EDA ISR Capability Package Assessment (ICPA) study A System of Systems Architecture Activity in ESA's CDF

Transcription

1 EDA ISR Capability Package Assessment (ICPA) study A System of Systems Architecture Activity in ESA's CDF Torsten Bieler ESTEC, Charlotte Mathieu HQ, Jan S. de Vries TNO, Arne Matthyssen J-CDS ESA/ESTEC Noordwijk NL SCECESA 2012, 16 October

2 Agenda ESA / EDA - Background ESA CDF SoS Architecting Activities ICPA (Approach and CDF contribution) Added value / next steps / conclusions 2

3 ESA / EDA - Background European Space Agency (ESA) Beneficial services to citizens European Defence Agency (EDA) Improve EU s defence capabilities for CSDP Petersburg tasks (humanitarian and rescue tasks, peace keeping tasks, and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peace making) 3

4 ESA / EDA - Background ESA/EDA cooperation modelling & simulation tool Persistent intelligence supporting knowledge-based operations CDF SoS architecture expertise 4

6 Number of users Quality of services Providing European and national security actors with a comprehensive set of space-based services for their missions within and outside EU borders, focusing on support to crisis response. Bringing the right information and services to the right people, when they need it Complementary services New services S7 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 Aggregated systems services Architecting evolution Architectures (Optional) Design Adaptations Architectures Interface (SoS 2) Interface (SoS 1) Complementary Assets 6 Provided Assets / Systems GINS Global Integrated Network for Security EDRS European Data Relay System GMES incl. security element Galileo Ground Segment & Operations User Interface Centre Application of CDF and CE

7 Space Mission Design vs SoS Architecture Space Mission Design System of System Architecture Customer / Final Users Customer / Final Users Technical Team Stakeholder System team Architecture Board System engineer Architect Technical domain expert Asset representative Cost, Risk, Programmatics Watchkeepers Spacecraft element behaviour Asset services Integrated Design Model (IDM) Integrated Architecture Model (IAM) Design Architecture. 7

8 ESA CDF SoS Architecting Activities Concurrent Engineering Featuring Systematic approach Customer expectations Team Cooperation Consensus Parallel from the beginning Everybody same time same place ESA CDF SoS activities SoS SSA Case Study GIANUS-I ESA initiative GIANUS-II CDF-SSA with industry (TAS) Next generation CDF model ICPA EDA / ESA collaboration Industry participation (CAST) EDA member states participation (PT ISR) 8

10 ISR Capability Package Assessment (ICPA) ISR assets assessment ISR collection capabilities in Europe Minimise cost and duplication Balance of Investment Analysis Model (BIAM) 10

11 ISR Capability Package Assessment (ICPA) Industrial consortium with CDF support Space and non-space Civil and defence 11

12 Architecture / Vision Scenarios Scenarios Scenarios Services Services Services Architecture Alternative Architecture Alternative Architecture Alternative Architecture Alternative Services ICPA Study Process Elements Preparation Phase Jan 2011 Key Asset Characteristics (KACs) Collected in Workbooks for Requirements all domains Coming from Iterated Elaborated EDA (pms) by during the R 1 R 2 R 3 R FOI study 4 R.. R.. R.. R.. R.. R.. R.. R.. Study Phase-1 Six ½-day-sessions, max 1 session/week Light reporting / transition phase tools, data, requirements, hints of architectures R.. R.. R.. R.. R.. R.. R.. R.. Elaborated in.xls, System Architect and Focal Point A A 1 Assets A A 2 Study Phase-2 B city.... B-Land A A A.. Three 2-day-session blocks, September 2011, consolidation, 4 months incl. preparation, study & reporting C-zone A A 3 A.. A Post Study / Reporting Phase x Consolidated x requirements, evaluated R.. R.. R.. R.. set.. of xisr architectures, Potential additional x services x A A I II A Mar Jun-Aug II x.... m Nov I III Dec 2011 II 12 R.. R.. R.. R n A city

13 ICPA Study Process Elements Three domains Collection: observation systems Information: data processing systems (Communication: communication systems) 13

14 Large Amount of Assets Asset Type Groups DCOL: SDCOL: SCCOL: DCOM: SDCOM: SCCOM: DCPRO: SDPRO: SCPRO: Defence Collection Space Defence Collection Space Civilian Collection Defence Communication Space Defence Communication Space Civilian Communication Defence Information Processing Space Defence Information Processing Space Civilian Information Processing. 14

15 Conceptual View KAC Key Asset Characteristics Architecture Diagrams Scenario Requirements KPI Key Performance Indicators PRI Performance Requirement Indicators Architecture Costs Architecture Risks Architecture Efficiency 15

16 Identify ISR Requirements ISR Capability Required Find ground-based air defence units Find air bases ISR Sub-capability Required Operational Node where Required Area to Cover Nb of Simultaneous Targets Is there a hint of a capability gap? Can be modelled mathematically during the study? To focus on during CDF sessions? Threats Air Threat Ground-based Air Defence Threat Antitank Weapon Threat Small Arm Threat Electronic Countermeasures Functional Performances Functional Performance Level Spatial Coverage Tracking Ability Required Accuracy Level Detect, recognise, and identify FHQ C-zone and 20 Yes Yes Yes Possible Yes No No Yes I5 Yes km x 200 ground-based air defence units 100 km km beyond (south) = 300 Gather technical information on ACC km C-zone x 200 and km 5 No No Yes Yes No No 300 km x 200 air defence units (signals etc) 100 km km beyond (south) = 300 km x 200 km Determine exact positions of air ACC C-zone and 3 No No Yes Yes No No 300 km x 200 defence units 100 km km beyond (south) = 300 km x 200 km Battle damage assessment ACC 3 No No Yes Yes No No Engagement site Monitor air-related activity on the ACC NA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No I2 No km x 200 ground km Temporal performances Preparation Acceptable Delay Freshness of Information Temporal Operational Permanence 24 Days 10 min Hours (minutes if blue planes flying) Update Periodicity Environmental Conditions Day/Night Conditions Foliage Cover Meteo Conditions All AW Yes Yes 24 Days Days Hours All AW Yes Yes 24 Hours Seconds Hours (minutes if blue planes flying) All AW Yes Yes 24 Days Hours NA All AW Yes Yes 24 Days Hours NA All AW Yes Yes Electronic Countermeasures Air base BDA ACC NA No No Yes Yes No No Engagement site Find C2ISTAR ACC NA Yes Yes Yes Yes No No 300 km x 200 Yes No I5 Yes 7 resources km 24 Days Hours NA All AW Yes Yes 24 Days Hours NA All AW Yes Yes C2ISTAR BDA ACC NA No No Yes Yes No No Engagement 24 Days Hours NA All AW Yes Yes site Find air units Detect, recognise, identify, and ACC C-zone and 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Possible C4 Yes km x Hours Hour 15 min ( All AW No Yes track aircraft 100 km km minutes if beyond blue planes (south) = 300 are flying) km x 200 km Collect technical information on ACC C-zone and 5 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No I5 Yes km x Hours Hour 15 min ( All AW No Yes air units (signals etc) 100 km km minutes if beyond blue planes (south) = 300 are flying) km x 200 km Detect, recognise, See above 5 See above 24 Hours Hour Hour Yes identify, and track A- land air and ground- 16 Collection assets efficiency assessment Results for Focal Point

17 Focal Point - Overview (1/6) Assessment, evaluation and trade-off support tool comparing different architectures based on: Evaluation criteria Weighting factors 17

18 Focal Point - Overview (2/6) Governance Risk Technology Risk Annual Cost of Ownership Risk Human Loss Risk - 18

19 Focal Point - Overview (3/6) + Operational Benefits Functional Efficiency 19

20 Focal Point - Overview (4/6) Governance Risk Technology Risk Annual Cost of Ownership Risk Human Loss Risk Operational Benefits Functional Efficiency 20

21 21 Focal Point - Overview (5/6)

22 Focal Point - Overview (6/6) Overall ranked comparison 22

23 CDF Support to ISR Capability Package Assessment CDF support: Contribute to the definition of global architecture Provide domain experts (Earth Observation, cost, risk ) Optimise balance of risk, cost and benefits (BIAM) Develop options of EU ISR capability packages for CSDP operations two time-frame options Concurrent Engineering Methodology Concurrent Engineering Infrastructure (use of CDF) Two ICPA study phases each involving one CDF study Support to the ITT process (SoW, answers to industry) In frame of the reinforced ESA / EDA cooperation Based mainly on previous CDF SoS studies experience like GiANUS 23

24 Agenda ESA / EDA - Background ESA CDF SoS Architecting Activities ICPA (Approach and CDF contribution) Added value / next steps / Conclusions 24

25 CDF Added Value Proven efficiency within multi-disciplinary team environment Proven efficient involvement of customer and ad-hoc consultants/experts Combination of all perspectives on a problem in one place and the same time (customer/study manager, asset experts, technical domains, risk, cost, planning etc..) Clear process with a structured approach to SoS 25

26 CDF Added Value Efficient trade-off/comparison tools (e.g. Focal Point) More efficient data/information exchange and structuring Re-use of information/data Clear results based on customer s study requirements Specific software / hardware infrastructure An integrated design / architecture model A facility 26

27 Conclusions Large amount of assets gathered and parameterised in CDF IAM increased level of maturity Architecture performance Key Performance Indicators (KPI) by team, customer and operational experts Study built on CDF procedures for SoS (TOGAF ADM, SA, FP, collaborative sessions and the application of the CDF- IAM) Scenarios were well elaborated, chosen and provided to represent the necessary ISR capabilities. 27

28 Conclusions ICPA BIAM is a customised formalisation for ICPA of CDF procedural elements RCP, scenarios, services and requirements parallel evaluation of cost, risk, technical and operational parameters. CDF IAM customised with BIAM related calculations/models allowing to model & assess different scenarios with different requirements BIAM available to participating member states of EDA (!) Availability of operational experts is of outmost importance 28

29 Conclusions ICPA Cooperation and information exchange between EDA and ESA was essential for the success of the activity The two-phase approach is very good Phase two to start after Readiness Milestone confirming: project/programme background information, user requirements, scenarios, expected services, service/system requirements, evaluation criteria, measuring algorithms, asset information, Handbook or Mission Outline providing a complete overview on the SoS As-Is architecture, Concurrent Design tools including domain models, asset- & domain workbooks, System Architect, Focal Point and the Requirement Check Point (RCP), team composition and session planning 29

30 Conclusions Next Steps Pragmatic approach Phase-1 high level synthesis Phase-2 report full extent Envelope case by case Clear expectations Scope (project, work, phases, sessions, weekly TC, reporting ) Tools (Integrated Architecture Model with workbooks, RCP, System Architect TM, FP, icdf) Roles (for example EDA, ESA, CDF, industry, experts) 30

31 Benefits 31 Tangible way for inter-agency cooperation Potential combination of business Facilitate interoperation with existing and new partners Joining expertise of different agencies at working level

32 Benefits Potential new customers and future new services Trade-offs and online evaluation of different kinds of architectures CE/CD improve communication, reduce/eliminate cultural barriers Design joint missions/architectures (multi-asset based services). 32

33 Conclusions Next Steps Very interesting activity Two different worlds/languages/cultures Identified way ahead Curious about the future 33