January 15, 2019 | International, Naval
By: David B. Larter
WASHINGTON — As the U.S. Navy's surface fleet moves into 2019, a radical shift is coalescing among its leaders: a move away from a model that has driven the way the service has built its ships for decades.
When the Navy built its Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, installing the Aegis combat system into the hull meant a large suite of hardware — computers, servers, consoles and displays — designed and set up specifically to run Aegis software. Any significant upgrades to the suite of systems already installed, or to the Aegis system in general, required cutting a hole in the ship and swapping out all the computers and consoles — a massively expensive undertaking.
And what's more, Aegis isn't the only combat system in the fleet. Raytheon's Ship Self-Defense System runs on many of the amphibious ships and the Ford-class carriers. Both classes of littoral combat ship run different combat systems, one designed by Lockheed Martin and the other by General Dynamics. And in regard to the ships themselves, there are multiple, siloed systems that don't feed into the main combat system.
If Navy leaders get their way, that's going to change.
What the surface fleet wants is a single combat system that runs on every ship, and runs everything on the ship, and that doesn't mind what hardware you are running so long as you have the computing power for it.
The goal here is that if a sailor who is trained on a big-deck amphibious ship transfers to a destroyer, no extra training will be necessary to run the equipment on the destroyer.
“That's an imperative going forward — we have to get to one, integrated combat system,” Rear Adm. Ron Boxall, the chief of naval operations' director of surface warfare, said in a December interview at the Pentagon with Defense News.
Boxall describes the current situation to an integrated combat system as the difference between a flip phone and an iPhone. When buying a flip phone, most of the hardware and software are already included, leaving you with a limited ability to upgrade the phone. And if you want to run more advanced applications, you need a new phone. Instead, Boxall wants the combat systems to run like the iPhone.
“For us to get faster, we either have to keep going with the model we had where we upgrade our flip phones, or we cross over the mentality to where it says: 'I don't care what model of iPhone you have — 7 or X or whatever you have — it will still run Waze or whatever [applications] you are trying to run,” he said.
On a ship, that means that if the Navy adds a new radar, missile or laser, the software that runs the new equipment is developed as an application that interfaces with the single integrated combat system, the way Waze integrates with the iPhone or Android software.
This has the benefit of having everything linked into the central nervous system for operators in the combat information center, sonar control, on the bridge or in the ship's intelligence-gathering center. It also means that new systems are quickly integrated, skipping the expensive process of ripping out old servers and consoles.
And it means the companies that develop the myriad combat systems in service today — say, Raytheon or Lockheed Martin — won't have a lock on developing software for Navy ships because the Navy wants the combat system to be developed with interfaces that are accessible by outside application developers.
“We need to continue down the path to be more aggressive and get a lot more competition in the open-architecture space,” Boxall said.
“I wouldn't call it completely open, but as open as we can be, and then share that with people who can, if they are properly classified and secured, they should be able to come into a common space and apply their expertise to develop products that we may or may not want to buy. That's where I'd like to get to.”
The vision
The grand vision for this operating system from the deck-plates perspective would be the merging what are, today, disparate functions into one unified system, said Bryan McGrath, a retired destroyer skipper and consultant who heads The FerryBridge Group.
One of the areas in which this segmentation creates limitations falls between the combat information center — which collects and displays information gathered by ships' sensors — and the intelligence hub known as the Ship's Signals Exploitation Space — which uses top-secret sources to collect data on the theater in which the ship is operating.
“We need to break down the barrier between CIC and SSES, and the barrier is both a physical bulkhead and computing systems and platforms,” McGrath said. “That's what an integrated combat system is: You have the traditional combat system function, and the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance functions — non-real-time and [top-secret information] functions — merged into one multilevel security-protected computing platform.”
In that scenario, if SSES receives information that three Iranian F-14 jets took off from Bushehr Air Base, a watchstander in the combat information center with the proper security clearance could see what information SSES has on the aircraft and their mission while stripping out top-secret information such as sources and methods that SSES needs to protect.
And once CIC has a radar track associated with that intelligence, all SSES data will get merged into it so decision-makers in combat have the necessary intel at their fingertips. But the logic applies to all the ship's sensors, not just intelligence collection data. The unified combat system would associate every piece of sensor data with the track being displayed in CIC, McGrath said. Everyone connects to a single system that gives every watchstander all the information they need on every track, both real-time and non-real-time data.
“The integrated combat system includes all mission areas,” he said. “It's electronic warfare, it's anti-submarine warfare — we don't segment out air and missile defense and electronic warfare, they are all just applications within the combat system. The Navy has to stop thinking of SESS, sonar, combat, electronic warfare and the bridge as different and separate elements. They have to be part of the whole.”
Staggering costs
There's a number of obstacles to getting the surface fleet on a unified system, but one that could be insurmountable: the staggering cost of replacing the fleet's outdated computer hardware.
The Common Source Library, developed for the Navy by Lockheed, begins moving the Navy down this path of a single, unified combat system. The CSL is essentially the iOS of an iPhone: The Navy can use CSL to program applications that run sensors and weapons systems.
So, if the Navy has a new missile system it wants to run, the software application to run it will be designed to run off of the CSL — and ships with the CSL will be able to rapidly integrate it, just like downloading the latest navigation or gaming software for a smartphone.
But the issue is that CSL requires specific hardware to function, said Tony DeSimone, chief engineer of Lockheed Martin integrated warfare systems and sensors, in a roundtable with reporters late last year.
“One of the challenges the Navy has, the constraints, is the hardware and infrastructure to support a [common integrated combat system],” DiSimone said.
“So while we are marching forward with the capability to be open and take in apps, there is an antiquated architecture out there and there is hardware that doesn't support it. ... You can't run [integrated operating] systems today on UYK-43s. You're just not going to be able to do it. So let's gut them and put some blade servers in, and we'll work with you.” The UYK-43 was once the Navy's standard 32-bit computer for surface and submarine platforms.
The issue with replacing a fleet full of ancient computers that run old combat systems is the astronomical cost. For example, when the Navy converted the cruiser Normandy into an Aegis Baseline 9 ship, which includes updated displays and blade servers, it cost the service about $188 million and nearly a year offline.
When you stretch that over dozens of surface combatants in need of updated computers, you start eating up billions of dollars and lose decades of operational availability. So while CSL does give the Navy an interface with which developers can create applications to run various systems, it's all for naught if the service doesn't have the right equipment.
“Our Common Source Library has made us radar-agnostic,” said Jim Sheridan, vice president of Lockheed Martin's naval combat and missile defense systems. “We're also weapons-agnostic. The blocker is that we are not infrastructure-agnostic.”
Furthermore, even if the Navy did back-fit all the surface ships with updated servers, you'd need to get various companies to play nice in the sandbox by sharing proprietary information for the benefit of a unified combat system.
Ultimately, however, the Navy must affect a paradigm shift that decouples the computer suites that run its combat systems from the system itself, Boxall said.
“You can either upgrade the existing ships on that model, which is expensive and you rip the ship apart to do it — cost hundreds of millions of dollars and a year offline — or you design the ship with the idea that you are going upgrade the hardware over its time, and you separate the hardware/software layers,” Boxall said.
“We know Aegis,” he added. “What we don't know [is how to] upgrade Aegis at the pace I think we need moving forward in the future. We don't have a structure in place and a process by which we do that upgrades with speed.
“When we buy Aegis, it's kind of flip-phone technology: You buy the software and the hardware together. And you can upgrade it, it's just hard to do. If we don't go to a more adaptable model, we are not going to be able to pace the threat.”
May 13, 2022 | International, Aerospace
President Joe Biden's proposed budget for fiscal 2023 would eliminate funding for the Air Dominance Center at the Savannah Air National Guard Base.
May 13, 2020 | International, Aerospace
Graham Warwick For a defense program with relatively little funding behind it, Agility Prime comes freighted with expectations. The U.S. Air Force program to help build a domestic electric vertical-takeoff-and-landing (eVTOL) industrial base is a lifeline for a nascent market as private capital dries up because of COVID-19. For the Air Force, if successful, Agility Prime could be a model of how to bring defense procurement together with commercial markets to compete with China's national drive for technology supremacy. U.S. Air Force's Agility Prime aims to boost investor confidence in eVTOL market Prototype agreements will produce vehicle test reports “For me, it's a template for how to take the military market—our entire value proposition, not just our funding—and bring it to bear on an emerging commercial market in a way that accelerates it for all of us, and not just for the military,” says Air Force acquisition chief Will Roper. Agility Prime aims to tap into existing commercial investment in eVTOL development and, through in-kind support in the form of access to test resources and technical expertise, help U.S. manufacturers along the way to FAA certification. At the same time, the program will seek out opportunities within the Air Force and other government agencies for early purchases of eVTOLs to help ramp up production. The program has been conceived to avoid what happened in the small drone market, where the Pentagon failed to engage the emerging U.S. industry and the supply chain migrated overseas. Drones made in China by market leader DJI are now regarded as a security risk in the U.S. “Because we were not proactive, the market went in a way that was not to the benefit of our national security or industry,” says Roper. The value Agility Prime brings to the nascent eVTOL market is more than just funding, he says. It includes access to resources to help manufacturers move quickly through military certification so that the Air Force and other agencies can begin buying vehicles for missions including logistics, base defense and disaster relief, “removing the risk that the market will move overseas,” he says. “This looks like a model that could counteract the benefits a country like China gets with a nationalized industry base where you're able to pick winners and losers,” says Roper. “What I like about this is it brings together our national assets—our vibrant commercial ecosystem, private capital, government—but it maintains those markets that have been so amazing at keeping innovation fresh and vibrant.” Joby has used military airspace to test-fly its eVTOL under a Defense Innovation Unit contract won in 2017. Credit: Joby Aviation “The Air Force's Agility Prime initiative comes at a critical time when many innovative eVTOL developers are beginning to fly demonstrators but need support to move forward,” says Mike Hirschberg, executive director of the Vertical Flight Society. As private investment in startups and corporate spending in R&D have been hit by the novel coronavirus crisis, Agility Prime “is an endorsement of the potential of eVTOL technology that should also bolster investor confidence,” he says. The Air Force has established three “areas of interest” (AOI) under the Agility Prime “innovative capabilities opening” released in late February. The first AOI is for eVTOL air taxis carrying three to eight people, the second for one- or two-person vehicles and the third for unmanned cargo aircraft able to carry payloads of more than 500 lb. Each AOI has three phases: submission of a proposal or “solution brief,” a site visit to determine funding and testing needs and, if successful, an invitation to submit a prototype proposal. To qualify, bidders must be able to fly a full-scale prototype by Dec. 17. The program plans to award no-cost “other transaction authority for prototype” contracts to produce test reports on the vehicles. In return for providing access to Defense Department test resources and certification expertise, the Air Force, Marine Corps and other government agencies will get to assess the performance and capabilities of commercial eVTOLs with an eye to procuring aircraft off the shelf for military and public-use missions that have yet to be identified. The Air Force plans to field a small quantity of eVTOLs by 2023, says Lynda Rutledge, Air Force mobility and training aircraft program executive officer. The Air Force is particularly interested in the promise of eVTOL to provide lower acquisition and support costs, reduced acoustic and infrared signatures, and simplified flight control requiring less pilot training, says Agility Prime team lead Col. Nathan Diller. The missions being studied include transporting ballistic-missile operators to remote launch control centers, perimeter security at large bases, “lateral logistics” by moving packages and personnel between squads, disaster support to civilian agencies and distributed personnel recovery by locating rescue assets closer to combat. The $25 million provided by Congress for Agility Prime in fiscal 2020 is small compared with the cost of certifying an eVTOL. “When you look across our [vehicle] partners, just to develop an experimental aircraft is $100-150 million. To certify that aircraft is $750 million-1 billion,” Mark Moore, Uber Elevate director of strategy, told the Agility Prime virtual kickoff event on April 28. But the Air Force hopes that putting these vehicles through its trusted airworthiness program, and the data collected operating them, will accelerate FAA certification while early procurements will help scale up the supply chain. The Air Force goal is to operate 30 vehicles by 2030, says Roper, and the Marine Corps and Special Operations Command are also involved. By fielding eVTOLs “in some substantive way” by 2023, when Uber plans to begin limited commercial service in its pilot cities, the Air Force aims to “stress-test this new capability in a way that brings acceptance by the public, as well as delivers better capability for the Defense Department, [and] ultimately for the commercial market,” says Col. Scott McKeever, global mobility lead for the Air Force Warfighter Integration Capability office. A key consideration for Agility Prime is how private investors react to the Air Force working with eVTOL startups. Investors previously devalued companies if they were engaged with the Defense Department, Roper says. But since the Air Force revamped how it interacts with technology startups, the ratio of private to government investment has risen to 3:1 from 0.75:1, bringing more than $1 billion in private money into its programs, he says. “They now raise the value of a company if it is engaged with the Air Force,” he adds. By providing a boost to emerging eVTOL manufacturers at a time when access to private capital is limited, the Air Force hopes Agility Prime will help avoid a repeat of “the cautionary tale” of the drone industry. The virtual kickoff event, which ran from April 27-May 1, “really came out strong about the need for the U.S. to invest in American eVTOL developers and discouraged U.S. companies from accepting ‘adversarial capital' from countries like China,” says Hirschberg. “There are so many challenges with developing commercially compelling eVTOL systems; Agility Prime helps build momentum to overcome them,” says Hirschberg. “If we get Agility Prime right, I hope that it becomes the standard for how the Pentagon engages in all areas of commercial tech,” Roper says. Register for our latest free webinar on Friday May 15 where Agility Prime Team Leader Col. Nate Diller and Vertical Flight Society Executive Director Mike Hirschberg join Aviation Week editors to discuss this glimmer of hopeful news in hard times.
January 18, 2024 | International, Security
From 17 to 18 January 2024, the NATO Military Committee in Chiefs of Defence Session took place at NATO Headquarters in Brussels. The 31 Allied Chiefs of Defence and Invitee Sweden focused on the executability the Alliance’s new defence plans, NATO’s warfighting transformation, NATO’s continued support to Ukraine and military cooperation with NATO Partners Austria, Australia, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the Republic of Korea. During the two-day meeting, the Chiefs of Defence met for the first time in a NATO-Ukraine Council format.