Conference Proceedings of EAAW 2 – 3 July 2019 Weapon System Virtualization and Continuous Capability Delivery for US Navy Combat Systems Capt. A. M. Biehn a, J. R. Clarke a, J. J. Juster b, T. E. Voth*c a United States Department of Navy; b Naval Research Lab; c Herren Associates, Inc., US * Corresponding Author. Email: [email protected] The views presented are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Department of Defense or its components. Synopsis The US Navy envisions a Fleet that applies advances from the technology sector to improve the delivery of warfighting capability. Due to constraints imposed by legacy hardware design inherent and the inherent limitations of x86 servers, significant inefficiencies exist in the hardware and software delivery process. The US Navy leveraged advancements in virtualization technology to field combat system software in virtual machines, effectively removing computing hardware as a capability limiter. Adoption of hardware-agnostic virtual machines also significantly reduced the delivery timeline for improved warfighting capabilities at a lower cost. This paper will review the evolutionary enhancements in AEGIS Combat System computing architecture and describe why it is critical for the Surface Navy to adopt a new capability delivery model. This paper also outlines the key engineering and testing advantages of the US Navy AEGIS Virtual Twin effort, which recently demonstrated continuous capability delivery to the Fleet. Finally, this paper will explore the multifactor framework of the Balanced Scorecard as a tool to align the benefits of virtualization and advances in computing technology with a new model for future US Navy Combat Systems. Keywords: Weapon Control Support Systems, Virtualization, Hypervisor, Rapid Prototyping Authors’ Biographies Captain (USN) Andrew M. Biehn is the Major Program Manager for AEGIS Combat Systems. He is responsible for the development, delivery, and combat readiness of over 90 globally-deployed Cruisers, Destroyers, and Ashore assets equipped with the AEGIS Weapon System. Prior to leading the AEGIS program, he served as Commanding Officer of USS TRUXTUN (DDG 103) and as an instructor at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland where he received the Apgar Award for excellence in teaching and leadership. Captain Biehn is a graduate of the University of Virginia and holds a Master’s degree in Business Administration from George Washington University. Mr. John R. Clarke is an Assistant Program Manager for Systems Engineering assigned to the US Navy Department’s Program Executive Office for Integrated Warfare Systems in Washington, D.C. During his tenure in the AEGIS program, Mr. Clarke has brought high fidelity tactical modeling and simulation capabilities and most notably led the innovative AEGIS Virtual Twin project. Mr. Clarke holds a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering degree from Johns Hopkins University and earned his Master of Business Administration degree from Georgetown University in 2018. Commander James J. Juster (USN, Retired) is an Operations Research Analyst with the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory. Prior to joining the Naval Research Laboratory, he served 21 years as a Surface Warfare Officer in a variety of assignments relating to air and missile defense. He graduated from the University of Notre Dame in 1996 with a Bachelor of Business Administration degree and earned a Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering degree from the Naval Postgraduate School in 2002. Mr. Timothy E. Voth is a Lead Associate at Herren Associates in Washington, D.C. where he works with government and industry teams to drive increased value by leveraging digital technologies such as automation, artificial intelligence, and advanced analytics. Mr. Voth is undertaking a Master of Science in System Engineering degree program from the University of Virginia and holds Bachelor of Science degree from The Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Mr. Voth is a Certified Agile Practitioner and received his Lean Six Sigma Black Belt certification from the American Society for Quality. DISTRIBUTION A. Approved for public release: distribution unlimited. Engine As A Weapon International Symposium 1 http://doi.org/10.24868/issn.2515-8171.2019.010 Conference Proceedings of EAAW 2 – 3 July 2019 1. Introduction: Enabling a Better Fleet through Virtualization “To increase America’s naval power, we will build a better fleet – one that is more capable, agile, networked, and resilient across all of our naval platforms. This means fielding state-of-the-art systems and continually modernizing legacy equipment.” (Richardson, 2019). Admiral John M. Richardson 31st US Chief of Naval Operations Statement before the House Committee on Appropriations, 30 April 2019 The AEGIS Combat System (ACS) is the US Navy’s most sophisticated shipboard anti-aircraft and anti-missile system and has been upgraded in a series of nine evolutionary baseline enhancements across two classes of ships to keep pace with current threats. Currently, there is widespread recognition that traditional methods developed over the past 40 years will not meet the future Navy’s need to continuously integrate, test, and deploy new warfighting capabilities across the US Navy Surface Fleet. The pace of threat development is evolving, with increasing range, complexity, and sophistication. Recognizing the continuous capability evolution challenge, Admiral John Richardson, 31st US Chief of Naval Operations, stated, “We simply have to get better at [being technologically agile]. I think it’s a strategic Achilles Heel, the lack of tempo I would say in terms of how we can field technology to the Fleet. We cannot get outpaced in this, and that comes right to bear at this far right end of the spectrum. We just can’t let ourselves be dominated by someone who can get technology to their forces faster.” (Richardson, 2016). While great progress has been made through the traditional ACS baseline enhancement process, a fundamental shift in technology and acquisition processes is required to outpace the threat and continuously deliver Sea Power to the Hands of Our Sailors. The first five ACS baselines installed onboard Ticonderoga Class guided-missile cruisers (CGs) and Arleigh Burke Class guided-missile destroyers (DDGs) in the 1980s and early 1990s (originally installed onboard CG 47-73, DDG 51-78) provided US Combatant Commanders unmatched multi-mission warfare capabilities. These early baselines employed a disciplined development process with military specification (MIL-SPEC) standards leading to 32-bit computers, cathode ray tube (CRT) display screens, and the Compiler Monitor System (CMS-2), a unique programming language developed for US Navy Tactical Data Systems (NTDS). While MIL-SPEC provided the US Navy a degree of commonality and eased platform-unique integration challenges associated with the fire control loop and tactical data links, the MIL-SPEC baselines were largely designed as consumables tied to the ship and were designated as the combat system to serve through the end of the ship’s service life. These technologies were largely developed by the US Department of Defense, as they led the way in development of early computing architectures to advance national security through the introduction of increasingly sophisticated combat and weapon systems. By the mid-1990s, the US Navy recognized the need to evolve the consumable nature of the legacy baseline process and reengineer the process to allow for major upgrades and leverage advancements in commercial technology. Over the next 20 years from Baseline 6 to the most recent Baseline 9 architecture (Table 1), the US Navy has engaged a diverse set of industry partners and applied best practices in the use of commercial engineering tools for design, development, and test. While these changes met the defined performance measures, the state-of-the-art commercial servers used by the most recent baseline enhancements have also revealed unique challenges. After introducing a new commercial infrastructure across the AEGIS Fleet, stakeholders quickly identified the need to create a refresh rhythm and disciplined selection process to address obsolescence challenges. A notional baseline evolution process was developed, comprised of four-year hardware cycles and two-year software cycles, in an attempt to align ship schedules with accelerating commercial product trends. Although progress has been made over time to implement new ACS software architecture based on modular design, open standards, and well-defined software components, the underlying approach of delivering hardware and software upgrades based on a specified timeline does not provide the agility needed in today’s fast-paced threat environment. Table 1: Current AEGIS Baseline Breakout Baseline Total Ships Cruisers Destroyers Computing Architecture Legacy Baselines 26 5 21 MIL-SPEC Design Modern Baselines 49 4 45 Hybrid MIL-SPEC/COTS Source: Naval Vessel Register & Navy.mil DISTRIBUTION A. Approved for public release: distribution unlimited. Engine As A Weapon International Symposium 2 http://doi.org/10.24868/issn.2515-8171.2019.010 Conference Proceedings of EAAW 2 – 3 July 2019 Surface Combatants will need to meet the continuous capability challenge while also lowering lifecycle costs throughout each ship’s expected service life. To do this while testing developmental software at sea without impact to certified configurations, a new model will be required. The