Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive Faculty and Researcher Publications Faculty and Researcher Publications Collection 2009-10-28 C4I Architecture Supporting Conduct of Defensive and Offensive Joint ASW (presentation) Miller, Gregory http://hdl.handle.net/10945/34367 Naval Postgraduate School C4I Architecture Supporting Conduct of Defensive and Offensive Joint ASW Presented By: Gregory Miller Bill Traganza Matthew Letourneau Baasit Saijid 28 Oct 2009 (based on report # NPS-00-001) 1 Team Members Michael Clendening Dennis Hopkins James New Baasit Saijid Alejandro Cuevas Amritpal Dhindsa Matthew Letourneau Justin Loy Van Ngo Amrish Patel 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 2 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 3 SE Process 4 Needs Analysis • Capability Gaps Analysis (Situation Today) • Stakeholders Analysis • Future Analysis • Functional Analysis Situation Today • 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 • Platform-centric ASW C4I systems are not used in a networked fashion to share data - Limited situational awareness - Limited mission effectiveness 6 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 7 Draft Futures OV-1 ISR ISR Assets Assets (Manned, Unmanned, Space-based, National --based, National and and Processing/Dissemination Centers) FUTURE C4I 2020 Maritime Forces (Airborne and Sea -Based SUW and USW Forces) Canadian Coast Guard FORCE NETWORKS US Air Force B-52 Enemy Shipyard Shore Based ASW Net-Centric C4I System Defense Forces (Sea, Air, Land Air and Missile Enemy Sub Enemy Sub Enemy Sub Base Strike Force ASW Net-Centric C4I System US Coast Guard Coalition Forces Sustainment Forces (Sea and Shore-based) Land Attack Forces (including Strike Forces, Expeditionary Forces, Land Forces, and SOF) Free Space Optics FSO Sub to Sub Comms unmanned vehicle Sub Extended network infrastructure Enemy Sub 8 C2 System Functional Analysis 9 Value System ASW Net Centric C4I System A.0 Operational Effectiveness Provide Connectivity Optimize Network Functions and Resources Provide ASW Data/Information Management A.3 A.5 A.1 Interconnect Communication Nodes Interface with ASW Sensor and ASW Weapon Systems Data Streams Connect and Interface with External Networks A.1.1 A.1.2 A.1.3 Minimize Network Join Time Maximize Interfaces to external data Streams Maximize GIG connectivity Seconds # provided / # available (%) Net Ready Compliance (%) Operational Suitability Manage and Control Network Manage Spectrum Fuse ASW Data Provide ASW COTP Identify, Store, Share and Exchange ASW Data and Information A.3.1 A.3.2 A.5.1 A.5.2 A.5.3 Maximize the Delivery of High Priority Traffic Maximize Spectrum Availability Maximize accuracy of Fused Data Maximize availability of COTP BW Required / BW Available (%) Spectrum Required / Spectrum Available (%) Figure of Merit (FOM) # users with access / # users (%) Perform Information Operations Transport ASW Information from End 2 End A.2 A.4 Provide Computer Network Defense Provide Electronic Protection Provide Information Assurance (IA) Provide Physical Security Transmit ASW Information Deliver ASW Information Receive ASW Information A.2.1 A.2.2 A.2.3 A.2.4 A.4.1 A.4.2 A.4.3 Maximize IA Protection Minimize opportunity for physical intrusion / attack Maximize Transmission Efficiency Minimize Delivery Time Maximize Computer Network Protection network nodes protected by IDSs, FWs (%) Minimize susceptibility to Electronic Attack Protected comm systems / Total # of comm systems (%) # of systems have ATO / total number of systems (%) Compliance With DoD 5200.08-R, April 9, 2007 (%) Latency ( milliseconds) Throughput (Mbps) Information Delivered (< 1min / < 10 sec) Maximize Reception Efficiency Latency (milliseconds) Transfer ASW Data from Machine to Machine Provide ASW Information Publish/ Subscribe Services A.5.3.1 Provide Reliability Provide Availability Provide Maintainability Maximize Reliability Maximize Achieved Availability Minimize Maintenance hours MTBF hours Aa % M (Mean Active Maintenance) hours Manage ASW Data/Information Life Cycle and Optimize ASW Data/Info Handling Enable Smart Pull/Push of ASW Information A.5.3.2 A.5.3.3 A.5.3.4 Minimize Human in the loop Maximize use of pub/sub services Provide efficient data management services Minimize pull/ push times #of systems M2M enabled / #of systems M2M capable (%) Percent of information posted and published 95%/99% Percent of time Data /Information available ≥ 99% (%) Response time to User Requests or Demands < 1 sec (seconds) (%) Throughput (Mbps) 10 Top Six Evaluation Measures – # Users w/ access to COTP – Time Required to Push/Pull – Time Required to Fuse Data – Time to Interconnect Nodes – Transmit Latency – Transmit Throughput 11 Alternatives Generation • Baseline Architecture • Feasible Alternatives 12 Programs of Record & C4I Functionality DoD Teleport SINGLE 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 System Net-Centric Enterprise Services GLOBAL NET-CENTRIC OPERATIONS; ORBIT-TO-GROUND LASER & RF COMMS; HI DATA RATE MILSAT COMMS & INTERNET-LIKE SVCS; IMPROVED CONNECTIVITY/DATA TRANSFER; IMPROVED SATCOMMS UBIQUITOUS ACCESS; RELIABILITY; DECISION QUALITY INFORMATION; EMPOWER “EDGE” USER; TASK, POST, PROCESS, USE, & STORE, MANAGE & PROTECT INFORMATION RESOURCES ON DEMAND Next Generation Enterprise Network OPEN ARCHITECTURE SERVICE-ORIENTED ARCHITECTURE Global Information Grid COLLECTING, PROCESSING, STORING, DISSEMINATING, & MANAGING INFO ON DEMAND; OWNED & LEASED COMMS Joint Tactical Radio System LOS / BLOS; MULTI-BAND, MULTI-MODE, MULTI-CHANNEL; NARROWBAND & WIDEBAND WAVEFORMS; VOICE, VIDEO AND HIGH-SPEED DATA Net-enabled Command Capability JOINT COMMAND AND CONTROL 13 FY2020 Baseline ASW C4I Architecture Alternative 0 14 Alternative Solutions Alternative 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 1 Alternative 2 FY2020 ASW C4I Baseline Architecture plus: FY2020 ASW C4I Baseline Architecture plus: • JTRS improvements • NECC improvements • CANES improvements • JTRS improvements + • CANES improvements • Joint Track Manager Alternative 3 FY2020 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. 15 Modeling and Simulation Results • Model Overview • Data Inputs • Comparison of Alternatives 16 Model Overview Published/Subscribed Information Users User Commands/Requests ASW Weapon Data DETECT - ASW Sensor Systems ENGAGE – ASW CONTROL – C4I ASW Sensor Data ASW Weapon Tasking Weapon Systems PA/CA/EA METOC Data ASW Threat METOC Used the EXTEND modeling and simulation tool ASW Sensor Tasking 17 Communication Between Platforms Graphical Representation of the Systems Expected to Perform the Interconnect Communication Nodes Function for Alternatives 0, 1, and 2 18 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 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 Interconnect Communication Nodes (s) 19 Life Cycle Cost Estimate (LCCE) 20 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 21 Total Cost for Each Alternative 1200.00 Disposal O&S P&I R&D Total Cost ($M) 1000.00 800.00 600.00 400.00 200.00 0.00 Alt 0 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 22 Analysis of Alternatives • Multi Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) • Raw Data Values • Utility Scores • Swing Weights • Decision Matrix • Utility Score vs. LCCE 23 Multi Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) Raw Data • Evaluation Measures – – – – Wymorian Utility Functions Time Required to Fuse Data Time to Interconnect Nodes Transmit Latency Transmit Throughput Utility Scores Swing Weights Add Overall Utility 24 Raw Data Values Alternatives Function (Evaluation Measure) Alternative 0 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Fuse ASW Data (Time Required to Fuse Data) 702.395 ms 540.139 ms 299.823 ms 299.720 ms Interconnect Communication Nodes (Time to Interconnect) 5s 4.5 s 2.5 s 2.5 s Transmit ASW Information (Transmit Latency) 1334.161 ms 1205.027 ms 685.560 ms 680.160 ms Transmit ASW Information (Transmit Throughput) 51.292 Kbps 53.930 Kbps 58.855 Kbps 58.155 Kbps From the Extend model and scenarios “Number of users with COTP access” and “Time required to push/pull” were identical for the four alternatives, so were not considered discriminators for decisionmaking. 25 Decision Matrix Function (Evaluation Measure) Alternatives Weight Alternative 0 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Fuse ASW Data (Time Required to Fuse Data) 0.370 0.06 0.36 0.93 0.93 Interconnect Communication Nodes (Time to Interconnect) 0.185 0.5 0.65 0.96 0.96 Transmit ASW Information (Transmit Latency) 0.278 0.37 0.49 0.9 0.9 0.167 0.63 0.32 313.90 0.83 0.53 439.60 0.99 0.94 508.65 0.98 0.94 1080.46 Transmit ASW Information (Transmit Throughput) Total Score (0-1) LCCE ($Mil) 26 Utility Score vs. LCCE 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 UTILITY 0.8 0.6 Alternative 1 0.4 Alternative 0 0.2 0 0 200 400 LCCE ($MIL) 600 • 800 1000 1200 RECOMMENDATION: Alternative 2 – – – – – JSTARS SATCOM SCDL Link-16 Joint Track Manager – RC-135: TCDL – Interface to the TCS – JTRS with latency & throughput improvements – CANES improvements 27 Conclusions • 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 28 Areas For Further Consideration Operational 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 29 Questions 30