System

Naval Combat Management System, continuing decomposition. Four of ten subsystems now have full component-level decomposition: {{entity:Track Management Subsystem}}, {{entity:Threat Evaluation and Weapon Assignment Subsystem}}, {{entity:Weapon Control Subsystem}}, and as of this session, {{entity:Sensor Management Subsystem}}. Project holds 97 requirements with zero orphans across all documents.

Decomposition

The {{entity:Sensor Management Subsystem}} is the primary data source for the entire combat picture — every other subsystem depends on sensor-derived information. It was the highest-priority undecomposed subsystem due to its interface density and the safety criticality of its detection functions.

Seven components were identified and classified:

• {{entity:Radar Interface Manager}} {{hex:51B57A08}} — manages S-band phased array and X-band illumination radars, coordinates volume search vs. track dwell vs. illumination scheduling
• {{entity:Sonar Interface Processor}} {{hex:51F57018}} — hull-mounted and towed array sonar, active/passive modes, own-noise cancellation
• {{entity:Electronic Support Measures Interface}} {{hex:40A53019}} — passive ESM receiver integration, emitter identification against the Emitter Parameter Library, threat warning generation
• {{entity:IFF Interrogator Controller}} {{hex:51F57A59}} — Mode 1/2/3A/C/4/5/S interrogation, STANAG 4193 compliance, crypto key management
• {{entity:Electro-Optical and Infrared Sensor Manager}} {{hex:55F57819}} — FLIR/TV camera control, slew-to-cue from radar tracks, automatic contrast tracking for fire control
• {{entity:Sensor Resource Scheduler}} {{hex:41B73B18}} — priority-weighted allocation of radar time, sonar bandwidth, ESM channels, and EO/IR pointing across competing tasking requests
• {{entity:Sensor Health Monitor}} {{hex:55F77218}} — BIT coordination, degradation trending, availability reporting to the Scheduler

The architecture places the {{entity:Sensor Resource Scheduler}} as the central coordination point. All five sensor interface components receive tasking from it and report status through the {{entity:Sensor Health Monitor}}. Detection outputs flow to {{entity:Track Management Subsystem}} via the Sensor Data Preprocessor, except EO/IR tracking data which routes directly to the {{entity:Fire Control Computer}} for weapons-quality tracking.

flowchart TB
  SRS["Sensor Resource Scheduler"]
  SHM["Sensor Health Monitor"]
  RIM["Radar Interface Manager"]
  SIP["Sonar Interface Processor"]
  ESM["ESM Interface"]
  IFF["IFF Interrogator Controller"]
  EOIR["EO/IR Sensor Manager"]
  TMS["Track Management"]
  FCC["Fire Control"]
  EWS["Electronic Warfare"]
  SRS -->|Radar tasking| RIM
  SRS -->|Sonar tasking| SIP
  SRS -->|ESM tasking| ESM
  SRS -->|IFF tasking| IFF
  SRS -->|EO/IR tasking| EOIR
  SHM -->|Availability status| SRS
  SHM -->|BIT commands| RIM
  SHM -->|BIT commands| SIP
  RIM -->|Radar detections| TMS
  SIP -->|Sonar contacts| TMS
  ESM -->|ESM intercepts| TMS
  IFF -->|IFF decodes| TMS
  EOIR -->|Tracking data| FCC
  ESM -->|Threat warnings| EWS
  TMS -->|Track update requests| SRS

Analysis

Cross-domain similarity search on the {{entity:Sensor Resource Scheduler}} {{hex:41B73B18}} returned strong analogs: {{entity:AOCS Flight Software}} (96.9% Jaccard, 31 shared traits) from the satellite domain and {{entity:Fault Detection and Isolation Module}} (93.8%). The AOCS parallel is structurally sound — both are real-time resource schedulers managing competing demands on shared sensing/actuation hardware with hard timing constraints. The Fault Detection analog reinforces that the {{entity:Sensor Health Monitor}} needs robust isolation capability, not just detection — a theme already captured in {{sub:SUB-SUBSYSTEMREQUIREMENTS-046}} which requires fault detection within 5 seconds and quantified performance impact reporting.

Lint findings remain stable at 4 (1 high, 3 medium). The high finding — {{hex:51FD7959}} lacking the Physical Object trait despite physical constraints — is a known ontological gap from prior sessions that should be addressed during QC review. The three medium findings on degraded mode performance criteria affect STK-005, SUB-009, and SYS-014.

Requirements

Eleven subsystem requirements created ({{sub:SUB-SUBSYSTEMREQUIREMENTS-038}} through {{sub:SUB-SUBSYSTEMREQUIREMENTS-048}}), covering concurrent sensor capacity (12+ feeds), radar detection latency (25ms), sonar bearing accuracy (1 degree), ESM identification time (2 seconds with 500ms threat warning), IFF Mode 5 compliance (STANAG 4193, Pd >= 0.95), EO/IR visual identification range (15 NM), scheduler conflict resolution (50ms), EMCON suppression (200ms), health monitoring (5-second fault detection), radar multi-function time budgeting (60% cap per function), and sonar own-noise blanking (6 dB degradation limit at 15+ knots).

Five interface requirements created ({{ifc:IFC-INTERFACEDEFINITIONS-019}} through {{ifc:IFC-INTERFACEDEFINITIONS-023}}), defining the radar-to-preprocessor UDP multicast (2000 detections/sec), ESM intercept report format (500 intercepts/sec), bidirectional scheduler-to-track-management messaging, IFF-to-identity-classifier decode format, and EO/IR-to-fire-control tracking data (30 Hz, 0.5 mrad accuracy). All 16 new requirements traced to parent system requirements with zero orphans.

Next

Six subsystems remain undecomposed: {{entity:Electronic Warfare Subsystem}}, {{entity:Communications Management Subsystem}}, {{entity:Navigation and Platform Interface Subsystem}}, {{entity:Tactical Display and Operator Interface Subsystem}}, {{entity:Training and Simulation Subsystem}}, and {{entity:Data Processing Infrastructure Subsystem}}. The Electronic Warfare Subsystem should be next — it has the highest interface density among remaining subsystems (connections to ESM, Decoy Controller, and TEWA) and is critical for survivability in contested environments. The four lint findings should be addressed during the eventual QC review pass.