Presented to:
The FACE™Consortium
The Path to Open
Mission Systems
Architectures
Distribution Statement A: Approved for public release, distribution unlimited .
Presented by:
William D. Lewis, PhD
Date: 4 February 2016
Director of Aviation Development
U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Research,
Development, and Engineering Center
Mission Systems Architecture
Challenges for Future Vertical Lift (FVL)
• Increasing software (s/w) development costs:
−
−
−
−
Commercial aircraft s/w development cost ≥ $10B
>70% of new aircraft development cost is s/w
>70% of s/w development cost in rework and certification
S/W complexity increasing logarithmically
• Obsolescence driven by:
− Rapid advancements in computing technology and
functional capability
− Proliferation of sophisticated threat systems
− Product deletions in the supply chain
• Increasing certification challenges:
−
−
−
−
•
•
•
•
2
Multi-core processors
Multi-level Security
Integrated Modular Avionics
Increasing complexity of Cyber Physical Systems
Inefficient integration and fielding of new capabilities
Emphasis on commonality across the fleet
Re-use and portability of s/w between on-board and off-board systems
Adequacy/maturity of architecturally centric model based system engineering
tools and processes to address challenges
Joint Multi-Role (JMR) Mission
Systems Architecture Demo (MSAD)
JMR MSAD Approach to OSA
• JMR MSAD Purpose:
Ensure that a potential FVL Family of Systems
(FoS) Program of Record (PoR) has the
processes, tools and standards necessary to
specify, design, analyze, implement, acquire,
qualify, certify and sustain a mission systems
architecture that meets the performance
requirements and business goals of the DoD.
• Approach:
– Leverage existing standards where possible
– Execute a series of increasingly complex demos
– Examine and assess maturity, applicability, and
effectiveness of emerging SW engineering and
development techniques
– Learn by doing
• Focus Areas:
– Implementation of Open System Architectures (OSA)
• Joint Common Architecture (JCA)
• FACE™ Technical Standard
– Application of Model Based Engineering (MBE)
• Model-based specification/acquisition
– Execution of an Architecture Centric Virtual
Integration Process (ACVIP)
• Predictive performance assessment
3
JMR MSAD Schedule
Task
FY
12
13
Mission Systems Trades
Joint Common
Architecture (JCA) Dev
MEP Definition
Safety / Security Study
JCA Demo / ACVIP
Shadow
Architecture
Implementation Process
Demos (AIPD)
Capstone Demo
Demonstrations
14
15
16
17
18
19
The Vision of Future Architecture(s)
Yesterday
Tomorrow
Transition
DVE-M
SUMIT
MIS/ROSAS
FASTR
• Closed Hardware Architectures
• Closed Software Architectures
• Vendor prescribed modularity
• Tightly Coupled Hardware/Software
• Many Unique Integrations
• Hardware Reuse (LRU Level)
• Accidental Software Reuse
• Document oriented procurement
• Isolated analysis
• Test–fix-test mentality
4
UCS
UH-60V
MH-60R/S
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Gov’t Prescribed Modularity
Open Hardware Architectures
Open Software Architectures
Software portability & interchangeability
Shared Integrations
Strategic Reuse (HW, SW, artifacts)
Model-based procurement & qualification
Architecture Centric Virtual Integration
Process
Complementary Open Systems
Initiatives
•
Solutions to mission systems architectural and qualification challenges are being informed
through numerous open systems initiatives such as:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
•
•
Future Airborne Capability Environment (FACE™)
Army Common Operating Environment (COE)
Joint Multi-Role Tech Demonstrator (JMR TD) Mission Systems Architecture Demonstrations (MSAD)
Modular Integrated Survivability (MIS)/ Route Optimization for Survivability Against Sensors (ROSAS)
Alignment of Multinational Open Systems Architectures (AMOSA)
Vehicular Integration for C4ISR/EW Interoperability (VICTORY)
Synergistic Unmanned Manned Intelligent Teaming (SUMIT)
Functional Architecture for Strategic Reuse (FASTR)
Degraded Visual Environment – Mitigation (DVE-M)
Hardware Open Systems Technologies (HOST)
Sensor Open Systems Architecture (SOSA)
Universal Control Segment (UCS)
Open Mission Systems (OMS)
Crew Mission Station (CMS)
Airworthiness IMPACT
UH-60V
...
AMRDEC, as a founding member of FACE™, has transitioned its focus from development of
the FACE technical standard to application and maturation of the FACE™ products
US Army Program Executive Officer (PEO) for Aviation has adopted a strategy of incremental
migration to the FACE™ technical standard as its response to US Army directives concerning
the transition to the Common Operating Environment (COE).
–
US Army senior leader support and policy direction (COE/FACE™)
Blue text: AMRDEC significant involvement
5
Synergy through
use of a Reference Architecture (RA)
Mission Systems Reference Architecture
•
Reference Architecture (RA):
– typically emerges when critical mass is reached:



–
–
represents mission, vision, and strategy
is based on proven concepts (architectural
patterns)

–
–
–
–
Increasing complexity
Increasing dynamics and integration
Multi-effect (multiple vendors, multiple domains,
multiple locations, etc.)
Complementary Open System Initiatives
provides technical, business and user context
is not a system architecture, design or solution
provides foundational concepts, components and
their relationships for solution architectures
supports comparison and alignment of solution
architectures
RA captures the essence of legacy
architecture, the vision of the future,
and necessary evolution to assist in
solution architecture development
6
An RA Guides and constrains architecture implementations by providing:
– a common lexicon and taxonomy
– a common (architectural) vision
– modularization and the complementary context
Notional alignment of OS initiatives provides basis for a RA
Qualification
•
•
Traditional approaches to safety and security qualification are not effective in application to
cyber-physical systems due to increased levels of integration and complexity
Improved model-based approaches are needed to analyze and qualify systems effectively,
efficiently and accurately
–
–
–
•
Challenges that impact FVL, and upgrades to legacy systems:
–
–
–
–
–
–
•
Architecture Centric Virtual Integration Process (ACVIP)
System Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA)
Formal Methods (FM)
Qualification of multicore processors
Maturation of MBE tools and methods and adaptation to qualification
Improvement of safety and security assessment processes for complex systems
Development/maturation of analysis tools and processes for deterministic systems
Improvements in the human-machine qualification assessment
Adaptation and tailoring of current airworthiness and acquisition processes to support the vision of future
acquisition and assessment of complex systems
Qualification (safety, security, airworthiness) must be considered at system inception, and kept
up-to-date, accurate, understandable and accessible
–
Component interactions affect the emergent properties of system safety, security and airworthiness
Current methods for assessing and qualifying complex cyber-physical
systems must adapt, and be implemented early in the lifecycle!
7
Conclusion
•
•
•
•
•
Logarithmic growth in complexity requires a paradigm shift in how we acquire and
qualify cyber-physical systems
• Defects must be identified earlier in the development process to realize an
improvement in affordability
• Strategic reuse is necessary to fully realize the benefits of an open systems approach
Safety, security and airworthiness are major design drivers, and must be considered
from the beginning
A strategy incorporating open systems, appropriate data rights, model-based
engineering, and virtual integration and analysis is crucial
AMRDEC is fully invested in this strategy
Affordability and Resilience require proper implementation of:
– OSA to break vendor lock and increase competition
– MBE to increase transparency and communication
– ACVIP to reduce errors and identify defects and issues early in the lifecycle
The future is not fully defined, but the path ahead is clear.
Get on board, or get left behind!
8