but this

can be minimized if well managed (e.g., via the use of some up-front and

consistent internal standards and controls). Be sure to check into security

requirements for hosting mission data on a public website

Use programming languages and tools that are appropriate for the task at hand,

and do not dictate the use of a particular language and/or tool without

consideration for the specific task.

Provide user-configuration capabilities, including command line access. It is often

convenient to temporarily modify the monitoring rule parameters (e.g., limit

values) or to screen pages for expected conditions (e.g., non-standard payload

configurations). This should be implemented within an overall configuration

management structure that establishes rules for what can be changed under

different levels of authority.

2.2.2 Automation:

12

User interface tools for an automated system should be capable of providing a

means to determine the current status related to operations and to interrupt the

automation when necessary. Automation does not need to provide routine display

of all spacecraft telemetry, since the purpose of such a system is to replace manual

monitoring, but should instead focus on giving a complete status of what

automation has done and what it is currently doing. To accomplish the status

display, try to leverage the capabilities provided by the Telemetry and Command

(T&C) software. As an example, use a status display that shows pseudo-telemetry

automation values using mechanisms built into the T&C software.

There should be two main focuses of ground system automation. The first focus

should be to automate routine functions of the ground system that are clearly

understood by the mission operations engineers. This can include telemetry data

flow verification, product deliveries, and commanding the spacecraft by running

specially tailored command procedures to handle common situations that have a

predefined and understood response. Any implemented automation procedures

should report status data about what they are doing for use by an automation

display mechanism. Uncommon situations should not be handled by automation

and should generate an alert when encountered.

The second focus should be to detect uncommon spacecraft configurations and

anomalies through passive monitoring of telemetry, and then issuing a page fora

human operator to investigate and take corrective action. This approach can

include database limit monitoring and configuration monitoring, and automated

notification by a procedure.

Use e-mail devices that are capable of running software to filter e-mails based on

source address and/or message content (e.g., Web Messenger Message Alerts for

Blackberry). By using a filtering tool, the set-up can be configured so that an

expected or nominal automation messages would generate, for example, a distinct

non-continuous ring, while unexpected and possibly critical message types would

produce a high volume and continuous ring. Such an arrangement allows the

operator to immediately distinguish between notifications that require attention

and those that do not.

The paging system should be designed to group related problems into categories

by either generation source or subsystem component. The different categories can

13

be associated with different mail list groups to maximize the delivery of

information to the pertinent recipients.

Implement a mechanism to gather status data about the primary T&C system for

delivery to a server that can display the status information on a website.

Additionally, add data checks to validate that the T&C application is functioning

properly. Ideally, an alert would notify users that T&C software is not functioning

properly.

It is useful and recommended that there be mechanisms designed for the purpose

of monitoring the primary telemetry monitoring system to ensure its availability

and functionality. An example is implementing a two-tiered client-server

architecture for sending out status information. The primary T&C would act like

the client and deliver a status data file to a server at set time intervals. The server

could then monitor that an updated file was delivered within the expected time

period.

Consider implementing a password protected web server to host pertinent status

information about the status of the ground automation and other useful operations

information such as data gap reports, network port connection statuses, disk usage

of critical system, etc for off-site access by operations personnel.

2.3 Enhancement methodologies:

2.3.1 Characteristics of Agile Methodologies:

According to Highsmith and Cockburn [24] , “what is new about agile methods is not the

practices they use, but their recognition of people as the primary drivers of project

success, coupled with an intense focus on effectiveness and manoeuvrability. This yields

a new combination of values and principles that define an agile world view.” Highsmith

further transcribes from the book Agile Competitors and Virtual Organizations the

definition of agility: “Agility... is a comprehensive response to the business challenges of

profiting from rapidly changing, continually fragmenting, global markets for highquality, high-performance, customer-configured goods and services.”

The following principles of agile methodologies are seen as the main differences between

agile and heavyweight:

14

People Oriented- Agile methodologies consider people – customers, developers,

stakeholders, and end users – as the most important factor of software methodologies. As

Jim Highsmith and Alistair Cockburn state, “The most important implication to managers

working in the agile manner is that it places more emphasis on people factors in the

project: amicability, talent, skill, and communication”. If the people on the project

are good enough, they can use almost any process and accomplish their assignment. If

they are not good enough, no process will repair their inadequacy. As Highsmith

highlights, “… people trump process… ”.

Adaptive – The participants in an agile process are not afraid of change. Agilest

welcome changes at all stages of the project. They view changes to the requirements as

good things, because they mean that the team has learned more about what it will take to

satisfy the market. Today the challenge is not stopping change but rather determining

how to better handle changes that occur throughout a project. “External Environment

changes cause critical variations. Because we cannot eliminate these changes, driving

down the cost of responding to them is the only viable strategy”.

Conformance to Actual – Agile methodologies value conformance to the actual results

as opposed to conformance to the detailed plan. High smith states, “Agile projects are not

controlled by conformance to plan but by conformance to the business value”. Each

iteration or development cycle adds business value to the ongoing product. For agilest,

the decision on whether business value has been added or not is not given by the

developers but instead by end users and customers.

Balancing Flexibility and Planning – Plans are important, but the problem is that

software projects can not be accurately predicted far into the future, because there are so

many variables to take into account. A better planning strategy is to make detailed plans

for the next few weeks, very rough plans for the next few months, and extremely crude

15

plans beyond that. In this view one of the main sources of complexity is the

irreversibility of decisions. If you can easily change your decisions, this means it’s less

important to get them right – which makes your life much simpler. The consequence for

agile design is that designers need to think about how they can avoid irreversibility in

their decisions. Rather than trying to get the right decision now, look for a way to either

put off the decision until later or make the decision in such a way that you will be able to

reverse it later on without too much difficulty.

Empirical Process – Agile methods develop software as an empirical (or nonlinear)

process. In engineering, processes are either defined or empirical. In other words, defined

process is one that can be started and allowed to run to completion producing the same

results every time. In software development it can not be considered a defined process

because too much change occurs during the time that the team is developing the product.

Laurie Williams states, “It is highly unlikely that any set of predefined steps will lead to a

desirable, predictable outcome because requirements change technology changes, people

are added and taken off the team, and so on”

Decentralized Approach – Integrating a decentralized management style can severely

impact a software project because it could save a lot of time than an autocratic

management process. Agile software development spreads out the decision making to the

developers. This does not mean that the developers take on the role of management.

Management is still needed to remove roadblocks standing in the way of progress.

However management recognizes the expertise of the technical team to make technical

decisions without their permission.

Simplicity – Agile teams always take the simplest path that is consistent with their goals.

Fowler states, “They (agile teams) don’t anticipate tomorrow’s problems and try to

defend against them today”. The reason for simplicity is so that it will be easy to

change the design if needed on a later date. Never produce more than what is necessary

16

and never produce documents attempting to predict the future as documents will become

outdated. “The larger the amount of documentation becomes, the more effort is needed to

find the required information, and the more effort is needed to keep the information up to

date”.

Collaboration – Agile methods involve customer feedback on a regular and frequent

basis. The customer of the software works closely with the development team, providing

frequent feedback on their efforts. As well, constant collaboration between agile team

members is essential. Due to the decentralized approach of the agile methods,

collaboration encourages discussion. As Martin Fowler describes, “Agile teams cannot

exist with occasional communication. They need continuous access to business expertise”.

Small Self-organizing teams – An agile team is a self organizing team. Responsibilities

are communicated to the team as a whole, and the team determines the best way to fulfill

them. Agile teams discuss and communicate together on all aspects of the project. That is

why agility works well in small teams. As Alistair Cockburn and Jim Highsmith

highlight, “Agile development is more difficult with larger teams. The average project

has only nine people, within the reach of most basic agile processes. Nevertheless, it is

interesting to occasionally find successful agile projects with 120 or even 250 people”.

17

Fig. (1) Agile Software Development Methodology

Implementation of Agile Methodologies:

In software development there exists a tension between quality, cost and time. Barry

Boehm states that, “As we progress from analysis, through to design, coding, testing and

production, the cost of fixing a problem increases exponentially”. The greatest

increase in cost is when fixing the problem after product introduction, a cost of

approximately 60 to 100 times more than eliminating the problem in the design phase.

Boehm suggests to reduce these costs, use heavyweight methodologies so that more time

is spent in upfront requirements gathering.

Alistair Cockburn disagrees with Boehm’s statement and reports, “As time goes by and

18

the program gets bigger, it costs LESS to implement a change with XP than with your

traditional methodology”. In addition, Kent Beck argues that the “cost of change”

curve is said to be flat in agile modelling. Moreover to strengthen this conviction they

show several XP practices to ensure that the cost associated with this curve is kept to

minimal.

Unit Testing and Test-Driven Development ensures that bugs and errors are found quickly and early so that it would be cheaper to fix. On-site customer and functional testing ensure the analysis and specification of the system is up-to-date and precise with business requirements. Pair programming allows two developers working together on one computer, which increases the chances of finding bugs and leads to a simpler design Refactoring and “once and only once” increases design consistency and adds more simplicity and flexibility to the structure. This ensures that the system is

well-designed and easy to change. Regular releases gives the customer feedback and forces the team to make the

“release to production” and maintenance phases as cheap as possible.

The above agile principles attack the roots of the high cost of fixing errors (with good

specifications, good designs, good implementation and fast feedback). But according

to Laurie Williams this does not mean that agile processes decrease or increase the

cost of developing compared to heavyweight . In Figure 12 below, Williams shows two

theoretical graphs to illustrate this. It represents the expense of traditional methods over

time and mentions that most of the expense is spent on new development and little

expense on revision which is done during the development cycle. Conversely, it

represents an agile (XP) method project’s expense. Here the opposite occurs,

demonstrating more spending on the revision and less on the development. According to

these results both graphs indicate the same level of expense over similar time periods.

William states, “Strong anecdotal evidence suggests that the additional revision does not

exceed the expense that would have been incurred had extensive up-front requirements

engineering, planning and designing”.

2.3.2 Implementing Agile Processes in Software Organizations :

Software has been part of modern society for more than 50 years, likewise so have

19

software development processes. However agile methods oldest methodology was

SCRUM and DSDM and they were not defined till mid-1990. Even though each

methodology has excellent anecdotal evidence and research results that their method

works, not enough statistical and metric proof has been gathered. Geoffrey Moore, in

his book Crossing the Chasm, describes five types of profiles of technology adopters:

Innovators who pursue new concepts aggressively; early adopters who pursue new

concepts very early in the lifecycle; early majority wait and see before buying into a new

concept; the late majority who are concerned about their ability to handle a new concept;

and laggards who do not want anything to do with new approaches. According to

Scott Ambler, people that fit the innovator or early adopter would adopt agile techniques.

Moreover, since there is sufficient anecdotal evidence, the early majority are starting to

adopt agility to their organization. Furthermore he adds, “It will take several years,

perhaps even a decade, until we have incontrovertible proof that agile software

development work in practice” .DaimlerChrysler was the first organization to use agile

methods that introduced XP practices with the Chrysler Comprehensive Compensation

(C3) project, which is a very successful payroll system implemented in Smalltalk. The C3

project began in January 1995 under a fixed priced contract and a year later failed to

deliver a proper working payroll system .Kent Beck, the developer of XP, was called in to

help with performance tuning of C3 project and found that the code was poorly factored,

there was no repeatable tests, and the management had lost confidence in the project.

Beck threw away all the previous code and the fixed-price contract was cancelled. He

reorganized the team and made up the rules of XP that they had to follow: “putting

customer on-site to work with the developers, sharing code techniques, pairing

developers, performing automated unit testing and editing code frequently to keep it

simple”[48]. All these modifications enhanced and developed a successful payroll system

that did more than what was needed. Chrysler still uses the XP concept as Christen Wege,

portal and Web application architect, mentions, “Today, Stuttgart, Germany-based

DaimlerChrysler AG still uses extreme programming within several application

development groups in the U.S. and Germany”.

20

One of the most difficult tasks involved with using agile processes is successfully

introducing them into an organization that has been using their traditional organization

structure for years. “Part of [the Big Design Up-Front] culture is the creation of fiefdoms

within the program organization. Adopting [agile processes] will radically change the

functions of the organization within the program and consequently change the staff and

funding profiles of the organizations” [6]. Some of the traditional roles such as the

Quality Assurance and testing would resist the change as more attention and work is

needed from these roles after each iteration in an agile process. Management are

uncomfortable with not having documents to judge the progress of their project and not

having a final commitment date of delivery with a bottom line cost . Still accordingly

to Chris Dial, an analyst at Forrester Research Inc, “organizations are increasingly

turning to new techniques to make the most of the smaller development teams and

contend with more complex, distributed applications”. .

A Singapore lending project was declared undoable until Jeff De Luca, a project director

of Nebulon, a leading information technology firm in Melbourne, took on the project

using the agile methodology Feature-Driven Development (FDD). Previously the

deliverables included 3,500 pages of use cases, an object model with hundreds of classes,

thousands of attributes (but no methods) and no code. De Luca used techniques such as

keeping code simple, testing often and delivering small features of the application as they

are ready. Within 2 months De Luca’s team was producing demonstrable features for the

client and 4 months later the project was completed and under budget. When asked what

his key to success De Luca responded was, “The key is having good people, good domain

experts, good developers and good chief programmers. No process makes up for a lack of

talent and skill” [49]. This example shows a clear example of why working code is the

ultimate arbiter of real progress. As Jim High smith states, “In the end, thousands of use

cases and hundreds of object model elements did not prove real progress” [49].

21

Caterpillar Financial Services Corp. also used an agile technique to develop a critical

web-based financial system for its dealers all over the world. The success of this project

according to Tom DePauw, manager of IT at Caterpillar, was using agile methods to

build small, usable parts of Java based applications early, rather than one large

application at the end of the project. Further more a large US based financial

institution agrees that the need to produce functional parts of the application regularly to

the customer will drive your company to consider agile methodologies. They state

“Customers want applications in 90 days now, no matter how complex they are, and you

can’t do that with traditional methods”.

However, there are some downfalls in using agile methodologies in the software industry

and one of them is their over emphasis towards customer collaboration. According to

Erkki Vuorenmaa, manager of IT company in Finland, getting business people involved

in the development process is very “irritating” and awkward job, and without the

determined “good” customer it would be hard to develop a quality software. Another

criticism of agile methods is concerning project costs. Agile projects have no fixed price

or fixed schedule and projects are open-ended and evolve as requirements change.

Therefore it becomes harder for the manager and customer to accept this technique as

customers would rather know the total cost of the project and overall project schedule

beforehand. On the other hand Alistair Cockburn pointed out that agile and fixed price

are not mutually exclusive. He came up with the version of agility through a succession

of fixed price projects. Cockburn explains, “In fixed price projects the price is usually

fixed to low, so you want to do everything you can to boost productivity, and that

includes using an agile process”.

Motorola’s experience with agile methods in its development organization found that it

was not useful for global development projects. Senior architect of Motorola believed that

the agile method [Extreme Programming] values small teams and that was not always

22

possible. Surprisingly some believe that after mangers hear the name ‘extreme

programming’ they get turned off. However, on the upside, agile methods provide short

daily meetings that would lead to better continual feedback; this keeps the cost to

minimal. As a manager at Sunoco Inc says, “If the consultant is incompetent or the

technology is wrong, I get the first indication after 30 days. I’m cutting my losses

quickly” .

Agile practices have been widely accepted in many organizations due to their similarities

to CMM (Capability Maturity Model) standards. The development of the CMM has

become a standard to well-defined and well-documented software development processes

for organizations to follow to succeed in their project. Laurie Williams adds, “Many

CMM or ISO 9000 now think that partial adoption of agile practices, when handled with

care, might increase their efficiencies without damaging their certifications” . Mark

Paulk, from the Software Engineering Institute, states, “XP has good engineering

practices that can work well with the CMM and other highly structured models. The key

is to carefully consider XP practices and implement them in the right environment”.

He goes on to show that certain agile practices of XP are similar to Level 2, 3 and some

of 4 practices of CMM (for the complete table of CMM standards refer to Appendix D).

For example, XP meets CMM Level 2 requirements management condition through its

use of stories, an onsite customer, and continuous integration. XP address software

project planning in the planning game and small releases. XP’s practices with “big visual

chart”, project velocity, and commitments for small releases meet Software project

tracking and oversight in CMM level 2. In CMM level 3 several XP practices address

software product engineering such as metaphor, simple design, refactoring, coding

standards and unit testing. XP’s strong emphasis on communication and pair

programming consecutively addresses intergroup coordination and peer reviews of CMM

level 3. Beyond level 3, XP only address as few of the Level 4 and 5 key process areas

23

Moreover this popularity of Extreme programming to the level of alchemy was

supported by respected people like Tom DeMarco that once stated that, “An organization

employing Extreme Programming moved from CMM Level 1 to CMM Level 4 within 5

months”.

Agile Methods

Heavy Methods

Approach Adaptive Predictive

Success Measurement Business Value Conformation to plan

Project size Small Large

Management Style Decentralized Autocratic

Perspective Change Change Adaptability Change Sustainability

Culture Leadership-Collaboration Command-Control

Documentation Low Heavy

Emphasis People-Oriented Process Oriented

Cycles Numerous Limited

Domain Unpredictable/Exploratory Predictable

Upfront Planning Minimal Comprehensive

Return on Investment Early in Project End of Project

Team Size Small/Creative Large

Table 1: Difference in Agile and Heavyweight Methodologies

2.4Onboard computer systems design:

2.4.1 DSP vs. General Purpose CPUs:

• DSPs tend to run one program, not many programs.

– Hence OSes are much simpler, there is no virtual memory or protection, ...

• DSPs usually run applications with hard real-time constraints:

24

– You must account for anything that could happen in a time slot

– All possible interrupts or exceptions must be accounted for and their collective time be subtracted from the time interval.

– Therefore, exceptions are BAD.

• DSPs usually process infinite continuous data streams.

• The design of DSP architectures and ISAs driven by the requirements of DSP algorithms.

2.4.2 Missile guidance for onboard systems:

It refers to a variety of methods of guiding a missile or a guided bomb to its intended

target. The missile's target accuracy is a critical factor for its effectiveness. Guidance

systems improve missile accuracy by improving its "Single Shot Kill Probability"

(SSKP), which is part of combat survivability calculations associated with salvo combat

model.[1][2]

These guidance technologies can generally be divided up into a number of categories,

with the broadest categories being "active," "passive" and "preset" guidance. Missiles and

guided bombs generally use similar types of guidance system, the difference between the

two being that missiles are powered by an onboard engine, whereas guided bombs rely on

the speed and height of the launch aircraft for propulsion.

History:

The concept of missile guidance originated at least as early as World War I, with the idea

of remotely guiding an airplane bomb onto a target. In World War II guided missiles were

first developed, as part of the German V-weapons program.

Categories of guidance systems:

Guidance systems are divided into different categories according to what type of target

they are designed for - either fixed targets or moving targets. The weapons can be divided

into two broad categories, Go-Onto-Target (GOT) and Go-Onto-Location-in-Space

(GOLIS) guidance systems.[4] A GOT missile can target either a moving or fixed target,

whereas a GOLIS weapon is limited to a stationary or near-stationary target. The

trajectory that a missile takes while attacking a moving target is dependent upon the

25

movement of the target. Also, a moving target can be an immediate threat to the sender of

the missile. The target needs to be eliminated in a timely fashion in order to preserve the

integrity of the sender. In GOLIS systems the problem is simpler because the target is not

moving.

GOT systems:

In every GOT system there are three subsystems:

Target tracker

Missile tracker

Guidance computer

The way these three subsystems are distributed between the missile and the launcher

result in two different categories:

Remote Control Guidance: The guidance computer is on the launcher. The

target tracker is also placed on the launching platform.

Homing Guidance: The guidance computers are in the missile and in the

target tracker.

Remote control guidance:

These guidance systems usually need the use of radars and a radio or wired link between

the control point and the missile; in other words, the trajectory is controlled with the

information transmitted via radio or wire.

System include

Command Guidance - The missile tracker is on the launching platform. These missiles

are totally controlled by the launching platform that sends all control orders to the missile.

The 2 variants are

26

Command to Line-Of-Sight (CLOS)

Command Off Line-Of-Sight (COLOS)

Line-Of-Sight Beam Riding Guidance (LOSBR) :– The missile tracker is on board the

missile. It has already some orientation capability, in order to fly inside the beam that the

launching platform is using to illuminate the target. It can be manual or automatic.[5]

Command to Line-Of-Sight (CLOS):

The CLOS system uses only the angular coordinates between the missile and the target to

ensure the collision. The missile will have to be in the line of sight between the launcher

and the target (LOS), correcting any deviation of the missile in relation to this line. Due to

the amount of missiles that use this guidance system, they are usually are subdivided into

four groups:

Manual Command to Line-Of-Sight (MCLOS), The target tracking and the

missile tracking and control is performed manually. The operator watches the

missile flight and uses some sort of signaling system to command the missile back

into the straight line between the operator and the target (the "line of sight").

Typically useful only for slower targets where significant "lead" is not required.

MCLOS is a subtype of command guided systems. In the case of glide bombs or

missiles against ships or the supersonic Wasserfall against slow-moving B-17

Flying Fortress bombers this system worked, but as speeds increased MCLOS was

quickly rendered useless for most roles.

Semi-Manual Command to Line-Of-Sight (SMCLOS), The target tracking is

automatic and the missile tracking and control is manual

Semi-Automatic Command to Line-Of-Sight (SACLOS), The target tracking is

manual and the missile tracking and control is automatic. Is similar to MCLOS but

some automatic system positions the missile in the line of sight while the operator

simply tracks the target. *SACLOS has the advantage of allowing the missile to

start in a position invisible to the user, as well as generally being considerably

easier to operate. SACLOS is the most common form of guidance against ground

targets such as tanks and bunkers.

Automatic Command to Line-Of-Sight (ACLOS), The target tracking, missile

tracking and control are automatic.

27

Command Off Line-Of-Sight (COLOS):

This guidance system was one of the first to be used and still is in service, mainly in anti-

aircraft missiles. In this system, the missile tracker and the target tracker can be oriented

in different directions. The guidance system ensures the interception of the target by the

missile by locating both in space. This means that they will not rely on the angular

coordinates like in CLOS systems. They will need another coordinate which is distance.

To make it possible, both target and missile trackers have to be active. They are always

automatic and the radar has been used as the only sensor in these systems. The SM-2MR

Standard is inertially guided during its mid-course phase, but it is assisted by a COLOS

system via radar link provided by the AN/SPY-1 radar installed in the launching platform.

Line-Of-Sight Beam Riding Guidance (LOSBR):

LOSBR uses a "beam" of some sort, typically radio, radar or laser, is pointed at the target

and detectors on the rear of the missile keep it centered in the beam. Beam riding systems

are often SACLOS, but do not have to be; in other systems the beam is part of an

automated radar tracking system. A case in point is later versions of the RIM-8

Talos missile as used in Vietnam - the radar beam was used to take the missile on a high

arcing flight and then gradually brought down in the vertical plane of the target aircraft,

the more accurate SARH homing being used at the last moment for the actual strike. This

gave the enemy pilot the least possible warning that his aircraft was being illuminated by

missile guidance radar, as opposed to search radar. This is an important distinction, as the

nature of the signal differs, and is used as a cue for evasive action.

LOSBR suffers from the inherent weakness of inaccuracy with increasing range as the

beam spreads out. Laser beam riders are more accurate in this regards, but are all short-

range, and even the laser can be degraded by bad weather. On the other hand, SARH

becomes more accurate with decreasing distance to the target, so the two systems are

complementary.[5]

Homing guidance:

Active homing:

Active homing uses a radar system on the missile to provide a guidance signal. Typically

electronics in the missile keep the radar pointed directly at the target, and the missile then

looks at this "angle" of its own centerline to guide itself. Radar resolution is based on the

28

size of the antenna, so in a smaller missile these systems are useful for attacking only

large targets, ships or large bombers for instance. Active radar systems remain in

widespread use in anti-shipping missiles, and in "fire-and-forget" air-to-air missile

systems such as AMRAAM and R-77

Semi-active homing:

Semi-active homing systems combine a radar receiver on the missile with a radar

broadcaster located "elsewhere". Since the missile is typically being launched after the

target was detected using a powerful radar system, it makes sense to use that same radar

system to track the target, thereby avoiding problems with resolution or power. SARH is

by far the most common "all weather" guidance solution for anti-aircraft systems, both

ground and air launched.

It has the disadvantage for air-launched systems that the launch aircraft must keep

moving towards the target in order to maintain radar and guidance lock. This has the

potential to bring it within range of shorter-ranged IR-guided missile systems, an

important consideration now that "all aspect" IR missiles are capable of "kills" from head

on, something which did not prevail in the early days of guided missiles. For ships and

mobile or fixed ground-based systems, this is irrelevant as the speed (and often size) of

the launch platform precludes "running away" from the target or opening the range so as

to make the enemy attack fail.

SALH is a similar system using a laser as a signal. However, most laser-guided weapons

employ a turret-mounted laser designator which increases the launching aircraft's ability

to manoeuvre after launch. How much manoeuvring can be done by the guiding aircraft

will depend on the turret field of view and the systems ability to maintain a lock-on while

manoeuvring. As most air-launched, laser-guided munitions are employed against surface

targets the designator providing the guidance to the missile need not be the launching

aircraft; designation can be provided by another aircraft or by a completely separate

source (frequently troops on the ground equipped with the appropriate laser designator).

Passive homing:

Infrared homing  is a passive system in which heat generated by the target is detected and

homed on. Typically used in the anti aircraft role to track the heat of jet engines, it has

29

also been used in the anti-vehicle role with some success. This means of guidance is

sometimes also referred to as "heat seeking".

Contrast seekers use a television camera, typically black and white, to image a field of

view in front of the missile, which is presented to the operator. When launched, the

electronics in the missile look for the spot on the image where the contrast changes the

fastest, both vertically and horizontally, and then attempts to keep that spot at a constant

location in its view. Contrast seekers have been used for air-to-ground missiles, including

the AGM_4 Maverick, because most ground targets can be distinguished only by visual

means. However they rely on there being strong contrast changes to track, and even

traditional camouflage can render them unable to "lock on".

Retransmission homing:

Retransmission homing, also called Track Via Missile(TVM), is a hybrid

between command guidance, semi-active radar homing and active radar homing. The

missile picks up radiation broadcast by the tracking radar which bounces off the target

and relays it to the tracking station, which relays commands back to the missile.

3. Testing and Quality Assurance process:

The ability to destroy in-flight hostile aircraft, cruise missiles and the full spectrum of

ballistic missiles is critical to the survival of military forces on the battlefield.  This

capability is accomplished through the employment of a netted and distributed

architecture composed of sensors, data distribution systems and a variety of air defense

weapons. The capabilities of such air defense systems are constantly being advanced to

keep pace with the threat in terms of speed, accuracy and lethality.

Services: Air defense weapon systems are composed of a variety of major sub-systems to

include sensor, BMC3I and interceptor. Our team experts  support the testing of all such

30

components to include infrared seekers, command and control battle management

systems, communications systems, precision pointing and tracking optics, as well as radar

and signal processors. As part of the testing process, multiple operational test events are

developed, executed and evaluated.  Our personnel develop detailed reports from the raw

data that is recorded throughout the testing period.  Additionally, personnel  participate in

the follow-on review of all information and evaluations to determine the success or

failure of each test criteria. Personnel also assist in the development of the Final Test

Report that is presented to the government representative.

TestStages:

Planning: Test planning begins with the development of an effective and affordable test

concept that  serves as the bases for the creation of a test plan. A thorough analysis of all

relevant documents is then performed to gain a detailed understanding of the

characteristics and capabilities of the system that is being tested. An analysis of the

system’s operational requirements and design specifications is also necessary to

understanding the performance and effectiveness measures that will be evaluated. Such

efforts form the basis for all other system analysis activities.

Coordination: Close coordination within the test community is essential in order to

minimize resource requirements and costs, eliminate unnecessary redundancy and

maximize efficiency. Additionally, it serves to align the collective efforts of material

developers, evaluators and key decision makers. In this manner test requirements/events

are assessed, appropriate test beds are identified, data collection requirements are

determined and test resources are allocated. Such coordination is accomplished

throughout the testing period via integrated process and product teams, in process

reviews, design reviews and technical working groups.

Execution: Testing is conducted in one or more environments, such as laboratory,

simulation facility and field. Additionally, a test may be conducted at the component,

subsystem, or system level. Detailed test procedures are developed and implemented to

satisfy test plan requirements and ensure appropriate data is collected on each test

objective.

31

Analysis: Throughout the conduct of a test, data collectors observe each test event, record

information and perform an initial analysis of the data gathered. Test results are then

combined assimilating and analyzed to quantify performance and effectiveness of the

system in comparison with established norms and requirements. Analytical tools may

include specialized data processing equipment and techniques, application software and

analytical expertise.

Reporting: Once all information has been assessed, the results along with quantifiable

measurements of data accuracy and confidence levels are presented in the final test report.

4. Case study on Air defense:

4.1Healthcare:

A Challenging Environment:

Employing some 7,000 staff across nine different hospitals, United Bristol Healthcare

NHS Trust (UBHT) is one of the largest acute trusts in the country as well as being a

major teaching and research centre for the South West. In 2005, the Trust had over

110,000 inpatient and day case admissions. Dave Oat way is the Trust’s Computer

32

Services Manager, responsible for all operational IT services including support for 4,000

users and the introduction of new technologies and applications to meet clinical needs.

His involvement with wireless dates back to 2003 when a number of small pilot systems

were installed to overcome specific problems. In common with many other Trusts, UBHT

is spread across several buildings and staff are quite frequently relocated from one

building to another, often on a temporary basis. The trust’s location in the centre of

Bristol adds to the challenge of providing connectivity; cabling between sites would mean

tunnelling under busy roads, entailing disruption and high costs. Thus, one of the Trust’s

first wireless installations was a temporary system providing connectivity for a small

group of people who had relocated to a different building. Another installation saw

wireless being used within a ward to enable haematologists to use laptops – equipped

with a barcode scanner – to scan patients’ wristbands to check blood groups prior to

treatment. With this type of application, data is available immediately on any laptop,

avoiding any problems of lag time, for any member of staff or department that has a role

in the care of that patient.

Seeking a long-term solution for wireless security:

As part of the Trust’s implementation of the National Programme for IT, there is a

commitment to utilise wireless throughout all the hospitals when clinical need justifies the

use of the technology. Even with the small, early installations of wireless at Bristol, it had

always been recognised that the IT department would need to tackle the issues of control

and security associated with the technology before broader-ranging systems could be

approved and rolled out across the hospital over a planned two year period. UBHT has

been working with IT security specialists Peapod for a decade on a wide range of security

integration projects. Early in 2005, Dave Oat way turned to Peapod for advice on

identifying a robust approach to wireless which would offer guaranteed security and a

foundation upon which more installations could be rolled out. Peapod advised them to

consider utilising an Air Defense solution, who provided a demonstration of their

proposed system and carried out a survey of the UBHT site, providing a report on what

they had found. Dave Oat way commented: “We were keen to work with an organisation

that was independent of manufacturers, and Air Defense fitted this bill, as well as being

recommended by Peapod. The ability of their solution to detect rogue access points was

critical and more importantly deny them service was a feature which was missing from

33

many other companies’ offerings. A further important factor was that we felt AirDefense

was the type of company with which we could develop a partnership and a long-term

relationship – rather than just opt for a pure customer/supplier scenario”. The proposed

system was designed to provide the Trust with a ‘starter solution’ which could be quickly

and easily expanded as the number of wireless installations increased and budget became

available. It is an overlay network to the Cisco infrastructure. In early 2006, an Air

Defense wireless security appliance and two wireless sensors were installed; by mid 2007

there will be approximately 1,000 access points and 200 sensors. Air Defense Enterprise

was installed to constantly monitor and ensure the security of the data over the network.

Wireless now and in the future:

Since the Air Defense solution was implemented, Dave Oat way and his team have been

able to detect when and where people are using wireless equipment and devices, as well

as being able to automatically stop any unauthorised attempts to attach to the network. In

addition, the system provides moment to moment details – presented as graphs – of traffic

and potential threats, which will enable the Trust to identify and plan for future wireless

installations. The Trust’s growing number of wireless systems, which are viewed as

being complementary to traditional cabling solutions, are predominantly being used in

ward environments and in a theatre suite to provide a fast and efficient way of entering

and retrieving patient data. UBHT is also looking at introducing wireless telephones

which will allow clinicians to speak to whoever is trying to contact them immediately –

rather than having to respond to a pager at an available phone line, all of which takes up

valuable time. Another potential application is for the hospital’s Intensive Care Unit. If

someone is taken ill within the hospital and ideally needs to be moved to ICU – but there

are no beds available – the requisite monitoring equipment can be taken down to the ward

and then connected – using wireless – back to ICU. In this way, ICU staff will be able to

monitor a patient with access to all their sophisticated equipment, without the patient

having to be physically within the Unit. Given the pressure on beds in ICU, this has the

potential to allow UBHT to offer improved care to a larger number of seriously ill

patients. A number of significant national projects are also being progressed, including

PACS, a digital archiving and retrieval system for x-rays. With the plan to roll out this

major new system on wireless, combined with the need to meet government timelines for

this service, the need for a robust infrastructure and stringent security is of paramount

34

importance. Dave Oat way is enthusiastic about the benefits and exciting applications that

wireless can deliver within a hospital environment, but is keen to stress that patient data

confidentiality can only be assured with the installation of a robust infrastructure, such as

that recommended by Peapod and delivered by Air Defense. “With cabling there are

obviously clearly defined boundaries and it is much easier to limit the risk of

unauthorised access. At Bristol, we have thousands of people walking around our

buildings every single day. Although the vast majority will be law-abiding, we have to

protect against threats that we don’t even know are out there. The Air Defense solution

enables us to do this.”

4.2. Communications:

Customer Description:

BT is one of the world’s leading providers of communications solutions serving

customers in Europe, the Americas and Asia Pacific. Its principal activities include

networked IT services, local, national and international telecommunications services, and

higher-value broadband and internet products and services. In the UK, BT serves more

than 20 million business and residential customers with more than 30 million exchange

lines, as well as providing network services to other licensed operators. BT is known

internationally as a major technology player - pioneering the digital advances that are

shaping and driving the information age.

Problem:

BT’s employees are highly mobile and needed the flexibility to work securely at multiple

locations. “Hot desking” to give employees access to the company’s network was tried

but was difficult, expensive and impractical. Wireless technology was generally agreed to

be the most beneficial solution and with this came they need to establish the best of breed

security for the wireless infrastructure. Employees had laptops and other wireless enabled

devices and needed to access email, customer records, and other work applications at

multiple locations. The need to do this securely was imperative in the solution BT

chose.BT has multiple sites some of which are located in the heart of city centers and

many offices could detect more than 30 other Wireless LANs. This meant that a complete

site survey had to be carried out at each location to understand what the complexities

35

were and how many wireless networks actually invaded BT’s airspace.At some sites in

central London, the initial survey detected that at regular intervals alarms might be raised

from the automated bus stop updates. This type of traffic, while not a threat could create

multiple security alarms. Other locations in more rural settings provided different

problems of distance between buildings and large communal areas. The risks for BT as an

organization and the implications for its management team if the solution they chose was

not scalable were immense. The problem of partitioning friendly neighbouring wireless

LANs from those that could present a malicious threat was essential. The threats to any

wireless deployment are rogue or unauthorized access so the problem for BT was to be

able to analyse existing and zero day threats in real-time against historical data to

accurately detect all attacks and anomalous behaviour originating inside or outside the

organization. Doing this while providing IT support for over 60,000 workers seamlessly

and without increasing IT management time was seen to be essential.

Requirements:

BT needed a solution that could detect intruders and rogue access points automatically

and secure their airwaves cost effectively. It needed a solution that could distinguish

between the multiple legitimate neighbouring wireless networks and those that were

malicious. In addition it needed to be able to terminate wireless connections between an

intruder and an authorized access point and also to terminate authorized devices with

rogue access points. Most particularly it required the vendor it chose to be able to enforce

the BT security policy to all its mobile workforce without disrupting its business. The

solution had to work with the Cisco based network infrastructure.

Solution:

BT evaluated several Wireless LAN security products before deciding which one to

purchase. The evaluation process was exacting. Michael Malcolm RF Manager at BT said

“I was a sceptic. I was not going to allow wireless connectivity at BT unless I was

convinced that it could be provided securely.” The evaluation and testing process was

extremely rigorous and thorough. The site surveys were completed using Air Defense

Architect which provides complete design and simulation of wireless LANs based on

building-specific environments. This product accurately and predictively helped design

the Wireless networks (802.11) before the actual deployment of access points, sensors

and other wireless devices. For the deployment BT chose to use Air Defense Enterprise

36

provided through a specialist solutions provider in the UK called Pentura. They have

currently deployed sensors in 15 of 21 sites in the UK and plan to roll out the solution

across European offices. The Air Defense system helps BT to:

• Increase the productivity of its workforce.

• Define, enforce and measure adherence to their security policy.

•Continuously monitor the WLAN providing maximum security and operational integrity of the network

• Ensure BT employees are not logging onto rogue or neighbouring networks

• Confirm wireless devices are within permitted areas.

References:

1. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/104654419/DSP-Processor-Architecture

2. http://www.airdefense.net/partners/bro_sheets/UBHT.pdf

3. http://www.airdefense.net/solutions/pdf/Telecom.pdf

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_guidance

5. http://pds10.egloos.com/pds/200808/13/85/ A_comparision_between_Agile_and_Traditional_SW_development_methodologies.pdf

6. http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/labs/DRDL/English/index.jsp?pg=HistoricalBG.jsp

7. http://www.glacier-tech.com/mts.htm

37