Jerome_V_Vollborn@cup.portal.com (11/17/90)
Recently I have heard of two large US Navy development programs that have started full scale development in the last six months that are using the C language for implementation. Since one of these systems is a weapon system that has a 680x0 as the processor, I'm wondering what the Navy's policy for software acquisition says. If anyone has either a reference to authoritive policy statements (preferably document numbers) or is in a position of authority, I would like to hear from you either by email or on the net. Thanks, Jerome Vollborn ( uunet!lci386!jerome or Jerome_V_Vollborn@cup.portal.com )
schweige@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil (jeffrey schweiger) (11/17/90)
In article <36014@cup.portal.com> Jerome_V_Vollborn@cup.portal.com writes:
<
<Recently I have heard of two large US Navy development programs
<that have started full scale development in the last six months
<that are using the C language for implementation. Since one of
<these systems is a weapon system that has a 680x0 as the processor,
<I'm wondering what the Navy's policy for software acquisition
<says. If anyone has either a reference to authoritive policy
<statements (preferably document numbers) or is in a position of
<authority, I would like to hear from you either by email or on
<the net.
<
< Thanks,
<
< Jerome Vollborn
< ( uunet!lci386!jerome or
< Jerome_V_Vollborn@cup.portal.com )
I'm curious as to which programs you are referring too. I know that as of
about six months ago C was being phased out in US Navy Afloat Command
and Control programs in favor of Ada. I also have not heard of any policy
change on the part of VADM Tuttle who is the waiver control authority for
waiving the use of Ada for a program.
Regarding policy documents (I have not double-checked to see if there are
new versions/revisions/cancellations, etc.):
DoD Policy is set in DoD Directive (DODD) 3405.1 and DODD 3405.2
Navy policy is promulgated in (the last time I checked) SECNAVINST 5234.2
(SECNAVINST indicates Secretary of the Navy Instruction).
Navy policy does allow for programs to not use Ada if sufficient justification
exists. In this regard however, I believe that the following excerpt from an
interview with VADM Tuttle in the July, 1990 issue of Chips magazine
(published by the Navy Regional Data Automation Center, Norfolk, VA) may be
of interest:
"Chips: We understand that you consider Ada the programming language of choice
and that you aren't granting waivers for the use of different languages. How
do you rate the Navy's efforts with complying with your Ada mandate?
VADM Tuttle: I haven't granted a waiver yet because no one has asked me for
one. And I've been here nine months. Now I've got two of them for
consideration and one of them is ridiculous.
I wnat to get discipline in the system. I'm convinced that if we don't go to
Ada that I will no longer be able to afford the required software for the Navy.
I think Ada is absolutely mandatory because of the reuseability. Even more
important is the reliability and the fewer testing requirements. It is so
disciplined and so rigid that one shift can follow the next and the
programming continues.
How do I rate the Navy's efforts in complying with my Ada mandate? It's
only slightly better than unsat. The Army and the Air Force are also only
slightly better than unsat.
I'll tell you what though, we'll be better off in another year. Because I'm
adamant about it. I'm not going to anything stupid about it, but my
direction is clear. People know my commitment to Ada, and I'm finding
programs that never came to me that are being prepared in Ada.
I do need to talk to the NARDAC's about how we're going to make measured,
continued progress toward implementing Ada.
Chips: In the NIF environment, customers often dicate the language of choice
so they can perform maintenance with inhouse resources. Could you speculate
on what will happen in out NIF environment when we tell out customers that we
must program in Ada and that the product will take longer and be more costly?
VADM Tuttle: I will not force the use of Ada when it isn't cost effective.
But you'll have to prove that to me each time you want a waiver. Program
maintenance is certainly one important cost in determining lifecycle cost of
a program, but it's not the only one.
The assumption that the product will take longer is probably based on the
fact that Ada requires strict adherence to software engineering practices,
resulting in more up front analysis and design. This is offset by fewer
programming changes prior to customer acceptance and easier maintenance
throughout the life of the program. For automated information systems which
are exportable to other Navy users, Ada provides significant cost reductions
by eliminating conversion and licensing costs."
VADM (Vice Admiral) Tuttle is Director, Space and Electronic Warfare (OP-094)
(previous title, Director, Space, Command and Control), Office of the Chief
of Naval Operations.
------
Jeff Schweiger
--
*******************************************************************************
Jeff Schweiger Standard Disclaimer CompuServe: 74236,1645
Internet (Milnet): schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil
*******************************************************************************rgc@raybed2.msd.ray.com (RICK CARLE) (11/20/90)
In article <1662@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil>, schweige@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil (jeffrey schweiger) writes: > > Navy policy is promulgated in (the last time I checked) SECNAVINST 5234.2 Please provide any additional info available that might be useful in getting a copy of this instruction. A date would probably be helpful. I thought the current Navy Ada policy statement was OPNAVINST 5200.28 (25sep86). I'd love to find something newer. Rick Carle
case@shamash.cdc.com (Steven V. Case) (11/20/90)
The information I have indicates that 'TADSTAND C' is the Navy document
that mandates the use of Ada for mission-critical systems. Supposedly this
is in compliance with DOD Directive 3405.2.
Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of TADSTAND C, nor do I know how you
would go about obtaining a copy. If I get a chance in the next day or
two, I'll try to contact our Marketing organization (I would expect that
they are familiar with it).
--
____ ____ Steve Case - HQG526 email: case@shamash.cdc.com
/ ___||___ \ Control Data Corporation AT&T : (612) 853-3345
| |___ ___| | 3101 East 80th Street
\____||____/ Bloomington, MN 55425