Development and application of common test interface - supporting OSD and the DOD ats executive directorate

Abstract

Military support equipment has evolved throughout the years. Modern weapon systems are constantly being developed and often, almost always, require updated or modernized support equipment. The issue is compounded by the varied approaches by the services and the unique needs at each level of maintenance. The proliferation of numbers and types of support equipment was recognized as an impediment to underlying mission objectives and hence provided an impetus for standardization. Standardization of support equipment was sanctioned by the Department of Defense (DoD) automatic test systems (ATS) Executive Agent Office (EAO) policy in the early 1990's. One of the first levels of standardization included the selection of support platforms by the services: namely consolidated automated support system (CASS) by the Navy (including marine aviation), third echelon test set (TETS) by the USMC ground units, and integrated family of test equipment (IFTE) by the Army. Standardization at the individual service level then exposed the potential for cross-service interoperability, and further bolstered blurring the vertically aligned organizational-to-depot concept through yet another level of standardization. The DoD ATS technical architecture framework, developed in 1996, identified several key interfaces, which can be categorically grouped within two major interfaces, namely hardware and software. A working group continues to develop the software schemas, commonly referred to as the extensible markup language for automated test equipment (ATML). The hardware interface definition, termed common test interface (CTI), has evolved over the past several months and has recently been solidified. Together these two critical interfaces will enable the DoD to demonstrate reduced logistics footprint and interoperability amongst maintenance levels, services and coalition partners. In order to define an interface which supports key performance parameters, interoperability and reduced logistics footprint, many concerns must be addressed. This paper presents some of the research and rationale applied to the definition and selection of the common test interface.