The team of Navy and industry managers working to develop a common command and decision (CCD) system for surface combatants, large-deck amphibious warfare ships, and aircraft carriers is scheduled to meet in July 2001 for the second session of a two-part systems readiness review. The session is aimed at defining technical parameters for making the Navy's long-incompatible surface-ship combat systems work together for future battle group and joint operations.
The first readiness review took place in April, following a CCD in-process review in late February, The latter review, according to one program official, explored ways of "flowing down the metrics" that support interoperability of combat systems software from the top-tier system level to lower-level software components. Full systems interoperability would support what CCD managers call "force-level" interoperability for battle group operations.
The CCD program is managed within the Program Executive Office for Theater Surface Combatants. Program officials say they are seeking perspectives from other Navy "enclaves" that are addressing the problem of combat systems interoperability. Among the groups providing input are the staff of Rear Admiral Michael Mathis, Deputy Commander for Integrated Warfare Systems in the Naval Sea Systems Command, and the joint Navy-led team that is developing an architecture for a single integrated operational picture.
Lockheed Martin's Naval Electronics and Sensor Systems, Raytheon's Naval and Maritime Integrated Systems, and Digital System Resources are under contract for the CCD effort. The program's goal is to produce working software code for delivery to the Aegis combat system test site in Moorestown, New Jersey, by December 2004. The CCD software currently is targeted for initial installation on board the Arleigh Burke (DDG-51)-class destroyer DDO-105.
The program office initiated the CCD program with $30 million in congressional plus-up funds for fiscal year 2000. The program received less than $20 million additional plus-up funding for fiscal year 2001, and funding was cut further for fiscal year 2002.
The initiative is in response to sharp congressional direction to the Navy, as well as to the efforts of Rear Admiral Kathleen Paige, the Navy's chief engineer for combat systems, to find a solution to the chronic lack of interoperability among shipboard combat systems. The effort is aimed mainly at the Aegis combat system in Ticonderoga (CG-47)-class cruisers and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and the ship self-defense system (SSDS) that is going in aircraft carriers and big-deck amphibious ships.
Aegis and SSDS, while they support similar missions, were developed with dissimilar computer architectures that incorporate programs written in different software languages and are based on different doctrines and rules. The carriers and Wasp (LHD-1)-class amphibs are slated to get a Mark 2 SSDS variant, and the Whidbey Island (LSD-41) class still is fitted out with the Mark 1 system.
Interoperability shortfalls also are caused by years of upgrades and modifications to the multiple elements of combat systems and tactical datalink hardware and software, conducted without coordination or communication among program managers. Lack of interoperability among systems leads to, many dangers, including communications breakdowns, mismatches, and redundancies in the identification of target tracks.
Lockheed Martin is the longtime prime contractor and systems integrator for the Aegis combat system, and Raytheon acts as prime contractor for SSDS. Digital System Resources is participating, industry officials say, because it "doesn't have a rice bowl" in the surface-ship combat system arena.
The CCD program aims at development of a commercially based middleware infrastructure similar to that used to support software developed by Digital System Resources for upgrading the sonar suites on the Los Angeles (SSN-688)-class attack submarines. The use of "transportable" middleware would permit application software upgrades to interface with the middleware rather than the hardware-thereby eliminating the need for corresponding (and costly) hardware modifications. Because the commercially based application software code modules are independent rather than densely integrated, upgrades could be inserted without any danger of the changes rippling through the entire system.
Managers supporting the CCD effort point out that because the Aegis system application software is so closely integrated with the legacy computing hardware, Aegis software upgrades require corresponding modifications to the hardware. The hardware-software interface then must be validated through a painstaking and meticulous engineering cycle.
Both Navy and industry officials say that despite the visionary ideas, the common command and decision effort faces opposition from combat systems managers who perceive it as interfering with the traditional approach to developing systems. One industry manager calls it a "paper program."