eda industry workshop on european requirements for...

LAVOSAR II WS1:WP2ORA Standards Update

EM | July 2015

EDA INDUSTRY WORKSHOP ON EUROPEAN REQUIREMENTS FORMISSION SYSTEMS OF LAND VEHICLES (WS2)WP2 Open Reference Architecture Standards Update (Selex ES)

Edouard Mouchel July 2015

EM| July 2015


LAVOSAR II Work Package 2Open Reference Architecture Standards Update

• WP2 Overview and Context

• Specific European Requirements

• EU Rationale

• LAVOSAR I Missing Stakeholder Inputs

• LAVOSAR Classes / Actors / Use Cases / Information Exchange

• LAVOSAR Features Survey Revisited

• LAVOSAR II Revised Survey

• Further Questions for Discussion

EM| July 2015


WP2Open Reference Architecture

Standards UpdateInvestigation and Update On

Specific European RequirementsInvestigation and Update On

Specific European Requirements

Proposal for ORAStandards Update

Proposal for ORAStandards Update

WP4Through Life Capability

Development ofRoadmap


Harmonized DataExchange ProceduresHarmonized Data

Exchange Procedures

WP0: Project Management

Technical Management(WPs Coherence)

Technical Management(WPs Coherence) Quality Assurance and

Configuration ManagementQuality Assurance and

Configuration ManagementAdministrative ManagementAdministrative Management Coordination and Consultationwith Relevant Stakeholders

Coordination and Consultationwith Relevant Stakeholders

Stakeholder EngagementWorkshop 1

Government OfficialsEU Standardization

Workshop 1Government OfficialsEU Standardization

Workshop 2Manufacturers ,

Integrators, Suppliers

Workshop 2Manufacturers ,

Integrators , Suppliers Briefing 1Briefing 1 Briefing 2Briefing 2 Briefing 3Briefing 3 Briefing 4Briefing 4

WP3Workflow and Procedure Update

Update ofOperational Workflows

Update ofOperational Workflows

Update ofLogistics Procedures

Update ofLogistics Procedures

WP5Alignment with NGVA

Concepts for LAVOSAR Contrib .to Future Developm . of NGVA

Concepts for LAVOSAR Contrib .to Future Developm. of NGVA

Identification of PotentialContributions

Identification of PotentialContributions



WP1: ArchitecturalDomain Analysis and

Requirements

Analysis of RelevantPrograms and Activities

Analysis of RelevantPrograms and Activities

Characterization ofRequired

Architectural Domain

Characterization ofRequired

Architectural Domain

Definition of AnyNeeded AdditionalArchitectural Layers

Definition of AnyNeeded AdditionalArchitectural Layers

Estimation of Costof Implementing

Estimation of Costof Implementing

Evaluation of Benefitsto be Gained

Evaluation of Benefitsto be Gained

WP6Architecture Contributions

to EDA Repository

Generating ModelDocumentation

Generating ModelDocumentation

Transferring ArchitecturalViews to EDA

Transferring ArchitecturalViews to EDA

Gathering EDA requirementsfor formal Architecture

Gathering EDA requirementsfor formal Architecture

Modelling of requiredArchitecture Views

Modelling of requiredArchitecture Views

Information Flow between Work Packages

WP2 Context wrt. Other Work Packages

EM| July 2015


LAVOSAR II Work Package 2 : Specific European Requirements

To identify and update specific European level requirements

How to establish these [to be complementary to (N)GVA] ?

• Rationale EU CSDP Rapid Reaction Force Requirements

• Gap analysis from earlier study work

• Various Stakeholder Engagements

• WS1 Government Workshop• Government Survey Questionnaire Revised• WS2 Industry Workshop (July 2015)

• Work Package 1 Output (WIP)

• LAVOSAR II Revised Survey

EM| July 2015


EU Military Rapid Response Concept : Timelines

EM| July 2015


LAVOSAR I - Missing Stakeholder Inputs

EM| July 2015


LAVOSAR I - Study Context (Classes)

class Vehicle System Domain

DismountedUser

Support User

«system»MissionSystem

«actor»Vehicle Platform

notes= GVA "Base Vehicle"«actor»

StoresItem

Operational Group

Vehicle

notes= GVA "Operational System"

Mounted User

«actor»Legacy Subsystem

GVA Ready Subsystem

«actor»OtherUnit

SupportEnv ironment

GVA InfrastructureElement

«actor»MissionCommandNet

0..*

«flow»

1

0..* 0..*

1

(N)GVA

Intra-UnitInterfaces?Common

Stores?

LAVOSARGVA

Extensions?

Interfaceswith Dismount?Vehicle Types?

Common C4IConcepts?

Common ILSRequirements?

Fixed LegacySubsystems?

EM| July 2015


LAVOSAR I - Study Context - Actorsclass User Specialisation

Commander Driv er Gunner

Maintainer Instructor

Mounted User DismountedUser

Support User

PassengerCrew Member

MissionSystemUserRole

Logistics UserGroupCommander

(N)GVA

OtherOn-board Roles?

DismountSpecialisation?

CommonSupport &

Training Roles?

EM| July 2015


LAVOSAR 1 Study Results -3. Normative Framework - Use Case Identification 'Use Cases & Actors'

Actor

Use Case CMDR DRV GNR Passenger Instructor Maintainer LogisticsUser

COMMANDS, ORDERSDevelop Briefing & OrdersReceive Briefing

SITUATION PICTUREDevelop Local Situation PictureDevelop Battlespace PictureView Local SituationRecord & Report SituationPlan & Manage Mission

ACTIONSAcquire TargetEngage TargetAssist Driving

MAINTAIN OPERATIVE STATEAccess & Initialise Mission SystemManage PowerManage Vehicle Health & MaintenanceManage Defensive AidsManage StoresTBC Training UseTBC Specialist Use

EM| July 2015


LAVOSAR II 2015 Government Survey

• Decision taken to update and Re-issue Survey to Government April 2015

• Sent to expanded group of countries ~ 30 in total

• Survey Findings :

• Re-iterated earlier results

• Additional areas of emphasis

EM| July 2015


2015 Survey Countries

· Austria· Belgium· Bulgaria· Croatia· Cyprus· Czech· Estonia· Finland· France· Germany

· Austria· Belgium· Bulgaria· Croatia· Cyprus· Czech· Estonia· Finland· France· Germany

· Greece· Hungary· Ireland· Italy· Lithuania· Luxembourg· Latvia· Malta· Netherlands· Norway· UK

· Poland· Portugal· Romania· Serbia· Spain· Sweden· Switzerland· Slovenia· Slovakia· UK

EM| July 2015


2015 Survey returns have been received from the following countries :

• Bulgaria• Germany• Finland• Italy• Netherlands 1• Netherlands 2• Spain• Sweden• UK

LAVOSAR I in 2013 responses :• Austria• Bulgaria• Czech Republic• Germany• Italy• Sweden• UK

EM| July 2015


For the purposes of the survey, a Mission System is assumed to be amodular scalable suite of subsystems and crew interfaces on-board avehicle that adds capabilities, beyond the basic automotive platform,creating a specific variant or role.

As before the assumption is made that vehicles will be categorised into 5main types :

• Main Battle Tank (MBT)

• Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV)

• Reconnaissance Vehicle (Recce)

• Armoured Personnel Carrier (APC)

• Trucks

EM| July 2015


General Comment on 2015 Survey results

Mission System features required more in higher end vehicles ie. MBT, IFV, Recce,APC with more minimal Mission System equipment requirements in the Trucksvehicle category

Specialist role vehicles of IFV and Recce are the highest scoring generallyrequiring more Mission System equipments

General consensus across the contributors in the areas that are important

For example Mission System Features such as :

• On-board Crew Communication Intercom

• Voice radio using VHF/HF

• Navigation for Own Vehicle

• Off-board Radio to Dismounted Soldiers (where appropriate)

• Provision of Driving Sensors

• Power Management

• Obscurant and Smoke launch for all types except the Trucks vehicle type

EM| July 2015


2015 Survey Results Specific Mission System Features of Interest

Reviewing in detail the averaged table of results scores and hencerequirements of particular interest (apart from the general pointsmentioned above), the following Mission System features can behighlighted :

1) User Interface

· Need for integrated multi-function HMI per crewstation positionimportant generally and for IFV and Recce vehicles in particular, ideallywith a common look and feel across the fleet

· Head-out operation of the Mission System for Recce vehicle

· Crew Aids for collaboration or task sharing between vehicles in owntroop. This implies the requirement for on-off vehicle datagateways (and by implication, associated technology andinteroperability standards)

EM| July 2015


2) Sensors

· Driver close indirect vision sensors (Day and or Night capable) areimportant for all vehicle types apart from trucks

· 360 Sensors for close indirect vision for any user are important forIFV and Recce

· Surveillance or Target Acquisition sights for Recce and IFV

· CBRN Hazards detection sensors for Recce and IFV

· Germany highlighted potential for provision of on-board humanliving condition sensors (eg. CO2, temperature, etc.)

EM| July 2015


3) Effectors

· Remote controlled weapon system for Self-Defence of IFV, Recceand APC vehicles

· Optical Effectors (probably LRF) scored highly for IFV and Recce

· Defensive Aids subsystems for MBT, IFV and Recce

· Germany highlighted potential for non-lethal effectors

EM| July 2015


4) Applications Software

· Fire Control for MBT, IFV and Recce

· Precision Target Geo-location for IFV and Recce

· Navigation and associated aids (routing, waypoints, etc.)

· On-board Maintenance manuals across all vehicle types

· Battlefield Information Management including Digital Maps forIFV and Recce vehicles

· Battlefield Scenario Simulation and Training for IFV and Recce(and to a slightly lesser extent MBT). This training scenario on-vehicleis another emergent area for considering potential new systemelements, interfaces, standards and use cases

EM| July 2015


5) Missions System Infrastructure

· Data Radio for MBT, IFV and Recce vehicles

· Off-board Data communications to dismounts for IFV and APC inparticular

· Mass storage of Mission Data for IFV and Recce vehicles

· Germany uniquely cited provision of Common LogisticTransmission system with a specialist connector

· Note : GSM/3G/4G Network Interoperability not viewed as a highpriority

EM| July 2015


6) Information and Power Exchange Requirements

· Own Vehicle to Dismounts for IFV and Recce vehicles

· Own Vehicle to Troop for IFV and Recce vehicles

· Own Vehicle to Command Network for IFV and Recce vehicles

· High Speed Data Links to UAV/UGV for IFV and Recce vehiclesin particular

· Note: Dismounted Equipment, Internet, Maintainer link bandwidthcapability not seen as particularly important

EM| July 2015


LAVOSAR IIWP2 ORA

Standards Update

LAVOSAR 1Findings

EuropeanRequirements

LAVOSAR IIWP1

ArchitecturalDomain

Analysis &Requirements

ILS / LogisticsFocus

RelevantStandards

LAVOSAR IIWP3

Workflow andProcedure

Update

Draft GVA 23-09

Part 3 HUMSRequirements(Withdrawn)

InterfaceDefinitions

EDSTAREG20 Report

SystemArchitecture

LAVSOSAR IIGovernmentWorkshop1

(WS1)

CommercialStandards

EDSTARCEN European /Handbook for

DefenceProcurement

(EHDP)

EDSTAREG9 ReportArmoured

Land VehicleTechnology

Internationalprocedure

specificationfor LSA

(AS3000L)

Standards Update Approach

IndustryInput WS2

EM| July 2015


Specific Questions for WS2 relating to WP2, to re-cap :

Which Vehicles should apply ? Interfaces with Dismounts ? Intra-unit interfaces ?

Common stores approach ?

Fixed Legacy subsystems ?

Common C4I concepts ?

Mission System Features / Subsystems to prioritise ?

What does industry expect from architecture or standards definition?

What reference architectural level is expected ie. What level ofhierarchy/detail is most useful as an Open Reference Architecturestandard ?


Logistics Personnel

LAVOSAR (N)GVAExtensions ?


Logistics personnel ?

EM| July 2015


Thank you. Further questions / comment ?

eda industry workshop on european requirements for...

Documents