Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive

Faculty and Researcher Publications Faculty and Researcher Publications

2009-10-28

C4I Architecture Supporting Conduct of

Defensive and Offensive Joint ASW (presentation)

Miller, Gregory

http://hdl.handle.net/10945/34367

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