Capability-Based Technical Reference Frameworks for Open System Architecture Implementations ( Leathart , Porter, Schmid

1. Capability-Based Technical Reference Frameworks for Open System ArchitectureImplementations(Leathart, Porter, Schmidt, O’Hare, Crisp, Laird) Presented by John R. Leathart Chief Engineer PEO SUB-S Systems Integration Manager - Submarine Warfare Systems NAVSEA05UW April 3, 2014

2. Naval Enterprise OSA Strategy* OSA Vision: Affordable, Open Platforms that Easily Accommodate Open Modules *ASN RDA “Naval Open Systems Architecture Strategy” 26 November 2012 Business changes Technical Reference Frameworks Implementation Tools OSA Training

3. Technical Reference Framework Standardized specifications Architectures Data Models Protocols • Provides a reusablearchitecture for a family of related applications • An integrated set of components Tools

4. Technical Frameworks Enable Buying Choice Open Interfaces - SPIES CANES SWFTS 4

5. Do You Have a Closed System? • Is your system delivered through a single contract • If so, has it been that way for a while? • Is that prime contractor the only one who knows how your system is architected? • If you answered yes to these two questions, then you are at high risk of a having closed system

6. What to do if You Have a Closed System • 1st step is to analyze your architecture • Acquire system architecture documents and compare them to the following ten attributes • Federated Acquisition/Integrated Operation • Data Driven • Expandable (Adaptable, Scalable, Extensible) • Authoritative Governance • Published and Discoverable • Reduced Complexity (Modular Design, Minimized Coupling, Clear/Concise/Consistent) • Be Open (Use of Open Standards, Support Re-Use, Utilize Central Services) • Be Secure (Compliant, Certifiable, Reliable) • Reusability (Portable Components) • DefinedIntellectual Property and Data Rights

7. Capability Decomposition & the Method to the Madness Do you meet all 10 characteristics? • You are an Open System • Should be easy to compete in smaller components, lending towards right-sized competition • You are not Open and need an plan of action • Describe at a high level the capability you are delivering • Using the description, define the pieces of that capability that when combined make up that whole capability • Repeat the step on the pieces until it makes sense to stop • Each piece should be clearly defined, easy to understand, and the individual capabilities are of manageable size YES NO

8. Capability Decomposition & the Method to the Madness (cont.) • You are not Open and need an plan of action (Continued) • Map the existing system in to these pieces • If the mapping is difficult it is likely your systems architecture is lacking and that piece may need to be re-architected • Change should be accomplished in an evolutionary, not revolutionary, manner • Map out the evolutionary plan of change of the architecture • Requires defining interfaces between components • Use open principles for interfaces (published, using industry standards) • Provides a manageable risk profile • KEY TO SUCCESS • First step should be modest and not aggressive • Pick a piece outside of the programs critical path • Goal should be to prove the viability

9. PEO Submarines Combat Systems Success Story • BSY-2 Combat System for Seawolf Class submarines • Last submarine combat systems designed under GOTS procurement • Very Capable • Very Costly & Delivered late • After initial three Seawolf Class submarines were built the program was cancelled due to cost, with the combat systems significantly contributing to that cost • Virginia Class submarines and COTS based combat systems • Design of the Submarine Warfare Federated Tactical Systems (SWFTS) • Hardware capability defined by the 2yr Technical Insertion (TI) process • Software was based on a data driven design • Data model defined with 14 data groups utilizing an open standard middleware • Programatically broken up into separate PMOs each delivering a piece of the overall combat system (Sonar, Tactical Control, Weapons Control, Imaging, etc)

10. PEO Submarines Combat Systems Success Story (cont.) • Virginia Class submarines and COTS based combat systems (cont.) • Some significant keys to success of the APB process were • The process brings in all sized businesses proposing solutions to requested topics • Significant small business participation • Software lifecycle created to support a drumbeat of improved capability • Two year cycle known as the Advanced Processor Build (APB) • TI hardware design done on even years • APB software baselines are designed on odd years • Utilizes Open System Principles • Published and open interfaces • Use of open standards middleware • Baseline management (governance) on System of System Interfaces

11. PEO Submarines Combat Systems Success Story (cont.) • The solution was originally for Virginia Class submarines but were then extended to the other classes of fast attack submarines • Has been in place for longer than a decade • Significant cost reductions of the cost of acquisition and maintenance of the combat systems on the fast attack submarine fleet • Has dramatically reduced cost and has provided rapid new capability insertion to the substantial benefit of the fleet. • This is an example of how open systems principles work • Took a large monolithic combat system (BSY-2) and re-factored the capabilities using open system principles • Has been working for more than a decade and still works • The TI and APB processes have been lauded as a model for acquisition in warfare systems

12. Published Open Interfaces & Standards: Methodology Wireless/wired Networks • Description of Analysis Phase to determine if an architecture lends itself to being constituted by modular components Applications Applications Stove-piped versus layered & modular Sensor Systems C2 System Engagement System Weapons Control Weapons Systems Applications Applications Middleware Sensor Systems Engagement System Weapons Control Weapons Systems C2 System EO Kill Eval Sched Illum Operating System Operating System Network AAW EG TBM EG AAW MG TMB MG AAW AAW AAW AAW Wireless/wired Networks Wireless/wired Networks Endsystem Endsystem Technology base: Proprietary MW Mercury Link16/11/4 Technology base: DII-COE POSIX ATM/Ethernet Technology base: Proprietary MW POSIX NTDS Technology base: Proprietary MW VxWorks FDDI/LANS Technology base: Proprietary MW POSIX VME/1553 Domain-SpecificServices Domain-SpecificServices Operating System Operating System Common Services Common Services Endsystem Endsystem Distribution Middleware Distribution Middleware Infrastructure Middleware Infrastructure Middleware

13. Published Open Interfaces & Standards: Methodology Early OSA OSA with OSA with OSA with • Determine the granularity & capability scopeof the open interfaces & standards • Granularity is a measure of the “surface area” of the interface • Capability scope identifies the layer(s) of abstraction that are addressed with COTS Domain Reuse Product Lines SOA s s s s r r r r e e e e s s s s h h h h s s s s m m m m r r r r r r r r c c c c a a a a e e e e n n n n m m m m d d d d h h h h u u u u t t t t o o o o a a a a a a a a O O O O R R R R C C C C L L L L Ad HocArchitecture s r e s h s m r r c a e n m d h u t o a a O R C L

14. Published Open Interfaces & Standards: Methodology • Determine which of the identified components can be published as either • Open standards, which either exist already or which could be defined/ratified via a recognized standards organization, or • Published domain-specific interfaces (local standards), which are defined by agreements amongst government & contractors in one or more domains Early OSA OSA with OSA with OSA with with COTS Domain Reuse Product Lines SOA s s s s r r r r e e e e s s s s h h h h s s s s m m m m r r r r r r r r c c c c a a a a e e e e n n n n m m m m d d d d h h h h u u u u t t t t o o o o a a a a a a a a O O O O R R R R C C C C L L L L Open domain-specific interfaces Open standards

15. Published Open Interfaces & Standards: Methodology • Determine the appropriate governance models best suited for defining, adopting, & publishing the open interfaces & standards • Relevant examples include • International standards bodies • Vendor-centric “de facto standards” • Managed Government/Industry consortium

16. Common Data Models & Protocols for OSA Initiatives • Common data models & protocols help achieve interoperability between hardware and/or software applications & services • These common data models & protocols simplify data interchange & exchange between components from different suppliers or components implemented using different technologies.

17. Common data models define the terminology that a program uses for all of its data sources and the relationships that exist between different data items A common data model enables data interoperability between applications A Government owned data model can provide protection from a vendor lock on their interfaces Ensure interoperability between applications A Common Data Model Allow applications to loosely coupled Applications can upgrade at their own pace, because the data model provides for a common exchange What is a Common Data Model and Why is it Important?

18. Amazon and Facebook - Utilize a common data model to share key characteristics of their customers Commercial Industry Using Data Models Apple and Samsung - Use Data Models to Support the Quick Launch of New Smart Phone Products

19. Navy Implementation of a Data Model The Anti Submarine Warfare (ASW) Community of Interest Data Model (ACDM)is: • An information exchange model • A standard to support moving information between systems • Designed to provide unambiguous interpretation • Intended as a living model • Continually evolve to the changing needs of the ASW community • Grow in capability as the sophistication of ASW systems increases • Developed to be Flexible • Support interoperability between software platforms • Extensible/scalable for individual system / program needs • Broad in scope • Tracks and situational awareness • Sensor metrics and sensor data • Mission planning • Simulation and training • Reconstruction and analysis

20. TRF Governance Plan • Guides the TRF description in acquisition program documents such as – • Acquisition Plan • RFP • System Engineering Plan • Interoperability DODAF Views • Information Support Plan • System Specifications • Software Development Plan • Configuration Management Plan • Creates a coherent picture concerningadherence to OSD and Navy OSA policy.

21. Better Buying Power 2.0Promoting Effective Competition for the Life Cycle This item is continued from BBP 1.0 and will focus on improving the Department’s early planning for open architectures and the successful execution of the plan to provide for open architectures and modular systems. This will include the development of a business model and associated intellectual property strategy (data rights planning) that can be implemented over the lifecycle of the product, starting while competition still exists. Enforce open system architectures and effectively manage technical data rights: https://acc.dau.mil/bbp

22. Questions?