ORAC
I understand what you say but from the end users point of view the information has still to appear in the cockpit.
NITEWORKS investigates the effectiveness of existing and proposed systems, not the implementation and that is where there are serious problems to be addressed. Whilst not doubting the quality of work being done, it is a pipe dream unless real world issues are addressed.
JETTS may put the planning together but how does it get to the man in the field? At a tactical level it is BOWMAN using ComBAT to display his SA. ComBAT is based upon a security clamped down version of the Windows 2000 OS and distributed using Internet Protocols. This will not be allowed anywhere near an aircraft system without an air gap because of the implications to the safety case. It is likely that doing this will end up with a standalone screen instead of fused data with your other sensors and datalinks. Strike off the HMI tick on your MAR recommendations.
Alternatively, you write bespoke code for the aircraft - v expensive, long devleopment lead time and likely to be incompatible with the land system because their clearances are less stringent and are probably 3 or 4 iterations ahead by this time - you can always park your vehicle while you sort out the blue screen of death.
Security between the different systems also requires air gaps and physical separations that require an area larger than most airframes that have to accomodate the different security clearances required between national, NATO and clear traffic. Look at the distances in the red/black areas in an office, how do you accomodate this in a cockpit.
Regards