Readiness assessment is probably the most diffi-
cult task facing the SERT because it requires the
ability to provide an up-to-the-minute status of the
capabilities and limitations of the combat systems. It
also requires the ability to recommend alternate
combinations of equipment to meet mission needs.
The SERT must know the results of all tests and,
in addition, the minute-to-minute availability of the
combat systems, its subsystems, equipments, and all
support functions, such as primary power, chilled
water, dry air, and sound-powered telephones.
Although all equipment problems are important,
the existing tactical environment can modify their
impact on a mission capability. For example, losing
the moving target indicator capability can be more
important when the ship operates near land masses
than when it operates in the open sea.
Materiel readiness assessment should be ap-
proached from the functional readiness aspect, rather
than the equipment up-or-down-status aspect for the
following reasons:
Complex, multifunction electronic equipment
is seldom completely down and less frequently com-
pletely up. Normally, one or more functions are in
various states of degradation.
The impact of a fictional fault maybe dif-
ferent for the capability of each mission.
The complex design of the combat systems
includes some fictional redundancy.
The test results and operational fault directo-
ries relate problems to their effect on system func-
tions rather than to the basic operation of the affected
equipment.
Readiness assessment uses two basic types of
techniques: quantitative and qualitative.
Quanitative techniques involve the extensive
use of mathematics and reports based on graphs and
numbers. Past shipboard experience has shown that
without computer support, quantitative assessment is
not easily managed. Its numerical reporting lacks
meaning or requires extensive explanation.
Qualitative assessment (an application of
engineering analysis) is based on system knowledge,
experience, and judgment. It is usually a verbal re-
port. These assessments depend on the personal
experience level of the users. Therefore, written
guidance and report forms are required. The impact
of no-go conditions, revealed by PMS results, must
be determined for each mission capability.
After an assessment is made, each major function
is assigned one of the following four readiness cri-
teria:
1. Fully combat-readv status: All equipments as-
sociated with a specific function are in the highest
state of readiness with respect to that function.
2. Substantially combat-ready: Although all the
equipments may not be fully operational, redundancy
permits the mission to be continued, resulting in a
high probability of success.
3. Marginally combat-ready: A function may be
performed, but with a much-reduced probability of
success.
4. Not combat-ready: The equipment has a com-
plete loss of function.
These readiness criteria provide the basis for a
summary report of readiness. A combat systems daily
fault report should be submitted, listing the sub-
function faults of the day, their individual impact,
any alternative recommendations, and the expected
time of repair. See figure 4-4 for an example of a
daily fault report.
4-13
