150 likes | 711 Views
Integrated Solutions. COTS. GOTS. 3rd Party. Developed. ROTS. COTS. Theater Battle Management Core Systems (TBMCS). Greg Hinchman - System Architect Lockheed Martin Mission Systems Colorado Springs, CO 2/7/01. TBMCS Operational Overview. Command and Control for Theater Air Operations
E N D
Integrated Solutions COTS GOTS 3rd Party Developed ROTS COTS Theater Battle Management Core Systems(TBMCS) Greg Hinchman - System Architect Lockheed Martin Mission Systems Colorado Springs, CO 2/7/01
TBMCS Operational Overview • Command and Control for Theater Air Operations • Air Battle Plan Production, Dissemination, and Execution • Air Tasking Order (ATO), Airspace Control Order (ACO) • Intelligence, Resources, Weather, (Re-)Planning, Execution Mgmt. • Peacetime and Wartime Operations • Joint Forces: AF, Navy, Army, Marines • Supports Coalition Operations (Releasable to Foreign Nations) • Multiple Deployment Configurations • AOC, Remotes, JFACC Afloat, Wing, ASOC, etc. • Approximately 40 Workstation Software Configurations • In-Garrison and Deployable Configurations • Scalable Operations: 20 to 500 Workstations • Theater Dynamics: Addition/Removal of Participation Sites 2/7/01
COTS and TBMCS • System Characteristics • 500 Load Modules, 45 Mission Apps, Solaris/HP-UX/Windows • Role of COTS in TBMCS • Infrastructure (e.g., OS, DBMS, Security, Portal) • Utility Functions (e.g., Email, Browser, System Monitoring) • Relatively Few Mission Applications • Role to Evolve with Move from Client/Server to Web Architecture • Challenges • User Expectations/Degree of Influence (e.g., Custom Solutions, Ease of Use) • Aligning System Rqmts to COTS (COTS Become the Rqmts?) • Multi-Platform Solutions are Needed (Second Class Platforms?) • Ease of Deployment • License Keys - Can Not Interfere With Mission 2/7/01
COTS and TBMCS • Challenges (continued) • COTS Selection Creates Immediate Commitment & Momentum • Product Line Capabilities Increasing Both Vertically & Horizontally • Product Line “Gravitational Effects” (Pros & Cons) • COTS to COTS Integration • Version Interdependencies (e.g., Oracle vs. Solaris vs. Sybase) • Data Integration (e.g., Logs, Data Reporting Mechanisms (Alerts)) • COTS Ahead of DoD Infrastructure • e.g., Theater Communication QoS is Lacking, Sysad Support • COTS Refresh Cycles vs. System Cycles & Product Support • TBMCS Releases Planned for < 18 Mos. vs. < 6 Mos. for COTS • COTS Supported for Shorter Duration than Fielded System Lifetime • “Version 1.0’s” COTS Maturity (Caveat Emptor) • Cost “Creep” with Product Evolution • Field Support of COTS: Direct Support Not Typically Available 2/7/01
Adaptations & Solutions for COTS • Process • Assignment of People to Products: Integration Engineers (Product Specialists, Establish Vendor Relationships) • Integration Process: Requirements, Trades, Preliminary Design, Product Receipt, Integration & Test • Planned Product Refresh/Replacements • License Purchasing & Management Team • Vendors as Strategic Partners • Technical • Select Products Based on “Openness”, Emphasis on Data Accessibility/Interoperability, Built Customization Capabilities • “Hands-Off” Approach to COTS • Integration-Ware (e.g., Consolidation of Information) • Installation & Configuration Uniformity - (e.g., Segmentation) • Pre-Configuration to Maximum Extent Possible • Supplemental Documentation (COTS in TBMCS Context) 2/7/01
Future of COTS in TBMCS • Systems are Increasingly Dependent on COTS • Many DoD “Architectures” are Yielding to Commercial Solutions • Becoming a COTS Exclusive Application Frameworks/Infrastructure • DBMS, Application Servers, J2EE, Portals • Commitment to Products will Be Longer-Term Investments • Developing Strategies for Multiple COTS Infrastructures • System Evolutionary Challenges • Eliminate UNIX on the Desktop • Maximize Use of Web Technologies • Web Accessibility, Zero Admin Client Platforms, XML/SOAP for Interoperability 2/7/01