Componente Físico

The C4I capabilities of the submarine force have evolved greatly over the last century. Expanding use of the RF spectrum and introduction of new technologies led to fielding systems of increasing complexity. As these systems were integrated into larger systems and systems of systems new capabilities emerged. The challenges experienced by DOD with the integration of these systems led to questions of ownership responsibilities of these new capabilities and how they should be managed. This in turn required defining a SOS and their characteristics. Depending on the type of SOS programmatic and systems engineering decisions are reached which may not be in the best interests of the SOS. Even today this is a major issue with many acknowledged SOS created within DOD having minimal oversight. Only recently has DOD recognized their acquisition approach must shift from an individual systems requirements mentality to a mission based mentality requiring a much more holistic examination of what is needed to achieve a given capability.

Systems engineering and SOS engineering share many characteristics but the applications differ by their approach. A system will have clearly defined requirements and a defined life cycle. SOS requirements are more generalized and possess an evolutionary life cycle which changes but does not end. A system normally has a single program manager whereas depending on the type of SOS may not have one at all. Most SOS within DOD are considered acknowledged SOS. Policy guidance from OSD is providing the framework for developing and managing systems of systems. Acquisition and systems commands have in turn recognized many of their products can be classified as a SOS or are a constituent component of a system of systems. This can be seen in Figure 33 by looking at a system such as ADNS supporting a C4I system of systems in CSRR which in turn supports the combat systems SOS in SWFTS to the Virginia platform system of systems which ultimately supports the larger mission system of systems.

Figure 33. Systems to System of Systems Management Perspectives (after Director, Systems and Software Engineering 2008, 12)

The submarine force quickly recognized they needed to leverage the capability of these systems while bounding them with the limitations inherent for their platforms, specifically in terms of space, weight and power. The introduction of the Trident integrated radio room represented the first step toward employing a contractor furnished system of systems capability. The submarine communications support system took the next step by introducing automation and coordinated installation approaches. Common Submarine Radio Room is the culmination of these efforts while introducing open systems architecture designed to combine and leverage its constituent systems to deliver capabilities not possible in an individual manner. The approach for developing CSRR has evolved as well, moving from developing a specific increment version for each class to the point where a single version delivers a complete core capability capable of accounting for any unique platform characteristics. Clearly defining and balancing the requirements

of the constituent systems composing CSRR within the system of systems architecture means attempting to optimize one system over the others can be detrimental to the overall system of systems.

The development of case studies serves several purposes. Case studies provide opportunities to capture information about a particular event or system. The case studies may vary in their approach but the main result is identifying lessons learned or learning principles. NASA and the Air Force consider case studies to be a valuable means for capturing and sharing learning principles as explicit knowledge. The learning principles identified from the case studies confirmed CSRR would make a viable case study. The lack of available C4I case studies for other PEO C4I and SPAWAR systems reinforced the benefits of developing a case study involving systems managed within the CSRR program.

This research examined the question if CSRR met the characteristics to be classified as a system of systems. The SOS characteristics furthered defined CSRR as an acknowledged SOS. As an acknowledged SOS CSRR have requirements, funding and management. These must be balanced with the other systems that make up the whole SOS. System changes are primarily managed by the parent program but are closely collaborated with the CSRR program to avoid or minimize degradation or disruption of capability. As a system of systems, CSRR provides redundancy in several ways. If a communications path is not available another can be selected. If there is a network failure, alternate means to reroute or restore network management exist. Additionally, an examination of submarine communications demonstrated the evolutions from individual stove pipe systems to fully integrated and interoperable SOS can deliver more capability than if each system were employed separately. The research identified CSRR was not a result of a Manhattan project approach but rather another step in the evolution of submarine communications.

This case study confirmed systems engineering and system of systems engineering share similar qualities but are applied differently. The challenge lies in the SOS approach that is implemented. Most DOD SOS are considered acknowledged SOS due to each individual program maintaining its own program and funding responsibilities.

The net result is these systems create an iterative impact on other systems through introduction of new capabilities, phasing out old ones, changes to hardware or software, or changing operational planning. This increased emphasis on a SOS approach means a more holistic view is required when evaluating a new SOS or one that is already established. The guidance promulgated by Director, Systems and Software Engineering (2008) and the DASN (RDTE) 2013 draft provided a good starting point to begin implementing SOSE principles. Specifically the seven core elements a SOS engineer must be involved in encompass translating SOS capability objectives into SOS requirements to coordinating and monitoring changes to improve SOS performance (Director, Systems and Software Engineering 2008, 92). Another thought about the difference between systems engineering and SOS engineering is the level of complexity involved. A system can be decomposed into its discrete components. A radio can be decomposed to a power supply, amplifier, modulator and demodulator. A SOS considers the systems to be the discrete components. This changes the level of complexity the SOS engineer must consider when developing or changing a SOS.

In summary, the effective application of SOS engineering principles can be applicable to a variety of SOSs. The challenge will be related to the type of SOS and if there is a clear vision of what the SOS must be able to do. If designing a hospital the considerations need to include such factors as the location, type of hospital, services to be offered, etc. The same approach can be taken to build a command and control system. Or they can be applied to build an afloat communications architecture similar to CSRR. Case studies provide a means to capture these lessons learned from others so it can be retained as explicit knowledge and shared with future engineers, technicians and managers. In the end the SOS engineer must learn from the experience of others and be capable of balancing the needs of the systems and the SOS.