15 janvier 2019 | International, Naval

The future of the US surface fleet: One combat system to rule them all

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.”

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/01/14/the-future-of-the-us-surface-fleet-one-combat-system-to-rule-them-all/

Sur le même sujet

22 mai 2020 | International, Aérospatial

Indra leads the European project that will give control of radioelectric space to fighters and aircraft
Spain, May 20, 2020 - Indra will lead the European CROWN R&D project that will equip European fighters and aircraft with capabilities which combine radar, communications and electronic defence to dominate radioelectric space and operate at an advantage over the enemy. The company will coordinate the work of a consortium formed by Thales, Office National D'Etudes et de Recherches Aerospatiales (ONERA), Hensoldt, Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft, SAAB, Totalforsvarets Forskningsinstitut (FOI), Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), Leonardo, Elettronica, and Baltijos Pazangiu Technologiju Institutas (BPTI). The project has been selected to form part of the Preparatory Action for Defence Research of the European Commission managed by the European Defence Agency and the grant agreement is now being prepared. This group of companies and research centers from seven countries will design the first element capable of integrating radar, electronic defence and communications equipment into a single compact and lightweight item of equipment that can be installed in the aircraft nose cone, camouflaged in the fuselage, or in an under-wing pod, on multiple platforms (even in UAVs). It will be a system based on active electronically scanned array (AESA) and sophisticated algorithms that will enable multi-purpose use for different capacities and in an optimized way. No other country as yet possesses this capability so it will bring a major advantage to whoever acquires it first. This integration will enable the aircraft's radar to intelligently select the least congested area of the spectrum to operate effectively and extend its range, even in environments where the adversary tries to interfere with its operation. At the same time, coordination of the radar with the systems that monitor the radio spectrum and those that generate countermeasures (ES/EA) will significantly improve the performance of these systems and of aircraft weapons systems in general. As for communications, they will gain range and bandwidth to exchange a greater volume of data with other platforms at higher speeds. The ultimate goal is to equip the aircraft of the future with a compact solution, smaller in size, with a lower weight and cost, and more power to provide a decisive advantage. On this will depend the ability to detect the enemy, select and fix targets and exchange data with other platforms on land, sea or air to prevail in combat or protect themselves from attack. Electronic defence has been placed at the center of military strategy in recent years as some countries resort to controlling radioelectric space as a way to counter the superiority of European and allied aircraft. The CROWN project could subsequently address the adaptation of this system for use by ground units and all types of land vehicles and ships. Leadership of the European defence sector The Spanish Government has appointed Indra as the national industrial coordinator in the European Defence Program FCAS (Future Combat Air System), the largest joint European Defence program to date and the most ambitious in terms of technological development. Indra will carry out this work together with the industrial leaders appointed in turn by France and Germany, Dassault and Airbus, respectively. The company also participates in the proposals for 9 EDIDP consortiums (European Defence Industrial Development Program) that are being evaluated and acts as coordinator in 3 out of 5 consortiums led by Spain, among others, the PESCO program for Strategic Command and Control, probably the most important of them all, in which Spain, Italy, Germany, France, Luxembourg and Portugal participate. Besides this, Indra has been participating for decades in international programs such as the Eurofighter, A400M, NH90, Meteor and ESSOR, as well as non-European projects and in the NATO environment such as ESSM, FLEPS, ACCS and many others. About Indra Indra (www.indracompany.com) is one of the leading global technology and consulting companies and the technological partner for core business operations of its customers world-wide. It is a world-leader in providing proprietary solutions in specific segments in Transport and Defence markets, and the leading firm in Digital Transformation Consultancy and Information Technologies in Spain and Latin America, through its affiliate Minsait. Its business model is based on a comprehensive range of proprietary products, with an end-to-end focus and a high innovation component. In the 2019 financial year, Indra achieved revenue of €3.204 billion, with more than 49,000 employees, a local presence in 46 countries and business operations in over 140 countries. View source version on Indra: https://www.indracompany.com/en/noticia/indra-leads-european-project-will-give-control-radioelectric-space-fighters-aircraft
3 avril 2024 | International, Terrestre

Anduril to supply robotic combat vehicle software to US Army
RCVs are unmanned systems envisioned to work alongside soldiers, schlepping supplies or surveilling adversaries with sophisticated sensors.
16 avril 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval

EXCLUSIVE DoD Seeks $2.9B For Hypersonics In 2021
While Army and Navy spending nearly double, Air Force and independent agency spending drops almost 40 percent. By THERESA HITCHENS and SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.on April 14, 2020 at 4:07 PM Breaking Defense graphic from DoD data WASHINGTON: The Pentagon is asking Congress for $2.865 billion for hypersonic weapons in 2021, up not quite 14 percent from a 2020 total of $2.508 billion, according to DoD budget documents obtained by Breaking Defense. Army and Navy hypersonics spending would nearly double in 2021. Each increases by 95 percent. But that's offset by a 40 percent reduction in spending by independent defense agencies like DARPA, which are handing off much of the work to the services as programs move from basic research to prototyping, and a 35 percent cut in the Air Force, which cancelled one of its two major hypersonics programs. Hypersonic weapons fall into two main categories. The more conservative approach — relatively speaking, since these are all bleeding-edge weapons — is known as boost-glide, because it uses a conventional rocket booster to accelerate the weapon to hypersonic speed, after which the glide body containing the warhead detaches from the booster and coasts, skipping along the upper limits of the atmosphere like a stone across a pond. The Navy and Army programs are both boost-glide weapons, and the two services are using a common booster rocket, built by the Navy, and a Common Glide Body, built by the Army and lead contractor Dynetics. The Navy also plans to customize the weapon to launch from submarines, while the Army version will fire from trucks, a much simpler engineering challenge. Notional flight paths of hypersonic boost-glide missiles, ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles. (CSBA graphic) The Air Force had two boost-glide programs. HCSW (pronounced hacksaw), the Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon, which would have used a modified version of Army-built Common Glide Body. But the Air Force decided to cancel HCSW and focus its efforts on the more compact ARRW (arrow), the Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon. (Both HCSW and ARRW are Lockheed Martin programs). Finally, DARPA is working on an alternative to boost-glide: air-breathing hypersonic cruise missiles that spend their entire flight in the atmosphere, with their engines providing continuous thrust. That allows the engine to take in oxygen from the air as it flies, rather carrying bulky oxygen tanks — as a boost-glide weapon's rocket boosters do. But flying through the atmosphere also creates friction, heating up an air-breathing hypersonic weapon in ways a boost-glide design, which spends most of its time in a near-vacuum, doesn't have to worry about. Since the air-breathing technology is more ambitious, it remains a DARPA effort for now, with two contracts: Northrup Grumman and Raytheon are working on the Hypersonic Air-Breathing Weapons Concept (HAWC) and Lockheed Martin on the Hypersonic Strike Weapon air-breathing (HSW-ab). While these programs will probably transition to the Air Force in the near future, they don't yet have their own budget lines in the documents we obtained; they're almost certainly folded into the figure for independent defense agencies. Breaking Defense graphic from DoD data The documents summed up a portfolio of programs the Pentagon now refers to as “missile defense and defeat,” a euphemism which combines offensive and defensive programs. As Breaking D readers know, DoD has taken to lumping long-range strike efforts known as left-of-launch into its budget reporting on missile defense, with a total of $3.26 billion included for such activities in the 2021 request. Spending on hypersonic weapons is listed as a subcategory of “nontraditional” missile defense funding, defined as: funding for missile defeat efforts outside of the above missile defense efforts. This captures ‘left-of launch' efforts that defeat missiles before they take flight via high-speed strike (e.g. Conventional Prompt Strike) or cyber-attack operations. We combed through the document to extract the offensive hypersonics programs from traditional missile defense, directed energy (lasers), cyber warfare, and other means of neutralizing enemy missile salvos. The document broke down 2020 funding and 2021 requests for Army, Navy, Air Force and defense-wide, both for foundational science, technology, test and evaluation (STTE) as well as for each individual service's programs to develop hypersonic missiles. Meanwhile, the Missile Defense Agency and the Space Development Agency are working on a space-based sensor to detect adversary hypersonic and cruise missiles, under the Hypersonic & Ballistic Tracking Space Sensor (HBTSS) Prototyping program. The Navy is the big spender in 2021, with the bulk of the funds slated for the Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS), a submarine-launched boost-glide weapon set to enter service in 2025. Its total hypersonic budget in 2020 is set at $526 million, but jumping to just over $1 billion in the 2021 request. (DoD agencies spent $31 million in 2020 wrapping up their portion of CPS, but the whole program will be in the Navy budget as of 2021). The Air Force's 2020 budget includes $848 million, the budget documents show, but that drops in the 2021 request to $554 million due to the cancellation of HCSW. The Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW) is funded at $286 million in 2020 and the service is asking for $382 million in 2021. As for the Army, the documents put 2020 spending at $441 million, and the 2021 request is for $859 million. That increase is driven by a big jump in the budget for the land-based version of the common Army-Navy boost-glide weapon, the Long Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW), from $409 million in 2020 to $801 million in 2021. (This LRHW line item also includes some work on the cancelled Mobile Intermediate Range Missile. DoD never said publicly what MIRM would be, or even whether it would be a hypersonic missile or a conventional ballistic missile, and it appears to have been stillborn). The documents also show the Army spending $19 million on the Operational Fires ground-launched hypersonic missile program in 2020, and asking for another $28 million in 2021. OpFires is a joint program with DARPA. Lockheed Martin scored a $31.9 million contract from DARPA in January to begin Phase 3 Weapon System Integration under the program. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/04/exclusive-dod-asks-2-9b-for-hypersonics-in-2021

Toutes les nouvelles

The future of the US surface fleet: One combat system to rule them all

Sur le même sujet

Anduril to supply robotic combat vehicle software to US Army RCVs are unmanned systems envisioned to work alongside soldiers, schlepping supplies or surveilling adversaries with sophisticated sensors.

Anduril to supply robotic combat vehicle software to US Army
RCVs are unmanned systems envisioned to work alongside soldiers, schlepping supplies or surveilling adversaries with sophisticated sensors.