<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Brigadier General Mark O. Schissler</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The Bulgarian Air Force in a New Security Environment</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Information &amp; Security: An International Journal</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">acquisition</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">airpower</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Force planning</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">imperfect information</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Transformation</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">25</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">37-40</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Military leaders have to consider political and economic realities and explore efficiency options, such cooperation and partnership, in calling for and ad­vancing air capabilities.
</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Robert K. Murphy</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">G. Richard Cathers</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Transparency in Force Modernization Decisions</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Information &amp; Security: An International Journal</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">acquisition</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">capabilities-based assessment</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">capability</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">force modernization</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">requirements</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">strategy</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Transformation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Transparency</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">23</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">207-223</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Transparency, as defined for this paper, is the continual process of 
openness, accountability, and governance, plays a vital role in force modernization 
decisions. It is essential in capabilities-based planning (CBP), and because of rising 
acquisition costs, transformation has become the overall vision for military strategy. 
Transformation is implemented by capabilities-based planning resulting in force 
modernization decisions. Without a well defined, repeatable, and transparent 
evaluation process, national vulnerabilities and required capabilities might be incorrectly identified, resulting in wrong solutions. Force modernization decisions based 
upon transparency can provide the basis for a highly effective, low cost solution. 
The solution does not have to be a technical solution, but can be a change in Doctrine; Organization; Training; Leadership development; Materiel; Personnel; or Facilities (DOTLMPF). By including transparency for identifying requirements, we 
can ensure that the requirement answers the how, what, why, when, and who so that 
a credible decision can be made. Force modernization decisions using capabilities 
based planning and value tools that help structure and evaluate requirements have 
been used very effectively. A simple, top-down approach of Strategy to Need is 
used to initiate the evaluation. Force modernization decisions should be made using 
processes, methodologies, and supporting tools which allow for fully transparent 
assessments for the decision-maker. In other words, assessments should be traceable and accountable. Processes should be clear, methodologies should be simple, 
and the tools should be easy to use and understand. Several countries have successfully used this process for evaluating alternatives against a set of requirements. 
These assessments have included upgrading fleets, restructuring organizations, and 
acquiring new equipment.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></issue></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Klaus Niemeyer</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Modeling and Simulation in Defense</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Information &amp; Security: An International Journal</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">acquisition</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Decision-making.</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">defence planning</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Evolution of modelling</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Modelling</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Operational planning</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">simulation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Training and Exercises</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2003</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2003</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">12</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">19-42</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Modelling and simulation are essential tools in defence planning, development and acquisition of systems, training and exercises, and operational planning throughout NATO and nations. In the article a contribution to a theoretical approach to the technology is provided, with discussion of definitions and characteristics, such as purpose of a model, reduction of complexity, and representation of real entities or systems. On the other hand, the defence applications are different in many aspects, e.g. objectives, time horizon, scenarios, data requirements, or reaction requirements, which leads to different utility of the model categories. Specific issues in modelling of the defence system are discussed, such as the military hierarchical structure, functional areas, operational phases, planning situations, and the decision cycle.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">019</style></section></record></records></xml>