Naval Open Architecture Combat, Warfare and Family of Systems Engineering

Transcription

1 Naval Open Architecture Combat, Warfare and Family of Systems Engineering December 2006 Distribution Statement A: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Captain Jim Shannon, USN Program Manager, Future Combat Systems Open Architecture PEO IWS 7.0

2 The Navy s s goal is to build a fleet where mission systems are modular, interoperable, and affordable to upgrade Page 2 8 December 2006

3 Open Architecture is an enabler for meeting this goal OA CORE PRINCIPLES Naval OA is an enterprise-wide, multifaceted business and technical strategy for acquiring and maintaining National Security Systems (NSS) as interoperable systems that adopt and exploit open-system design principles and architectures. Modular design and design disclosure Reusable application software Interoperable joint warfighting applications and secure information exchange Life cycle affordability Encouraging competition and collaboration Source: OPNAV ltr Ser N6N7/5U dtd 23 Dec 05 Page 3 8 December 2006

4 Leadership s s priorities are focused on OA My vision for OA isn t limited to systems built to a set of open standards, but rather it is focused on open business models for the acquisition and spiral development of new systems that enable multiple developers to collectively and competitively participate in cost-effective and innovative capability delivery to the Naval enterprise. - CNO ADM Mullen, Defense Daily,11 September 2006 Half the cost of a new ship is in mission systems...oa is one of the real enablers for us to do things in the future and a key to making ships more affordable - ASN (RDA) Dr. Etter, DefenseNews.com, 1 November 2006 Page 4 8 December 2006

5 OA requires a shift in the Navy s business and system model PAST MILSPEC MODEL Platform-focused model Business Model Attributes: Platform Focused Owner controls evolution Cost emphasis Develop software Make custom hardware System Model Attributes: Requirements driven Specification focus Rigid requirements Unique architecture Stable design Ignore evolution Obsolescence Waterfall-style development Page 5 8 December 2006

6 to a new model that better aligns to capabilities across multiple platforms, families of systems, and system of systems PRESENT OA MODEL Business Model Attributes: Capability / Systems Focused Market controls evolution Total Ownership Cost emphasis License or Reuse software Leverage COTS or Reuse System Model Attributes: Market driven Business plan focus Flexible requirements Open system architecture Constant changes Design for evolution (tech refresh) Early-managed obsolescence Spiral development Capability / System Based vice Platform Based Family of Systems (FOS)- A set of systems that provides similar capabilities through different approaches to achieve similar or complementary effects. System of Systems (SOS)- A set or arrangement of interdependent systems that are related or connected to provide a given capability. The loss of any part of the system will significantly Page degrade 6 the performance or capabilities of the whole. 8 December 2006

7 For example, the Single Integrated Air Picture capability is being developed for multiple Platforms SIAP is the product of common, continuous, unambiguous tracks of detected airborne objects in the surveillance area. OA Practices Appropriate Data Rights Design artifacts disclosed Design artifacts published in repositories Peer Reviews Continuous competition Rapid capability insertion process War fighter involvement Modular architecture Isolated proprietary components Widely accepted standards Use of Commodity COTS Published Interfaces Fully Implemented Partially Implemented OA will reduce the development and lifecycle costs Page 7 8 December 2006

8 The Navy Integrated Fire Control Counter Air capability is being developed from capabilities across a Family of Systems NIFC-CA integrates capabilities and technology from CEC, Aegis, SM-6, and E2D Fully Implemented Partially Implemented Appropriate Data Rights Design artifacts disclosed Design artifacts published in repositories Peer Reviews Continuous competition Rapid capability insertion process Fleet involvement OA Practices Modular architecture Isolated proprietary components Widely accepted standards Use of Commodity COTS Published Interfaces OA will enable NIFC-CA to significantly expand the battlespace Page 8 8 December 2006

9 Developing these types of capabilities requires contract changes Our contracts need to be written where we have the ability to have the integrator that is designing the architecture in an open way so we can do competition for various pieces. So [that it is] easier to update with new functionality later on. - ASN (RDA), Defense Daily,10 October 2006 Increase competition Negotiate appropriate data rights Allow for sharing of design artifacts Increase use of peer reviews Allow for tech insertions Leverage S&T The goal now is to write open architecture requirements into contracts and provide companies incentives to meet the goals. - ASN (RDA), Defense News,01 November 2006 Page 9 8 December 2006

10 and increased collaboration and competition The process must be open and collaborative Tech Insertion 1 Tech Insertion 2 Tech Insertion 3 Tech Insertion 4 Tech Insertion 5 Capability X Capability Y S/W Upgrade H/W Upgrade Capability A Capability B Capability D Capability E 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 R&D Syste m X Syste m Y Syste m Z S/W Integrator: Companies A / B S/W Integrator: Company C S/W Integrator : Company D Test & Eval System Integrator, Life-Cycle Support: Company D Syste m XX Developer: Companies D/E Technology Transition Page 10 8 December 2006

11 Best of breed solutions must be identified in the architecture Acquisition Agents EXCOMM Board of Directors (Acquisition Executive) (Resource Sponsor) PEO Battlespace Mgmt & Air Defense Systems (From-The-Land (FTL)) Flag Steering Committee PEO Tactical Aircraft Programs (From- (Chair: PEO IWS) The-Air (FTA)) PEO Integrated Warfare Systems O-6 PMT (Chair: PEO IWS 7) (From-The-Sea (FTS)) Project Manager (PEO IWS 7D) Other ONR SEA 06 T I SPAWAR M DOT&E RDA CHENG PEO IWS 7A FTAMD FTS System Definition IPT (Govt. & Industry co-leads) Fleet Integ OPTEVFOR T HETAT I SWDG M NWDC/FFC NIFC-CA Collaborative Deputy Project Government & Industry Manager SEI&T Team NIFC-CA From-The-Sea (FTS) SEI&T Leadership & Project Planning Team Financial/Security SD IPT Products: Architecture CONOPS Performance Metrics Reference Scenarios System Performance Doc. TIM - Technical Interchange Meeting BMADS - Battlespace Mgmt & Air Defense Systems FTAMD - Future Theater Air and Missile Defense Members: FoS Kill Chain SE, Govt. Labs, Industry Products: Risk Mitigation, SEMP, IEMP From-The-Air Joint Community From-The-Land FTS Performance FTS Integration & Test IPT Assessment IPT (Govt. T&E & Industry + Demo co-leads) (Govt. & Industry co-leads) I&T IPT Products: PA IPT Products: Interface & ITEP M&S Plan Interoperability TIMP Engagement Level M&S Plan Test Schedules Engineering Analysis Products Performance Analysis Reports Force Level Analysis Senior Leadership Communication External Org SEI&T Team IPT & Working Groups IPT Products T I M FoS IWS 1 AEGIS/AOA IWS 3 Missiles IWS 6 CEC PMA 231 AHE NAVAIR USMC BMADS USA SoS JLENS Joint VWC JSSEO Other Page 11 8 December 2006

12 Integrating development and testing infrastructures across the enterprise e is also imperative the the OA/FORCEnet experimentation provides this OA/FN Experimentation Initiative Operational & Technical Attributes: System of Systems Focused Design for Interoperability Upfront Early Net-Centric Evaluation Integrated Technology Evaluation Provide Enterprise solutions to common requirements Leverage Existing Infrastructures Uses open & DoD process/tools/networks/standards Surface Nodes components Legacy Nodes Air Nodes Components C4I/Space components SUBs Components Integrated & Composeable Engineering &Testing Infrastructure Other Nodes components Business Process Attributes: Align Navy Development Evaluation Resources Reduce Risk to programs Low entrance for small business Flexible in scale an scope Spiral Evaluation of Enterprise Capabilities Interoperable Capabilities across SoS and FoS Page 12 8 December 2006

13 Today s s session will discuss these practices in more detail Current Combat and Warfare Systems Engineering Mr. William Bray Family of System Engineering - Ms. Kathy O. Emery Page 13 8 December 2006

14 William P. Bray, Director, Integrated Combat Systems Program Executive Office, Integrated Warfare Systems Director, Integrated Combat System (PEO IWS 1.0) (August 2006) Responsible for the development, production, deployment, and in-service maintenance of all Navy surface combat systems. Designated as the PEO IWS point of contact for the stand-up and execution of the Joint Single Integrated Air Picture (SIAP) PEO and Joint Program Office Director for Naval Architectures and Integrated Combat Systems, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Integrated Warfare Systems Responsible for the oversight and execution of a select portfolio which included Joint programs and initiatives such as SIAP, Naval Integrated Fire Control, and Joint Battle Management Command and Control (JBMC2) and Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) Roadmaps. Masters of Science in Systems Management, University of Southern California Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering, Penn State University Page 14 8 December 2006

15 Ms. Kathleen Emery, Acting Chief Engineer Program Executive Office, Integrated Warfare Systems Acting Chief Engineer for PEO IWS Responsible for defining a common, open component architecture for Navy Combat Systems, as well as co-chairing the Joint Track Management (JTM) Architecture Working Group Technical Director for the Ship Self Defense Systems, Raytheon Responsible for defining a common Command & Control software architecture for Navy combatants under the Sea Athena initiative Advisor on the Target Acquisition System (TAS MK 23), NATO SEASPARROW Project Office Lead Software Engineer for the Terrier and Tartar New Threat Upgrade (NTU) modifications to the Weapon Direction System (WDS MK 14) Bachelor of Science in Mathematics, Frostburg State University Masters of Science in Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University Master of Science in Technical Management, Johns Hopkins University Page 15 8 December 2006