Page 32 - Australian Defence Magazine Nov 2018

C4I
ARCHITECTURE
“The transition to such a
future force design has profound implications for Defence communities.”
Air Dominance program could follow a similar model.
If battle management is to be per- formed by a network of platforms, then there will need to be a communication and information network that will integrate multiple platforms and sys- tems that were not originally designed to communicate with one another. These nodes on the network will need the process- ing power to correlate, fuse and even store the streams of data.
In public discussions in Australia about a 5th Gen ADF, future force characteris- tics /attributes that have been postulated include:
• A design tailored for 5th Gen Battle
Management role with functionality to
maximise effect of 5th Gen capabilities.
• Centralised Command with Distributed Control using Distributed Control /
Communications Nodes.
• Redundancy and resiliency by design
through duplication of select functional-
ity across the Nodes.
• Open and standards based architectures
to support rapid upgrade / adaptation.
• Fusion where appropriate / possible.
• Integrated cyber protection.
To make the most of the capabilities the ADF has
now and into the future, the thinking underpinning the C4I systems needs to change too.
• Sensors integrated as a part of a broader “sensor mesh”
• An ability to operate in both legacy and future Concepts of Operations (CONOPS.)
The transition to such a future force de-
sign has profound implications for Defence communities. For example, AW&ST re- ported that Will Roper, Assistant Secre- tary of the (US) Air Force for Acquisition, is considering creating a new function of a “systems architect”. The systems architect will approach the program with a system- of-systems mindset, shifting requirement sets between different platforms within the overall system as necessary.
Such a function is not just the purview of the acquisition community; in the case of Defence in Australia it should be a VCDF Force Design function.
What is the problem in Australia?
The journey to transform the RAAF, and the wider ADF, is underway and the impli- cations for how we will network, integrate and operate the 5th Gen force are funda- mental. Existing Defence information networks in Australia have historically been driven by a platform-centric culture with incremental acquisition or upgrade of capabilities. Joint integration has only been a relatively recent requirement driven by the latest Defence White Paper of 2016 and encapsulated in plans such as RAAF’s
Plan Jericho, Joint Plan Aurora and Navy’s Plan Pelorus.
The “as is” reality within the ADF is that there are a multi- tude of information networks in operation with a number of net- work managers effectively man- aging them in isolation, despite the intent of the First Principles Review to establish integrated organisational structures. The
considerable management overhead costs that result could not be described as either efficient or economical. The “as is” structure also results in the “as is” network design be- ing prolonged. Projects such as Air 6500 (IAMD), Air 7000 (P8 and Triton) and Air 5077 (AEW&C) will confront the “as is” network barriers of limited connectivity, bandwidth, temporal sensitivity and resil- ience as they try to identify alternate data paths in a contested, congested and denied operational environment.
Defence lacks a systems architecture vi- sion with the result that the existing infra- structure is not a good foundation upon which to build the 5th Gen communica- tions and information networks that will be needed in the near future. System of systems integration across a Joint environment is not a capability that can be bought off the shelf,
it has to be purposely designed, tested, certi- fied, accredited and maintained through life as a weapon system in its own right.
It requires legacy capture and management along with constant, ongoing, transition to 5th Gen and beyond. The current fragmen- tation of the design of information compo- nents across the Services and Groups, which effectively falls to individual component levels, also has an adverse effect on Industry where expertise is developed and maintained at the project delivery level, rather than on the overall system of systems that needs to be integrated for the Joint environment.
The lack of a systems architect vision and an integrating design authority for all of the Defence communications/information net- works also results in confusion when new project staffs attempt to identify how their system will be connected and supported. Compounding this issue is a general lack of integrated system of systems design experi- ence in Defence as a result of a historically focused approach of platform-centric design.
Frankly, the system of systems integrated approach wasn’t really a requirement until the last decade when a Network Centric Warfare model was adopted. Defence ac- quisition processes are likely to remain project focused in the absence of a compre- hensive system of systems level architecture vision and architects who bridge the con- ventional systems engineering and informa- tion management boundaries.
As the ADF transitions to a 5th Gen platform/systems-equipped force over this next decade it will need a 5th Gen infor- mation systems design. Discussions with some Australian systems engineers suggest that “networks” as a term will become ob- solete. Nodes, communication bearers and protocols will become the focus as a 5th Gen Information Management Environ- ment (IME) is designed and built to handle
32 | November 2018 | www.australiandefence.com.au
DEFENCE