Outline Requirements Current programs ABCS, FCS, LVC-IA SIMCI - - PDF document

1

1

Interoperability Problems Caused by Transitioning to a Service Oriented Environment

Chris Black, Dick Brown, Stan Levine, Bill Sudnikovich Simulation to C4I Interoperability (SIMCI)

Paper 24 AFCEA-George Mason University Symposium "Critical Issues in C4I" May 20-21, 2008

2

Outline

• Requirements
• Current programs

– ABCS, FCS, LVC-IA

• SIMCI
• Technical Challenges
• Potential Solutions

– Technical – Programmatic

• Issues/Barriers

2

3

Capability Documenting

2/7/2008 1

Concept Capability Plan for the Battle Command System…

C2 Joint Integrating Concept

Final Version 1.0 1 Sep 2005

USA Future Force Command & Control

(Battle Command) Concept Capability Plan 24 Oct 2005 (Draft)

Army Battle Command Info Sys Initial Capability Document

• 1. Exercise command leadership
• 2. Establish/adapt command structures and enable both

global and regional collaboration

• 3. Develop and maintain shared situational awareness

and understanding

• 4. Communicate commander’s intent and guidance
• 5. Plan collaboratively
• 6. Synchronize execution across all warfighting

functions

• 7. Monitor execution, assess effects and adapt
• perations
• 8. Leverage mission partners

Army Battle Command Info Sys Capability Development Document ? 4

Capability Definition

The ability to achieve a desired effect

• Under specified standards and conditions
• Through combinations of means and ways to perform a set of tasks

Defined by an

• perational user

Expressed in broad operational terms in the format of a joint or initial capabilities document or a joint DOTMLPF change recommendation. For materiel proposals, the definition will progressively evolve to DOTMLPF performance attributes identified in the capability development document and the capability production document.

3

5

Army Battle Command System

6 Manned Ground Vehicles (MGV)

Non-Line of Sight Cannon (NLOS-C) Non-Line of Sight Mortar (NLOS-M) FCS Recovery and Maintenance Vehicle (FRMV)

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV)

Class I UAV Class IV UAV

Unattended Systems (US)

Tactical and Urban Unattended Ground Sensors

Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGV)

Small (Manpackable) UGV Armed Robotic Vehicle – Assault (Light) (ARV-A (L)) MULE-C MULE-T

12-19-06

Mounted Combat System (MCS) Infantry Carrier Vehicle (ICV) T-UGS U-UGS Medical Vehicle Non-Line of Sight Launch System (NLOS-LS) Multifunction Utility/ Logistics and Equipment Countermine and Transport Reconnaissance And Surveillance Vehicle (RSV) Command and Control Vehicle (C2V)

Future Combat Systems

4

7

POLICY SPECTRUM DOCTRINE GOVERNANCE ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING

STANDARDS

SINCGARS

SATCOM TELEPORT MSS RF NETS WIRELESS COMMS DISN

JTRS

COMMERCIAL FIBER

EPLRS SMART-T TROJAN SPIRIT LINK 16 WIN-T PoP CDL HMS SCAMP WIN-T TCDL WIN-T PoP DNS PUB/SUB LDAP WEB SERVICES JVMF

SW DIST FROM CENTRAL LOC WEB SERVICES SERVICES EMAIL DELIVERY NCES USMTF ASSURED COMPUTING

TRANSPORT

(Telecommunications)

FCS SOSCOE LINK 16 Standard Edition Real Time Edition Micro Edition

SERVICES

JC2 MCS AMDWS MEDICAL GCCS BCS3 IMETS GCCS-A AFATDS DTSS TAIS BUSINESS APPLICATIONS

NETWORK OPERATIONS

FBCB2 ASAS FCS BATTLE COMMAND

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

FO FORCENET ET

APPLICATIONS Sensors

GLOBAL INFORMATION GRID LANDWARNET

C2 C C2 CONSTELLATI STELLATION

FCS(BCT) Network and the GIG

12-19-06 JTRS GMR

• Foundation of the FCS (BCT) network
• Provides the governance for which the
• ther layers are shaped and formed
• Provides secure, reliable access
• Infrastructure embedded in the

mobile platforms and moves with the combat formations

• Unprecedented range, capacity

and dependability of communications

• Common Warfighter Interface Display to FCS
• Presents relevant and timely battlefield info
• Provides context-sensitive presentation mgmt
• Reduces training demands
• Common Warfighter Interface Display to FCS
• Presents relevant and timely battlefield info
• Provides context-sensitive presentation mgmt
• Reduces training demands
• Suite of ground/air, manned/unmanned platforms,

with a diverse set of sensors tailored to the warfighters needs

• Platform Integration
• Tactical Network Integration
• Strategic Network/GIG Integration
• Battle Command Integration
• Battle Command and Control, Intelligence,

Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR), Embedded Training, and Sustainment

• Battle Command and Control, Intelligence,

Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR), Embedded Training, and Sustainment

• Common toolset of infrastructure services,

(i.e. information assurance, interoperability, etc.)

• Multi-Tiered (Ground, Air, Space),

Dynamic, On the Move Communications Network

8

5

9

LVC-IA

10

SIMCI House Chart

Shared Solutions Processes For Alignment & Migration Common Data/Object Models Reusable Component Interfaces Alignment of Architectures Interoperability

• f Legacy and

Future Systems M&S C4I Common Standards & Tools

Figure 7. An Interoperable M&S and C4I Architecture

6

11

Technical Challenges

• Ensuring cost effective, interoperability of ABCS,

FCS, and M&S systems as they migrate will involve many technical challenges

• The key to identifying those challenges is use of

a framework like that developed in the house chart coupled with an effective process that not

• nly identifies the challenges but develops

coordinated and integrated solutions.

– Processes for Alignment & Migration – Alignment of Architectures – Common Data – Common Standards – Reusable Component Interfaces

12

Potential Solutions

• An organization’s people and equipment must

effectively interoperate.

– focused on location and date

• Each specific Unit is not standard and can

change over time.

• Any enterprise wide solution must take into

consideration the interoperability requirements caused by the deployment of system versions.

• Technical Solutions
• Programmatic Solutions

7

13

Technical Solutions

• Common Standard

– All C2 systems could quickly migrate to the same standard and to put in place a Configuration Management (CM) and fielding process to keep fielded systems aligned.

• Mitigation Server

– A set of mitigation servers could be implemented that would convert between all of the existing and planned standards.

• A Standard and Conversion Software

– A standard for interoperability could be selected and then each system could implement conversion software. A common CM and fielding process would also have to be implemented.

• A Standard and Mitigation Servers

– A standard for interoperability could be selected. A set of mitigation servers could be implemented that would convert between all of the existing and planned standards and the

• standard. A common CM and fielding process would also have

to be implemented.

14

Programmatic Solutions

• Alignment of Programs

– The C2 and M&S programs could be aligned to provide updates/changes to interoperability standards based interfaces at the same time.

• Assigning Oversight

– An organization (existing or newly formed) can be given the responsibility and authority to ensure interoperability across C2 and M&S

• systems. It would also have to be resourced.

8

15

Issues/Barriers

• Programmatic solutions are very hard to implement

– Current DoD acquisition processes are grounded in the management of single systems – Implementing cross program/system processes would conflict with the responsibility and authority of the existing program/project managers – Resources would have to be extracted from the existing programs in order to effectively implement a cross system/program process.

• Alignment of programs can only be partially implemented

due to the variables impacting the program schedules (e.g. funding, program slips, technology failures).

– Interoperability alignment can be set up for timeframe fieldings. However resources and authority have to be included.

• The largest issue with various technology alternatives is

the impact on existing systems/programs.

– Currently there is no process controlling or aligning technology migration/transition activities.