New Handbook explains "Network Enabled Capability"
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC
I understand what you say but from the end users point of view the information has still to appear in the cockpit.
NITEWORKS investigates the effectiveness of existing and proposed systems, not the implementation and that is where there are serious problems to be addressed. Whilst not doubting the quality of work being done, it is a pipe dream unless real world issues are addressed.
JETTS may put the planning together but how does it get to the man in the field? At a tactical level it is BOWMAN using ComBAT to display his SA. ComBAT is based upon a security clamped down version of the Windows 2000 OS and distributed using Internet Protocols. This will not be allowed anywhere near an aircraft system without an air gap because of the implications to the safety case. It is likely that doing this will end up with a standalone screen instead of fused data with your other sensors and datalinks. Strike off the HMI tick on your MAR recommendations.
Alternatively, you write bespoke code for the aircraft - v expensive, long devleopment lead time and likely to be incompatible with the land system because their clearances are less stringent and are probably 3 or 4 iterations ahead by this time - you can always park your vehicle while you sort out the blue screen of death.
Security between the different systems also requires air gaps and physical separations that require an area larger than most airframes that have to accomodate the different security clearances required between national, NATO and clear traffic. Look at the distances in the red/black areas in an office, how do you accomodate this in a cockpit.
Regards
I understand what you say but from the end users point of view the information has still to appear in the cockpit.
NITEWORKS investigates the effectiveness of existing and proposed systems, not the implementation and that is where there are serious problems to be addressed. Whilst not doubting the quality of work being done, it is a pipe dream unless real world issues are addressed.
JETTS may put the planning together but how does it get to the man in the field? At a tactical level it is BOWMAN using ComBAT to display his SA. ComBAT is based upon a security clamped down version of the Windows 2000 OS and distributed using Internet Protocols. This will not be allowed anywhere near an aircraft system without an air gap because of the implications to the safety case. It is likely that doing this will end up with a standalone screen instead of fused data with your other sensors and datalinks. Strike off the HMI tick on your MAR recommendations.
Alternatively, you write bespoke code for the aircraft - v expensive, long devleopment lead time and likely to be incompatible with the land system because their clearances are less stringent and are probably 3 or 4 iterations ahead by this time - you can always park your vehicle while you sort out the blue screen of death.
Security between the different systems also requires air gaps and physical separations that require an area larger than most airframes that have to accomodate the different security clearances required between national, NATO and clear traffic. Look at the distances in the red/black areas in an office, how do you accomodate this in a cockpit.
Regards
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The problems obviously have to be addressed. But to deal with this at four levels.
Frstly is data structure, so we are talking about the same things. e.g. can you drill down through a photo to get to a bridge and then to the structure.
Secondly, is data dictionaries, can you transfer the data. The problems in translating even within supposed set formats such as USMTF are immense.
Thirdly is the problem of data transfer between systems. We cannot even manage this at present within one service.
Fourthly is the problem is the problem of security. The US have a different concept (one I prefer) in dealing with this. But it is, perhaps the major difficulty.
Lastly, there are the major problems such as timing at latency.
The point of architectures such as DoDAF and MODAF are to address such problems and resolve them for future systems. I understand system engineering is geeky and doesn't impress pilots. But Watson-Watt probably didn't either at the time.....
Frstly is data structure, so we are talking about the same things. e.g. can you drill down through a photo to get to a bridge and then to the structure.
Secondly, is data dictionaries, can you transfer the data. The problems in translating even within supposed set formats such as USMTF are immense.
Thirdly is the problem of data transfer between systems. We cannot even manage this at present within one service.
Fourthly is the problem is the problem of security. The US have a different concept (one I prefer) in dealing with this. But it is, perhaps the major difficulty.
Lastly, there are the major problems such as timing at latency.
The point of architectures such as DoDAF and MODAF are to address such problems and resolve them for future systems. I understand system engineering is geeky and doesn't impress pilots. But Watson-Watt probably didn't either at the time.....
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
B*gg*r, p*gs*d it.
I had an email this morning signed off by a Lt Col as a trailer for the JSP. (everyone can have a copy and should read it).
Unfortunately I hit the DELETE key and have only just realised I should have run it through the Bull Word program. Mind you that would probably have b*ll*cks my non-nec computer.
Reminds me when Brian McLaren, then Group Captain previously Sgt AEOp, sent out a letter on Base System Architcture. Al Lockwood (Gulf War 2 briefer) took one look and pinged it to OC EES for a one page decode. He pinged it to OC CIS Eng who filed it and eventually passed it back. Staish never got his precise.
And this is supposedly about COMMUNICATIONS. With writing like that we'll parse the enemy to death having created despondency and confusion in their intel weenies.
I had an email this morning signed off by a Lt Col as a trailer for the JSP. (everyone can have a copy and should read it).
Unfortunately I hit the DELETE key and have only just realised I should have run it through the Bull Word program. Mind you that would probably have b*ll*cks my non-nec computer.
Reminds me when Brian McLaren, then Group Captain previously Sgt AEOp, sent out a letter on Base System Architcture. Al Lockwood (Gulf War 2 briefer) took one look and pinged it to OC EES for a one page decode. He pinged it to OC CIS Eng who filed it and eventually passed it back. Staish never got his precise.
And this is supposedly about COMMUNICATIONS. With writing like that we'll parse the enemy to death having created despondency and confusion in their intel weenies.
The worry is not just that someone actually pretends to understand this bollocks - but that they believe It Is The New Way..... And will tell you so with all the glazed-eyed fanaticism of an American TV hot gospeller.
I know people think this NEC is all b******s, and the way it’s presented certainly is, but the following is true:
1. It’s nothing new.
2. It’s mainly the Army that’s getting excited (or downcast as the cost emerges) because they think BOWMAN delivers it.
3. It doesn’t. It facilitates part of it.
4. The process for implementing, managing and sustaining it is so well established that the Def Stan hasn’t been updated for 15 years.
5. The Army’s management plan for their lead NEC implementation programme (not BOWMAN!) took 2 days to write in 2001, received 2* approval and has been contracted. Admittedly, it probably doesn’t cover all systems, only 180-odd tri-service legacy, emerging and future at last count, but difficult things like understanding dynamic data flows have been under contract since the late 90s. (Up the Jocks Harry, you’re a genius).
6. Too many senior staffs are making a mountain out of a molehill. They should stop re-inventing the wheel, get a proper job and leave it to those who have been doing it for decades. And spend the savings on what the Services need.
1. It’s nothing new.
2. It’s mainly the Army that’s getting excited (or downcast as the cost emerges) because they think BOWMAN delivers it.
3. It doesn’t. It facilitates part of it.
4. The process for implementing, managing and sustaining it is so well established that the Def Stan hasn’t been updated for 15 years.
5. The Army’s management plan for their lead NEC implementation programme (not BOWMAN!) took 2 days to write in 2001, received 2* approval and has been contracted. Admittedly, it probably doesn’t cover all systems, only 180-odd tri-service legacy, emerging and future at last count, but difficult things like understanding dynamic data flows have been under contract since the late 90s. (Up the Jocks Harry, you’re a genius).
6. Too many senior staffs are making a mountain out of a molehill. They should stop re-inventing the wheel, get a proper job and leave it to those who have been doing it for decades. And spend the savings on what the Services need.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I fully buy into NEC and Effects Based Targetting (yes I did believe the bumpf on TBAC!) I am still curious as to this management speak malarkey.
I think it boils down to two options:
a) There is a small clique of people who actually believe in and understand every word that is said in this sort of cr*p. If they exist though, has anyone ever met one of this chosen race?
b) Its all a big joke, but everyone is too scared to admit to anyone else that they don't get it.
My money is on B!
I think it boils down to two options:
a) There is a small clique of people who actually believe in and understand every word that is said in this sort of cr*p. If they exist though, has anyone ever met one of this chosen race?
b) Its all a big joke, but everyone is too scared to admit to anyone else that they don't get it.
My money is on B!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a) There is a small clique of people who actually believe in and understand every word that is said in this sort of cr*p. If they exist though, has anyone ever met one of this chosen race?
b) Its all a big joke, but everyone is too scared to admit to anyone else that they don't get it.
b) Its all a big joke, but everyone is too scared to admit to anyone else that they don't get it.
There really is an expensive mountain to climb and I think it will only be part-scaled.
Jess The Dog said -
NEC works in a limited form at present but no-one really comprehends the immense task of integrating different sensors using different software programmes and data handling systems affixed to different platforms belonging to different units and services potentially operation in a multinational coalition.
There really is an expensive mountain to climb and I think it will only be part-scaled.
Good post, however I do think some comprehend the task of how to go about implementing NEC. In a sense, NEC is mandated anyway (by PUS) but is one of the first areas to suffer when money is tight.
The basic process is very simple, but lack of funding at a time when it was really needed means there is so much to catch up on. DLO have no money to go back and update legacy systems. Ironically, it is in DLO, not DPA, where you will find many who do understand NEC as they use the management process on a daily basis. Similarly, emerging systems, where the funding and contracts are in place, cannot easily be changed. It is politically unacceptable to halt such projects. And, many of the future systems are cut to the bone already.
Individual projects / IPTLs co-operate but on the understanding they incur no cost. So, the output is not NEC, but a cunning plan. In fact, most of the prioritisation has taken place, but naturally this is from the lead project’s viewpoint. Almost everyone disagrees, wants to be first, but won’t pay. The will is lacking and there is no top cover, except vague statements from Mr Hoon which are meaningless to DPA/DLO without a funded, endorsed requirement.
So, while the process is simple the task is enormously complex and costly. It can be likened to a roof of different, but interlocking slates who each agree their place to ensure no leaks. Trouble is, there are only 3 or 4 slates in place, out of hundreds, and the Gods of DPA and DEC are continually p***ing on the roof, with the Treasury passing out the drinks. Oh, and you're all inside.
Honest, I won’t mention NEC again. By a year, I'm not current anyway, so I'm sure someone will tell me Geoff's cracked it; or, more likely, the contracts I mention have been cancelled.
NEC works in a limited form at present but no-one really comprehends the immense task of integrating different sensors using different software programmes and data handling systems affixed to different platforms belonging to different units and services potentially operation in a multinational coalition.
There really is an expensive mountain to climb and I think it will only be part-scaled.
Good post, however I do think some comprehend the task of how to go about implementing NEC. In a sense, NEC is mandated anyway (by PUS) but is one of the first areas to suffer when money is tight.
The basic process is very simple, but lack of funding at a time when it was really needed means there is so much to catch up on. DLO have no money to go back and update legacy systems. Ironically, it is in DLO, not DPA, where you will find many who do understand NEC as they use the management process on a daily basis. Similarly, emerging systems, where the funding and contracts are in place, cannot easily be changed. It is politically unacceptable to halt such projects. And, many of the future systems are cut to the bone already.
Individual projects / IPTLs co-operate but on the understanding they incur no cost. So, the output is not NEC, but a cunning plan. In fact, most of the prioritisation has taken place, but naturally this is from the lead project’s viewpoint. Almost everyone disagrees, wants to be first, but won’t pay. The will is lacking and there is no top cover, except vague statements from Mr Hoon which are meaningless to DPA/DLO without a funded, endorsed requirement.
So, while the process is simple the task is enormously complex and costly. It can be likened to a roof of different, but interlocking slates who each agree their place to ensure no leaks. Trouble is, there are only 3 or 4 slates in place, out of hundreds, and the Gods of DPA and DEC are continually p***ing on the roof, with the Treasury passing out the drinks. Oh, and you're all inside.
Honest, I won’t mention NEC again. By a year, I'm not current anyway, so I'm sure someone will tell me Geoff's cracked it; or, more likely, the contracts I mention have been cancelled.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In this country we do not have a good record in developing IT. We are good at generating concepts and providing high level paperwork written in the latest corporate speak.
However, we have the nett inability to put concept into practice. QED - Inland Revenue, CSA, NHS, Benefits Agency, Defence IT; all costing £Billions and eventually replaced/scrapped without actually ever having worked properly.
What makes you think this will be any different - unless, of course, you wrest it out of the hands of high priced help and allow those who know what they're talking about make it happen.
But this wont happen, because there's no personal glory/tea/medals to be had by being logical and handing your pet project to those who know what they're doing…
However, we have the nett inability to put concept into practice. QED - Inland Revenue, CSA, NHS, Benefits Agency, Defence IT; all costing £Billions and eventually replaced/scrapped without actually ever having worked properly.
What makes you think this will be any different - unless, of course, you wrest it out of the hands of high priced help and allow those who know what they're talking about make it happen.
But this wont happen, because there's no personal glory/tea/medals to be had by being logical and handing your pet project to those who know what they're doing…
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To ensure systems coherency, a big bang approach would have to be taken. This would need an eye watering budget and is why the UK is going for NEC instead of NCW. In comprison to the US we are trying to put sticking plasters between our disparate systems.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NEC is expensive but it doesn't do the following:
a. Provide funds for bombs, shells and guns.
b. Provide delivery systems - aircraft, ships and tanks to carry them.
c. Provide trained pink bodies to fly, sail, drive them.
d. But most of all, it does not provide honouable, responsible leaders who can motivate those pink bodies to beat our enemies in mortal combat.
NEC just provides 'management geeks' who have little in common with those they purport to lead.
I hope our leaders do not lose sight of what the Armed Forces actually do.
a. Provide funds for bombs, shells and guns.
b. Provide delivery systems - aircraft, ships and tanks to carry them.
c. Provide trained pink bodies to fly, sail, drive them.
d. But most of all, it does not provide honouable, responsible leaders who can motivate those pink bodies to beat our enemies in mortal combat.
NEC just provides 'management geeks' who have little in common with those they purport to lead.
I hope our leaders do not lose sight of what the Armed Forces actually do.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flip
This is how NEC will help you in the Mortal Combat problem
http://ps2.ign.com/objects/552/552223.html?ui=cb_up_04
This is how NEC will help you in the Mortal Combat problem
http://ps2.ign.com/objects/552/552223.html?ui=cb_up_04
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct me if I am wrong, but do we not already have this capability in the form of JTIDS? It's implemented, relatively cheap, works well and is a NATO standard tool. Surely the nature of it's platform means it can be easily adapted to suit any user's needs, just by changing the software that is run on it?
I have read through this thread, and I don't pretend to understand 75% of what has been said, so could someone PLEASE explain to a dim-witted Driver (Airframes) exactly what the f**k all this nonesense is about? All I see are meaningless TLAs and a plethora of w@nk-words.
What are we trying to do here? Set up a 'Purple Internet' as someone described it? I also read that all of these systems would communicate using TCP/IP (the logical choice, really). If so, the network and the data carried on it would surely be platform-independant, as per the internet, solving one of the 'big problems' outlined earlier.
So we are looking for a system of interconnected computers that can all communicate, thus telling their human operators what is going on, and maybe alllowing remote targeting instructions to be sent to weapons systems - is this not what JTIDS already does, or could do with some additional software??
Alternatively, we could save ourselves a s**tload of time and money, just by buying some decent f**king radios that work, so we can all talk to each other. Would that not achieve the same thing?
..or am I completely missing the point?
16B
I have read through this thread, and I don't pretend to understand 75% of what has been said, so could someone PLEASE explain to a dim-witted Driver (Airframes) exactly what the f**k all this nonesense is about? All I see are meaningless TLAs and a plethora of w@nk-words.
What are we trying to do here? Set up a 'Purple Internet' as someone described it? I also read that all of these systems would communicate using TCP/IP (the logical choice, really). If so, the network and the data carried on it would surely be platform-independant, as per the internet, solving one of the 'big problems' outlined earlier.
So we are looking for a system of interconnected computers that can all communicate, thus telling their human operators what is going on, and maybe alllowing remote targeting instructions to be sent to weapons systems - is this not what JTIDS already does, or could do with some additional software??
Alternatively, we could save ourselves a s**tload of time and money, just by buying some decent f**king radios that work, so we can all talk to each other. Would that not achieve the same thing?
..or am I completely missing the point?
16B
16 Blades
No. you’re not missing the point. As I’ve said before, we already have it and it’s mandated. To be cynical, I suspect the dreaded *** buzzphrase has been dreamt up to deflect from the MoD’s appalling record on Systems Integration. In most respects, they are one and the same thing.
You say, “….JTIDS? It's implemented, relatively cheap, works well and is a NATO standard tool”. True, but ask how we got there. On “my” aircraft, the Low Volume JTIDS Terminal was delivered to store by another Directorate. They walked away without the box ever having been near my integration rigs (how many times are they mentioned in the JSP??), never mind the aircraft. It had to be fitted in the aircraft. Integrated with the GPS (which I had bought) and with the intercom (which had to be extensively modified to accept the extra voice channels). The warning tone convention had to be re-thought and modified. The feeder had to be selected and the routing worked out. Antennae (upper and lower) had to be selected and a place found on the airframe to fit them. (Not easy when there are already IFF, V/UHF, 3 x UHF, Homing etc within 4 feet, all causing mutual interference). Then, extensive testing, both ground (functional, EMC and TEMPEST) and flight. Last, but by no means least, the simulator required major design changes. None of this was done or paid for by the JTIDS project, but the record shows they delivered to time, cost and performance. Theirs was the easy bit. A relatively simple and cheap black box but what made it work was systems integration. If you say JTIDS works, I'll take it as a compliment, but I certainly never got any credit for it because I never bought it. And that explains why most MoD staff don't want to get involved in integration. Buying something gets more kudos than buying something and making it work.
Also….. “Alternatively, we could save ourselves a s**tload of time and money, just by buying some decent f**king radios that work, so we can all talk to each other. Would that not achieve the same thing?”
I’ve seldom come across an airborne radio which doesn’t meet its specification ON THE BENCH. The radio is simple but what makes it work (to the user) is systems integration. You can have the best radio/intercom/antennae in the world, but if your £10 microphone is mismatched it’s worthless. Or if the GPS update tone is beeping in your ear it’ll annoy you. Or if some idiot puts a warning tone on a switched input. The successful projects are those where the black box is contracted by the platform office, because they will automatically make full systems integration a major milestone payment. To an aircraft office, success is acceptance into service. To an equipment office it is (too often) the box working in the factory. The latter avoids user input and, I suspect, is the source of most complaints about procurers.
So why is this backsliding / abrogation allowed I hear you ask? Not for me to say, except that don’t bother asking senior management in the MoD. They can’t spell “integration”, so dumb down to “NEC”. They have a 20 year plan so none of them will be held to account.
Oh, and if you want to get serious follow this link…..
http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/publi.../maaszg710.pdf
Ignore 95% of the report because it’s waffle, but concentrate on para 19b. Lack of systems integration. The IFF may have failed (although where’s the evidence) but did they get a failure warning? Wonder what the complete version says?
When you look at it this way, NEC is actually a component of systems integration. So if nobody wants to do integration, even fewer will learn about NEC!
No. you’re not missing the point. As I’ve said before, we already have it and it’s mandated. To be cynical, I suspect the dreaded *** buzzphrase has been dreamt up to deflect from the MoD’s appalling record on Systems Integration. In most respects, they are one and the same thing.
You say, “….JTIDS? It's implemented, relatively cheap, works well and is a NATO standard tool”. True, but ask how we got there. On “my” aircraft, the Low Volume JTIDS Terminal was delivered to store by another Directorate. They walked away without the box ever having been near my integration rigs (how many times are they mentioned in the JSP??), never mind the aircraft. It had to be fitted in the aircraft. Integrated with the GPS (which I had bought) and with the intercom (which had to be extensively modified to accept the extra voice channels). The warning tone convention had to be re-thought and modified. The feeder had to be selected and the routing worked out. Antennae (upper and lower) had to be selected and a place found on the airframe to fit them. (Not easy when there are already IFF, V/UHF, 3 x UHF, Homing etc within 4 feet, all causing mutual interference). Then, extensive testing, both ground (functional, EMC and TEMPEST) and flight. Last, but by no means least, the simulator required major design changes. None of this was done or paid for by the JTIDS project, but the record shows they delivered to time, cost and performance. Theirs was the easy bit. A relatively simple and cheap black box but what made it work was systems integration. If you say JTIDS works, I'll take it as a compliment, but I certainly never got any credit for it because I never bought it. And that explains why most MoD staff don't want to get involved in integration. Buying something gets more kudos than buying something and making it work.
Also….. “Alternatively, we could save ourselves a s**tload of time and money, just by buying some decent f**king radios that work, so we can all talk to each other. Would that not achieve the same thing?”
I’ve seldom come across an airborne radio which doesn’t meet its specification ON THE BENCH. The radio is simple but what makes it work (to the user) is systems integration. You can have the best radio/intercom/antennae in the world, but if your £10 microphone is mismatched it’s worthless. Or if the GPS update tone is beeping in your ear it’ll annoy you. Or if some idiot puts a warning tone on a switched input. The successful projects are those where the black box is contracted by the platform office, because they will automatically make full systems integration a major milestone payment. To an aircraft office, success is acceptance into service. To an equipment office it is (too often) the box working in the factory. The latter avoids user input and, I suspect, is the source of most complaints about procurers.
So why is this backsliding / abrogation allowed I hear you ask? Not for me to say, except that don’t bother asking senior management in the MoD. They can’t spell “integration”, so dumb down to “NEC”. They have a 20 year plan so none of them will be held to account.
Oh, and if you want to get serious follow this link…..
http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/publi.../maaszg710.pdf
Ignore 95% of the report because it’s waffle, but concentrate on para 19b. Lack of systems integration. The IFF may have failed (although where’s the evidence) but did they get a failure warning? Wonder what the complete version says?
When you look at it this way, NEC is actually a component of systems integration. So if nobody wants to do integration, even fewer will learn about NEC!