c4i architecture supporting conduct of defensive and … · 2017-05-19 · c4i architecture...
TRANSCRIPT
1
C4I Architecture Supporting Conduct of Defensive and
Offensive Joint ASW
Presented By:Gregory MillerBill Traganza
Matthew LetourneauBaasit Saijid
28 Oct 2009(based on report # NPS-00-001)
Naval Postgraduate School
22
Team MembersMichael Clendening Alejandro Cuevas Amritpal DhindsaDennis Hopkins Matthew Letourneau Justin LoyJames New Van Ngo Amrish PatelBaasit Saijid Bill Traganza
• Commands represented by team– Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command -- Systems Center San
Diego and Charleston – Naval Surface Warfare Center – Corona Division – Program Executive Office Littoral and Mine Warfare – Maritime
Surveillance Systems Program Office– Program Executive Office C4I– Joint Tactical Radio System – Joint Program Executive Office– East Coast Electronic Warfare Systems– Communications-Electronics Research Development and Engineering
Center • Project advisors: Gregory A. Miller & John M. Green
333
Project Purpose• Create a new standardized joint ASW-specific C4I
architecture– To enhance the commander’s ability to execute the joint ASW
mission in support of a combatant commander’s campaign objectives [NCOE JIC, 2005].
– To meet key ASW stakeholder requirements, addressing current capability gaps and responding to changing threats
– To guide development, force composition, and acquisition decisions• Constrained to:
– Target time frame: 2020– Needs to use
• Open standards• Common waveforms• Common data schema
– Interoperable with existing & evolving systems– Vertically integrated with other DoD C4I systems
444
SE Process
Needs Analysis• Capability Gaps Analysis
(Situation Today)• Stakeholders Analysis• Future Analysis• Functional Analysis
666
Situation Today
• Platform-centric ASW C4I systems are not used in a networked fashion to share data
- Limited situational awareness
- Limited mission effectiveness
• The submarine continues to be viewed by the United States as a threat
- Growth of terror groups, rogue nations and the emergence of credible economic and political competitors
- More capable, quieter, & affordable submarines
777
Summary of Stakeholder Input
• Legacy & Evolved Systems– Platform-centric C4I systems– Platform-centric sensors– Platform-centric weapons– Limited interoperability
• Future Systems– Networking to connect sensors & platforms– Information sharing– Improved information quality – Viewing through a COTP – fused, appropriate data– Conducting ASW as a Team
888
Draft Futures OV-1
ISR Assets-based, National and
ISR Assets-
Processing/Dissemination Centers)
US Coast GuardLand Attack Forces
(including Strike Forces,Expeditionary Forces,
Land Forces, and SOF)
Maritime Forces(Airborne and Sea -BasedSUW and USW Forces)
EnemySub Base
FORCENETWORKS
-(Manned, Unmanned, Space-based, National and-
Air and Missile
Defense Forces(Sea, Air, LandEnemy
Sub
Land Attack Forces(including Strike Forces,
Expeditionary Forces,Land Forces, and SOF)
Maritime Forces(Airborne and Sea -BasedSUW and USW Forces)
Sustainment Forces(Sea and Shore-based)
FORCENETWORKS
Strike ForceASW Net-Centric
C4I System
Shore BasedASW Net-Centric C4I System
Enemy Shipyard
Extended network infrastructure
Coalition Forces
US Air Force B-52Canadian
Coast Guard
Enemy Sub
unmanned vehicle Sub
Enemy Sub
Free Space Optics FSO Sub to Sub Comms
FUTURE C4I 2020
99
C2 System Functional Analysis
9
101010
Value SystemASW Net Centric
C4I SystemA.0
Operational Effectiveness
# provided / # available
(%)Seconds
Net Ready Compliance
(%)
Interface with ASW Sensor and ASW Weapon Systems
Data Streams
A.1.2
Interconnect Communication
NodesA.1.1
Provide Connectivity
A.1
Connect and Interface with
External Networks
A.1.3
Minimize Network Join
Time
Maximize GIG connectivity
Maximize Interfaces to external data
Streams
Compliance With
DoD 5200.08-R, April 9, 2007
(%)
# of systems have ATO / total
number of systems (%)
Protected comm systems /
Total # of comm systems
(%)
network nodes protected by IDSs, FWs
(%)
Provide Computer
Network Defense
A.2.1
Provide Electronic Protection
A.2.2
Maximize Computer Network
Protection
Minimize susceptibility to
Electronic Attack
Provide Information
Assurance (IA)
Provide Physical Security
A.2.3 A.2.4
Maximize IA Protection
Minimize opportunity for
physical intrusion / attack
Perform Information Operations
A.2
BW Required /BW Available
(%)
Spectrum Required / Spectrum Available
(%)
Optimize Network
Functions and Resources
A.3
Manage Spectrum
A.3.2
Maximize Spectrum Availability
Manage and Control Network
A.3.1
Maximize the Delivery of High Priority Traffic
Throughput (Mbps)
Information Delivered
(< 1min / < 10 sec)
Latency( milliseconds)
Transport ASW Information from
End 2 End
A.4
Transmit ASW Information
A.4.1
Maximize Transmission
Efficiency
Receive ASW Information
A.4.3
Maximize ReceptionEfficiency
Deliver ASW Information
A.4.2
Minimize Delivery Time
A.5.3.1
Throughput (Mbps)
Latency (milliseconds)
Aa
%MTBFhours
Operational Suitability
Provide Reliability
Provide Availability
Provide Maintainability
Maximize ReliabilityMaximize Achieved
AvailabilityMinimize Maintenance
hours
M (Mean Active Maintenance)
hours
Provide ASW Data/Information
Management
A.5
Provide ASW COTP
A.5.2
Maximize accuracy of Fused Data
Maximize availability of
COTP
Identify, Store, Share and Exchange ASW Data and Information
A.5.3
Provide ASW Information
Publish/Subscribe Services
Enable Smart Pull/Push of
ASW Information
A.5.3.2 A.5.3.4
Manage ASW Data/Information Life Cycle andOptimize ASW
Data/Info Handling
A.5.3.3
Minimize Human in the loop
Maximize use of pub/sub services
Provide efficient data
management services
Minimize pull/push times
Percent of information posted and published 95%/99%
(%)
# users with access / # users
(%)
Figure of Merit (FOM)
Fuse ASW Data
A.5.1
#of systems M2M enabled /
#of systems M2M capable
(%)
Percent of time Data /Information
available ≥ 99%
(%)
Response time to User
Requests or Demands
< 1 sec(seconds)
Transfer ASW Data from Machine to Machine
A.5.3.1
1111
Top Six Evaluation Measures
11
– # Users w/ access to COTP– Time Required to Push/Pull– Time Required to Fuse Data– Time to Interconnect Nodes– Transmit Latency– Transmit Throughput
121212
Alternatives Generation
• Baseline Architecture
• Feasible Alternatives
1313
DoD TeleportSINGLE INTEGRATION POINT FOR DISN
(TERRESTRIAL & TACSAT COMMS); TELECOM COLLECTION & DISTRIBUTION POINT;
MULTI-BAND, MULTIMEDIA, & WORLDWIDE REACH-BACK; STANDARDIZED TACTICAL ENTRY POINT EXTENTION;
MULTIPLE MILCOMM & COMMSAT SYSTEMS;SEAMLESS DISN INTERFACE;
INTER & INTRA-THEATER COMMUNICATIONS; INCREASED DISN ACCESS
Transformational Satellite SystemGLOBAL NET-CENTRIC OPERATIONS;
ORBIT-TO-GROUND LASER & RF COMMS; HI DATA RATE MILSAT COMMS &
INTERNET-LIKE SVCS;IMPROVED CONNECTIVITY/DATA TRANSFER;
IMPROVED SATCOMMS
Net-Centric Enterprise ServicesUBIQUITOUS ACCESS; RELIABILITY; DECISION QUALITY INFORMATION;
EMPOWER “EDGE” USER; TASK, POST, PROCESS, USE, & STORE, MANAGE
& PROTECT INFORMATION RESOURCES ON DEMAND
Next Generation Enterprise NetworkOPEN ARCHITECTURE
SERVICE-ORIENTED ARCHITECTURE
Global Information GridCOLLECTING, PROCESSING, STORING, DISSEMINATING, & MANAGING INFO ON
DEMAND; OWNED & LEASED COMMS
Joint Tactical Radio SystemLOS / BLOS; MULTI-BAND, MULTI-MODE,
MULTI-CHANNEL; NARROWBAND & WIDEBAND WAVEFORMS; VOICE, VIDEO AND
HIGH-SPEED DATA
Net-enabled Command CapabilityJOINT COMMAND AND CONTROL
Programs of Record & C4I Functionality
141414
FY2020 Baseline ASW C4I Architecture
Alternative 0
151515
Alternative SolutionsAlternative 0 – FY2020 ASW C4I Baseline Architecture
• Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS)• Satellite communications link (SATCOM)• Surveillance and control datalink (SCDL)
• Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS)• RC-135: The Tactical Common Data Link (TCDL)
• Interface to the Tactical Control System (TCS)• Link-16
Alternative 1FY2020 ASW C4I Baseline Architecture plus:
• JTRS improvements• NECC improvements
• CANES improvements
Alternative 2FY2020 ASW C4I Baseline Architecture plus:
• JTRS improvements +• CANES improvements
• Joint Track Manager
Alternative 3FY2020 ASW C4I Baseline Architecture plus:
• Modulated X-ray source communications system• Autonomous C4ISR UUVs
• Military High Altitude Airship (HAA)• Tropospheric or space-based distribution & COTP fusion
• Wireless info push/pull directly to satellite or HAA based network.
161616
Modeling and Simulation Results
• Model Overview
• Data Inputs
• Comparison of Alternatives
171717
Model Overview
DETECT - ASW Sensor Systems CONTROL – C4I
ENGAGE – ASW
Weapon Systems
ASW Threat METOC
Users
ASW Sensor Data ASW Weapon Tasking
ASW Weapon Data
ASW Sensor Tasking
PA/CA/EA
METOC Data
User Commands/Requests
Published/Subscribed Information
Sensor – Set Priority 1
Weapon – Set Priority 1
METOC – Set Priority 2
Used the EXTEND modeling and simulation tool
1818
Communication Between Platforms
Graphical Representation of the Systems Expected to Perform the Interconnect Communication Nodes Function for Alternatives 0, 1, and 2
1919
Comparison of Alternatives
Measurement Alt 0 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3
Data Fusion Processing Time (ms) 702.39 540.13 299.82 299.72
Interconnect Communication Nodes (s) 5 4.5 2.5 2.5
Latency (ms) 1334.1 1205.0 685.56 680.16
Throughput (kbps) 51.29 53.93 58.85 58.15
2020
Life Cycle Cost Estimate (LCCE)
2121
LCCE• Purpose: Basis for an informed decision when selecting an
alternative– Assess affordability– Analyze alternatives– Cost verses performance tradeoffs– Establish program cost goals
• Scope: Simplified Cost Break Down Structure (CBS)– Research and Development (R&D)– Procurement and Installation (P&I)– Operation and Maintenance (O&M)– Disposal
• Assumption: A “Notional” U.S. Navy Ship– Common Computing, Network, Communication Infrastructure – C4I centric– Program office provided data– Three increments
2222
Total Cost for Each Alternative
0.00
200.00
400.00
600.00
800.00
1000.00
1200.00
Alt 0 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3
Tota
l Cos
t ($M
)
DisposalO&SP&IR&D
232323
Analysis of Alternatives• Multi Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT)
• Raw Data Values
• Utility Scores
• Swing Weights
• Decision Matrix
• Utility Score vs. LCCE
24
Multi Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT)
Wymorian Utility Functions
Raw Data
Utility Scores
Swing Weights
Add OverallUtility
• Evaluation Measures– Time Required to Fuse Data– Time to Interconnect Nodes– Transmit Latency– Transmit Throughput
2525
Raw Data Values
Alternative 0 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3Fuse ASW Data (Time Required
to Fuse Data) 702.395 ms 540.139 ms 299.823 ms 299.720 msInterconnect Communication Nodes (Time to Interconnect) 5 s 4.5 s 2.5 s 2.5 sTransmit ASW Information
(Transmit Latency) 1334.161 ms 1205.027 ms 685.560 ms 680.160 msTransmit ASW Information
(Transmit Throughput) 51.292 Kbps 53.930 Kbps 58.855 Kbps 58.155 Kbps
Function (Evaluation Measure)Alternatives
From the Extend model and scenarios
“Number of users with COTP access” and “Time required to push/pull” were identical for the four alternatives, so were not considered discriminators for decision-making.
26
Decision Matrix
Alternative 0 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3Fuse ASW Data (Time Required
to Fuse Data) 0.370 0.06 0.36 0.93 0.93
Interconnect Communication Nodes (Time to Interconnect) 0.185 0.5 0.65 0.96 0.96Transmit ASW Information
(Transmit Latency) 0.278 0.37 0.49 0.9 0.9
Transmit ASW Information (Transmit Throughput) 0.167 0.63 0.83 0.99 0.98
Total Score (0-1) 0.32 0.53 0.94 0.94LCCE ($Mil) 313.90 439.60 508.65 1080.46
Function (Evaluation Measure) WeightAlternatives
27
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Utility Score vs. LCCEAlternative 2
Alternative 1
Alternative 0
Alternative 3
LCCE ($MIL)
UTI
LITY
• RECOMMENDATION: Alternative 2– JSTARS – RC-135: TCDL– SATCOM – Interface to the TCS– SCDL – JTRS with latency & – Link-16 throughput improvements– Joint Track Manager – CANES improvements
2828
• There are initiatives to solve most ASW stakeholder concerns• A system of systems (SoS) architect is needed
– Conduct SoS M&S– Address projects at a SoS level – Enable cross-program manager collaboration
• Revise the modeling– Reflect current planned attributes for 2020 (changes since mid-2008)– M&S with all 24 functional evaluation measures– Include classified data sets
• Functional C4I characteristics not unique to ASW community• Future C4I capabilities dependent upon cross-leveling of future
DoD funding levels• ASW operational C4I standards are needed in FY2020
Conclusions
292929
Areas For Further ConsiderationOperational Users and Acquisition Community
• Consider accuracy improvements provoked by data fusion and data sharing techniques during development of sensors and weapons
• ASW is a team sport [Morgan, 2008]. Need to improve ASW operational integration. Who’s on the team?• Interagency (e.g., Coast Guard) and Joint?• Coalition and Allied?
• If yes, security restraints and policies preventing IP base communications need to be addressed
• …..and many more in the report
303030
Questions