Voodoosar These sample summaries are not all inclusive or exclusive and are intentionally stated lrf general terms to encourage maximum contractor flexibility. Data products intended primarily for in-house use by contractors during their design process or those developed internally by the Department of Defense are beyond the pdf of this specification. Add to Alert PDF. This decision was documented during the Critical Design Review and the information is simply presented here to be all inclusive of the system. If the document is revised or amended, you will be notified by email.

Author:Voodoozil Taumi
Language:English (Spanish)
Genre:Personal Growth
Published (Last):8 February 2006
PDF File Size:12.3 Mb
ePub File Size:6.15 Mb
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

MIL-STD Defense Standard A document that establishes uniform engineering and technical requirements for military-unique or substantially modified commercial processes, procedures, practices, and methods. There are five types of defense standards: interface standards, design criteria standards, manufacturing process standards, standard practices, and test method standards. MIL-PRF Performance Specification A performance specification states requirements in terms of the required results with criteria for verifying compliance but without stating the methods for achieving the required results.

A performance specification defines the functional requirements for the item, the environment in which it must operate, and interface and interchangeability characteristics. MIL-DTL Detail Specification A specification that states design requirements, such as materials to be used, how a requirement is to be achieved, or how an item is to be fabricated or constructed.

A specification that contains both performance and detail requirements is still considered a detail specification. For purposes of this article, "military standards" will include standards, specifications and handbooks.

The latter two goals MRO and logistics favor certain general concepts, such as interchangeability , standardization of equipment and processes, in general , cataloging , communications, and training to teach people what is standardized, what is at their discretion, and the details of the standards. In the late 18th century and throughout the 19th, the American and French militaries were early adopters and longtime developmental sponsors and advocates of interchangeability and standardization.

By World War II — , virtually all national militaries and trans-national alliances of the same Allied Forces , Axis powers were busy standardizing and cataloguing. The U. For example, due to differences in dimensional tolerances, in World War II American screws , bolts , and nuts did not fit British equipment properly and were not fully interchangeable.

This results, for example, in ammunition and food cases that can be opened without tools; vehicle subsystems that can be quickly swapped into the place of damaged ones; and small arms and artillery that are less likely to find themselves with an excess of ammunition that does not fit and a lack of ammo that does. However, the proliferation of standards also has some drawbacks.

The main one is that they impose what is functionally equivalent to a regulatory burden upon the defense supply chain, both within the military and across its civilian suppliers.

In the U. Responding to increasing criticism, Secretary of Defense William Perry issued a memorandum in that prohibited the use of most military specifications and standards without a waiver. Many military specifications and standards were canceled. In their place, the DOD directed the use of performance specifications and non-government standards. In the DOD issued a new memorandum [4] which eliminated the requirement to obtain a waiver in order to use military specifications or standards.

The memo did not reinstate any canceled military specifications or standards. According to a issue of Gateway, published by the Human Systems Information Analysis Center, [5] the number of defense standards and specifications have been reduced from 45, to 28, However, other sources noted that the number of standards just before the Perry memorandum was issued was less than 30,, and that thousands have been canceled since then. Another potential drawback of thorough standardization is a threat analogous to monoculture where lack of biodiversity creates higher risk of pandemic disease or a ship without bulkhead compartmentalization where even a small hull leak threatens the whole vessel.

However, this threat is somewhat academic, as even poorly standardized materiel presents a likelihood of supplying an enemy if overrun. Non-exhaustive list of documents[ edit ] A complete list of standards was maintained as Department of Defense Index of Specifications and Standards, up until


Soutien Logistique Intégré

The following reports shall consist of information required for the requiring authority to conduct logistics planning and analysis, influence program decisions, assess design status, and verify contractor performance. Several information summaries are presented as examples of other useful support information that DOD managers may want to request from a contractor. These are not all inclusive or exclusive and are intentionally described in general terms to encourage maximum contractor flexibility. The content of the summaries is not limited to information and data products cited in the LMI specification. Content of the summaries should be specified on Supportability Analysis Summaries Worksheet figure 1. Data not included in appendix B shall be defined on the worksheet figure 1. The individual requirements should be taken into consideration when requesting these types of summaries.


United States Military Standard






Popular Publishers


Related Articles