From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ARIES.MITRE.ORG!emery From: emery@ARIES.MITRE.ORG (David Emery) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: AFATDS Passes FQT (reprint from FCW) Message-ID: <8902141840.AA12723@aries> Date: 14 Feb 89 18:40:51 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet List-Id: Reprinted with permission from Federal Computer Week (Feb 13, 1989), copyright (c) 1989 by IDG Communcations Inc. All rights Reserved. (thanks to FCW for permission to reproduce this here. typos are mine dave emery) --------------- Army's AFATDS Passes Formal Qualifications Test by Fred Reed The Army's Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System, for years the object of controversy, has passed its formal qualification test without any major problems, according to both the Army and Magnavox, developer of the system. AFATDS, chiefly a software product, will run mostly on standard Army field computers but with some special-purpose hardware. Now running on test-bed equipment from Magnavox, AFATDS automates fire control of artillery. The system receives requests for artillery fire from units in the field, decides which are most important in accordance with the battery commander's instructions, and directs fire to the target. AFATDS, a 1.2 million-line Ada program, has been criticized heavily for software problems. Predictions have been made that it was too ambitious and would never work. However, in extensive testing, according to Lt. Col. David Peterson of the Army's tactical-computer establishment in the Pentagon, "It did well. We found some things to fix but nothing remotely catastrophic." Specific Ratings In the test, involving five artillery scenarios running a week each, during which 854 functions were tested, the software suffered 16 priority-three software trouble reports, and 15 priority-four STRs, said John Williams, program manager for AFATDS at Magnavox. He said a priority-one STR is serious enough that the software cannot pass under any circumstances. A priority-two STR prevents passing unless it can be explained. AFATDS had no ones or twos. The other classes of STR are of diminishing seriousness. The defects added to 14 percent of the maximum allowed. Ada, the mandated programming language for defense use, got high marks from Magnavox. In the past Ada had been criticized as too bulky and slow for real-time use, and AFATDS was considered too complex to be practical. "My software director is adamant that if it had not been for the power of Ada, we never could have completed the program. We were particularly pleased with how short a time it took to find errors. The language and development tools are getting better. So are compilers, " Williams said. Independent Evaluation The Army's Communications Electronics Command had AFATDS rated by an independent evaluator, Dynamics Research Corp., to see how it compared with industry standards, Williams said. AFATDS rated as follows on different measures: Error handling, average; modularity, excellent; clarity, good to excellent; self-descriptiveness, good to excellent; independence, excellent; simplicity, very good, he said. Ralph Crafts, editor of the "Ada Strategies" newsletter and a strong advocate of Ada, said "Magnavox did everything right technically. The criticism was political meddling by Litton [Industries, Inc., the developer of a competing system]." However, Army officials said serious management problems plagued Magnavox early in the program. Some said AFATDS was close to being excessively ambitious. One officer said, "For a while we thought we had asked too much, so it's good to see that it looks doable after all." The next step, Peterson said, will be concept evaluation, with fielding expected in the mid-1990s.