3/17/2003fouo ipr #3 nato sea-strike 21, team 2 paid proposal - phase 0 tumir lead systems engineer...
TRANSCRIPT
3/17/2003 FOUO
IPR #3NATO Sea-Strike 21, Team 2
Paid Proposal - Phase 0
Tumir Lead Systems Engineer for
EquipmentPrecision Company, Inc.
3/17/2003 FOUO
Introduction & Overview Architecture Requirements Examine Four Architecture
Solutions Trade-Offs of Each Solution Interfaces Use Cases Hardware and Equipment
3/17/2003 FOUO
Architecture Requirements
A. Architecture components should fit in or compliment many alternative architectures (C4ISR, common imagery architecture, sensor processing, weapon systems)
B. Support multiple servicesC. Expand to address greater load or processing requirementsD. Support the common operating environment at the CAOCE. Capability to receive, process, exploit, store, and
disseminate imagery products an imagery derived intel reports based on multi-source imagery from national and tactical sensors
F. Capability to receive imagery in real/near real-time from virtually any source, national or tactical, and in virtually any format
3/17/2003 FOUO
Four Possible Architecture Solutions
I. Co-located operational functionality, concurrent operations, remote located information processing
II. Distributed operational functionality, centralized (within Cell) control, centralized execution, centralized information processing
III. Distributed operational functionality, Decentralized control (remote command area), centralized information processing
IV. Distributed operational functionality, centralized control, centralized information processing, Centralized execution
3/17/2003 FOUO
Cell Conceptual Spaces #1
Assess
Strike Ops
Task
Plan
Actors
Server
Area
ServersLocated in
Computer room
3/17/2003 FOUO
Cell Conceptual Spaces #2
Access Control
Operations Area Server
Area
Assess
Assess
Strike Ops Task
Plan
Plan/Task/Assess Area
Actors
CommandSOO Area
3/17/2003 FOUO
Cell Conceptual Spaces #3
Access Control
Operations Area Server
Area
Assess
Strike Ops Task Plan
Plan/Task/Assess Area
Actors
Remote
Command and
SOO Area
3/17/2003 FOUO
Cell Conceptual Spaces #4
SOO Area
& Access Control
Operations Area Server
Area
Assess
Assess
Strike Ops Task
Plan
Plan/Task/Assess Area
Actors
3/17/2003 FOUO
Trade Off Analysis (I):How each Architecture supports the operational
mission
Pros: Co-located – decision
makers can see entire operational view
A Lot of information at commander’s fingertips
Remote info processing
Cons: Co-located – noisy human
interface environment No filtering or assessing
prior to decision makers viewing
Too much information, shared resources
Remote info processing – can’t easily identify system failures, inaccurate data
Confusion with chain of command influencing operations out of functional area
Assess
Strike Ops
Task
Plan
Actors
Server
Area
ServersLocated in
Computer room
Assess
Strike Ops
Task
Plan
Actors
Server
Area
ServersLocated in
Computer room
3/17/2003 FOUO
Trade Off Analysis (II):How each Architecture supports the operational
mission
Pros: Distributed operational
functionality - Areas of expertise are distributed
Command and Ops coordinate decisions based upon info flow
Cons: Data is filtered by expertise Localized info processing –
easily identify system failures, inaccurate data, system resets
Access Control
Operations Area Server
Area
Assess
Assess
Strike Ops Task
Plan
Plan/ Task/ Assess Area
Actors
CommandSOO Area
Access Control
Operations Area Server
Area
Assess
Assess
Strike Ops Task
Plan
Plan/ Task/ Assess Area
Actors
CommandSOO Area
3/17/2003 FOUO
Trade Off Analysis (III):How each Architecture supports the operational
mission
Pros: Command can be co-located
with other CAOC commanders
Command cannot perform access control
Cons: Remote command can lose
control of the actors Loss of communications can
isolate command
Access Control
Operations Area Server
Area
Assess
Strike Ops Task Plan
Plan/ Task/ Assess Area
Actors
Remote
Command and
SOO Area
Access Control
Operations Area Server
Area
Assess
Strike Ops Task Plan
Plan/ Task/ Assess Area
Actors
Remote
Command and
SOO Area
3/17/2003 FOUO
Trade Off Analysis (IV):How each Architecture supports the operational
mission
Pros: Distributed operational
functionality - Areas of expertise are distributed
Operations is not biased by other actors in same room
Cons: Computer Servers must be
locally maintained Information must flow from
command to operations or plan/task/assess
SOO Area
& Access Control
Operations Area Server
Area
Assess
Assess
Strike Ops Task
Plan
Plan/ Task/ Assess Area
Actors
SOO Area
& Access Control
Operations Area Server
Area
Assess
Assess
Strike Ops Task
Plan
Plan/ Task/ Assess Area
Actors
3/17/2003 FOUO
Trade Off Analysis :How each Architecture supports the operational
missionArch I Arch II Arch III Arch IV
Control Centralized Centralized Decentralized CentralizedExecution Potentially Chaotic Remote server Remote command DistributedEnvironment Combined Combined Partially remote CombinedTiming of info exchange (human interface)
Immediate Coordinated Delayed Coordinated
Timing of info exchange (network interface)
Network dependent Direct, somewhat network dependent
Direct, Command info depends on reliable network transmission
Direct, somewhat network dependent
Real/near-real time receipt of imagery and targeting data
Immediate (assessed/not assessed)
Filtered and Assessed Filtered and Assessed, different view may be seen by command due to network delays
Filtered and Assessed
Rapid exploitation and dissemination of data
All info is present in room, may cause confusion from information overload, no filtering
Command may be biased by Strike Ops information
Remote command cannot have ready access to other actors
Distributed with all actors co-located within one door
Hardcopy and softcopy intel reports and products
Available to all, may bias non command actors
Can be distributed by command, Strike Ops may be biased by co-location
Can be distributed by command
Can be distributed by command
Communications delay No significant delays Remote server may cause problems
Remote command dependent on network
No significant delays
Decision maker presence co-located distributed Remote distributedNATO/Joint Interoperability Software/hardware
designed to interface to LINK-16 and CAOC requirements
Software/hardware designed to interface to LINK-16 and CAOC requirements
Software/hardware designed to interface to LINK-16 and CAOC requirements
Software/hardware designed to interface to LINK-16 and CAOC requirements
Initial cost $1.5M $1.5M $1.5M $1.5MGeographical/operational bounds
co-located, Servers remotely located
distributed distributed, Command remotely located
distributed
Technology constraints COTS, Windows 2000 COTS, Windows 2000 COTS, Windows 2000 COTS, Windows 2000
3/17/2003 FOUO
Required External Interfaces: Users Sensor network C2 nodes/cells Network and communications system at CAOC Interoperable with:
Microwave link to shore command CAOC Integrated Air Defense Commander (IADC) AOCC MASSTIC BICES RPC net / RAP US & Allied air and ground forces via TADIL-J and HF/UHF
communications
3/17/2003 FOUO
Interfaces Specs to be developed: Logical Data Model
Data requirements and business rules of operational views Operational Information Matrix
Info exchange between nodes and attributes (media, quality, quantity and level of interoperability)
Operational Node Connectivity Diagram Activities at each node and information flows
Integrated Dictionary Defines terms used throughout entire system
System Interface Description Identifies systems and system components and Interfaces within
and between nodes, components, and other systems Physical Data model
Physical implementation of logical data model (message formats, file structures, etc.)
3/17/2003 FOUO
Real-time Operations Area•Direct links to weapons
•Visible from command area
•Isolated from Planning area
•Separate Server (Redundant) from Planning / Tasking /Assessing area
3/17/2003 FOUO
Developing the Architecture Using: Standards and guidance (C4ISR Arch, JTA, DII COE, ISO
9000, DoD 5000) Joint Vision 2010, 2020, Defense planning guidance,
DoD directives Capability maturity models (SEI CMM, CMMI) Other International or NATO standards as applicable System Engineering tools (requirements mgt, word
processing, drawing tools, data models, dictionary, and elements)
Need a consistent LANGUAGE and architecture otherwise systems will be non-integratable and non-interoperable.
Need BALANCED Operations to ensure efficient and accurate information flows for completing the Operations Cycle.
3/17/2003 FOUO
Backup Details
3/17/2003 FOUO
Architecture Definition Object-oriented, client-server architecture
Hardware, software and people included User-Case examination determines players and functions
Abbreviated user-case definition period (2 weeks) due to time constraint
Object-oriented design for future upgrades and flexibility Ensure requirements are well understood prior to system
design/integration O-O architecture provides inheritance, encapsulation, minimizes
mistakes in developing requirements Allows for future upgrades with reasonable efforts Will work with software sub to implement the O-O methodology
3/17/2003 FOUO
User Case Actors & Roles
Squadron CDR
Platoon CDR
NSS-21 Planner Build Asset Database
Weapon (s)
Senior Ops Office
NSS-21 OPS Execute Strike
Asset / Threat Database
Senior Ops Officer
NSS-21 Tasker Build ATO
INTEL / Sensor
NSS-21 Assessor
BDA
Senior Ops Officer
3/17/2003 FOUO
Use Case Functional Flow
Execute Strike
Build Asset Database
Build ATO
BDABlue Team
Teal Team
Gold Team
Red Team
3/17/2003 FOUO
Hardware EquipmentTo achieve decreased unit costs, common logistics support, and
standardized training:
Uses same hardware for the suites and other ADP equipment already onboard the ship (Afloat planning system, tactical terminals, imagery terminals etc.)
Already certified for Shock and Vibration standards Uses COTS for all tactical computers and hardware Reduces need for spares and technical maintenance training Relieves need for additional formal qualification testing or first
article testing Consistent computer platform allows for CAOC systems
interoperability, interchangeability, etc. Leverage on established relationships with current Hardware
vendors
3/17/2003 FOUO
Hardware Equipment List Multipurpose workstations/servers (Windows2000 per software
specifications) Include audio/video display, input devices 12 Computers with 17” flat screens that can be integrated
into consoles 6 large screen displays although we can trim this based up
cost, so upto 6 consoles will have to be able to drive the large screen displays as well. That is 6 consoles will be of a dual computer single display and 6 will be single computer single display. The LSDs will be spec’d to a standard computer video output
COMSEC equip, only needed if SIPRNET is not available Network equip (hub, router, cabling, LAN drops, etc.) Furniture (desk, table, chair, etc) to build into consoles Uninterruptible Power Source (space based) Color Laser Printer/scanner Phones (secure/non-secure), plug into existing ship comms Infrastructure logistics (heating, cooling, power)