Theater Battle Management Core Systems (TBMCS) Greg Hinchman - System Architect Lockheed Martin Mission Systems Colorado Springs, CO 2/7/01 GOTS 3rd Party COTS ROTS Developed Integrated Solutions

2/7/01 2 TBMCS Operational Overview  Command and Control for Theater Air Operations  Air Battle Plan Production, Dissemination, and Execution – Air Tasking Order (ATO), Airspace Control Order (ACO) – Intelligence, Resources, Weather, (Re-)Planning, Execution Mgmt.  Peacetime and Wartime Operations  Joint Forces: AF, Navy, Army, Marines  Supports Coalition Operations (Releasable to Foreign Nations)  Multiple Deployment Configurations  AOC, Remotes, JFACC Afloat, Wing, ASOC, etc.  Approximately 40 Workstation Software Configurations  In-Garrison and Deployable Configurations  Scalable Operations: 20 to 500 Workstations  Theater Dynamics: Addition/Removal of Participation Sites

2/7/01 3 COTS and TBMCS  System Characteristics  500 Load Modules, 45 Mission Apps, Solaris/HP-UX/Windows  Role of COTS in TBMCS  Infrastructure (e.g., OS, DBMS, Security, Portal)  Utility Functions (e.g., , Browser, System Monitoring)  Relatively Few Mission Applications  Role to Evolve with Move from Client/Server to Web Architecture  Challenges  User Expectations/Degree of Influence (e.g., Custom Solutions, Ease of Use)  Aligning System Rqmts to COTS (COTS Become the Rqmts?)  Multi-Platform Solutions are Needed (Second Class Platforms?)  Ease of Deployment  License Keys - Can Not Interfere With Mission

2/7/01 4 COTS and TBMCS  Challenges (continued)  COTS Selection Creates Immediate Commitment & Momentum – Product Line Capabilities Increasing Both Vertically & Horizontally – Product Line “Gravitational Effects” (Pros & Cons)  COTS to COTS Integration – Version Interdependencies (e.g., Oracle vs. Solaris vs. Sybase) – Data Integration (e.g., Logs, Data Reporting Mechanisms (Alerts))  COTS Ahead of DoD Infrastructure – e.g., Theater Communication QoS is Lacking, Sysad Support  COTS Refresh Cycles vs. System Cycles & Product Support – TBMCS Releases Planned for < 18 Mos. vs. < 6 Mos. for COTS – COTS Supported for Shorter Duration than Fielded System Lifetime – “Version 1.0’s” COTS Maturity (Caveat Emptor) – Cost “Creep” with Product Evolution  Field Support of COTS: Direct Support Not Typically Available

2/7/01 5 Adaptations & Solutions for COTS  Process  Assignment of People to Products: Integration Engineers (Product Specialists, Establish Vendor Relationships)  Integration Process: Requirements, Trades, Preliminary Design, Product Receipt, Integration & Test  Planned Product Refresh/Replacements  License Purchasing & Management Team  Vendors as Strategic Partners  Technical  Select Products Based on “Openness”, Emphasis on Data Accessibility/Interoperability, Built Customization Capabilities  “Hands-Off” Approach to COTS  Integration-Ware (e.g., Consolidation of Information)  Installation & Configuration Uniformity - (e.g., Segmentation) – Pre-Configuration to Maximum Extent Possible  Supplemental Documentation (COTS in TBMCS Context)

2/7/01 6 Future of COTS in TBMCS  Systems are Increasingly Dependent on COTS  Many DoD “Architectures” are Yielding to Commercial Solutions  Becoming a COTS Exclusive Application Frameworks/Infrastructure – DBMS, Application Servers, J2EE, Portals  Commitment to Products will Be Longer-Term Investments  Developing Strategies for Multiple COTS Infrastructures  System Evolutionary Challenges  Eliminate UNIX on the Desktop  Maximize Use of Web Technologies – Web Accessibility, Zero Admin Client Platforms, XML/SOAP for Interoperability

Questions