Future UAS Software Procurement

Transcription

1 Future UAS Software Procurement 28 th July 2016

2 Agenda 1. Background 2. The Question 3. Cost Assessment Approach 4. Benefits Assessment Approach 5. Results

3 Background

4 Abstract Assessing strategy for future UAS software procurement Over the next 30 years the MOD will be investing heavily in Unmanned Air Systems (UAS). As a relatively new and disruptive technology with software sitting at its core, the MOD requires an understanding of possible strategies for the development, procurement and support of software Mission Systems for future UAS. Given the distant timescales and conceptual nature of the problem, an approach based on experienced based evidence was employed to understand the impact, both costable and noncostable, of a common software Mission System across future UAS. Novel conceptual costing techniques were combined with Military Judgement Panels (MJP), held with Subject Matter Experts from the RAF and MOD, to produce a final evidence based recommendation.

5 An Unmanned Future?

6 An Unmanned Future? Watchkeeper Desert Hawk Black Hornet

7 Who Needs Pilots? Who needs pilots? Levels of Autonomy 1. Human Operated (RPAS) 2. Human Assisted 3. Human Delegated 4. Human Supervised 5. Mixed Initiative 6. Full Autonomous

8 So Who s Driving? Who needs pilots? Software

9 Software This software is: Highly Complex Safety Critical Real-time Learning Adaptive COSTLY

10 Software UK OFFICIAL Increasing Software Requirements

11 The Question

12 The Question Arke were tasked over a 6 week period to assess the costs and benefits of the following 2 options (or target futures): Do Nothing - A traditional approach based on the current direction of travel, where UAS mission systems are procured individually per system, versus; Do Something - A future where open and re-usable core UAS functions (based around a common reference architecture) are developed and utilised in current and future UAS.

13 Do Nothing Actuators Radar Image Acquisition Sensor Data Acquisition mission payload awareness Data Storage Visual / radar sensors Comms Hardware Data fusion Rule of Engagement Mission Management Power Management flight Flight monitoring detection Collision avoidance ATC interaction Route planning

14 Do Something = potentially common between multiple UAS Actuators Radar Image Acquisition Sensor Data Acquisition mission payload awareness Data Storage Middleware Visual / radar sensors Comms Hardware Data fusion Rule of Engagement Mission Management Power Management flight Flight monitoring detection Collision avoidance ATC interaction Route planning

15 Do Something App Store Software Re-use: Time

16 Do Something Re-use of software enabled through: Reference Architecture; Hardware abstraction; Module library ( App store ); Shared integration and test facility.

17 Uncertainties Future UAS: How many? Role? Capabilities (current and future)? When? Cost?

18 Cost Assessment Approach

19 Software Development Estimating Do Nothing UAS Concept App Store Re-Use Percentage Cost Delta Cost Forecast Experience Based Support from Subject Matter Experts (SME) Input Cost Data

20 UAS Concepts UAS Concepts agreed through definition of key attributes agreed in workshop environment with appropriate SMEs from the UK MOD. Experience Based Support from Subject Matter Experts (SME)

21 Input Cost Data Input Source Lines of Code (SLOC) generated through structured discussion with software development team from major Aircraft prime. SLOC estimates were generated against the Reference Architecture then mapped to UAS Concept attributes. Experience Based Support from Subject Matter Experts (SME)

22 Software Development Estimating Do Nothing UAS Concept App Store Re-Use Percentage Cost Delta Cost Forecast Experience Based Support from Subject Matter Experts (SME) Input Cost Data

23 Software Re-use The data is based on a 2954 module sample from the technical environment of NASA unmanned spacecraft control, and has been treated as broadly analogous. This data also informs the estimation of re-use within the COCOMO II open source cost model, which has been used by UK defence contractors.

24 Benefits Assessment Approach

25 Benefits Assessment Mission System Design Authority Effective Requirements Setting De-risk Common Technology Elements Increased Commonality / Scalability Reduced system / sub-system integration time Increased Agility Maintain Operational Advantage Modular Certification Technical Openess Informed Customer Design Mandated Modularity & Architecture Conformance Technical Commercial Increased SME Access Ability to keep pace with threat evolution Increased Modularity Enable Use of Civilian Technology Re-usable Certification & Accreditation Higher Quality technology upgrades Agile Capability Acquisition Increased Adaptability Technology Advantage Increased Resilience Maintain Freedom Of Action Establish Commercial Authority Open Commercial Arrangements Facilitate Incremental Acquisition More Efficient Obsolesence Management Reduced Cost of Defence Maximise Value For Money Leverage COTS Rapid S &T Exploitation Economic Growth through Exports Optimised Industry Investment Healthy & Competitive UK Industry Maximise Export Potential Business Change Outcome Interim Benefit End Benefit Strategic Objective

26 Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) inherently resilient to obsolescence, scalable, exploitable, flight certifiable, configurable, able to provide utility across a range of mission requirements, and capable of delivering future growth potential. Increased Agility Increased Adaptability Technology Advantage Increased Resilience Economic Growth Healthy and Competitive UK Increased Commonality/Scala bility Agile Capability Acquisition Increased Commonality/Scalabi lity Reduced System/Sub-System Integration Time Increased Modularity Higher Quality Technology Upgrades More Efficient Obsolescence Management Rapid S&T Exploitation Agile Capability Acquisition More Efficient Obsolescence Management Rapid S&T Exploitation Rapid S&T Exploitation

27 Results

28 450M UK OFFICIAL Cost Outputs 400M Cost avoidance through Testing and Certification re-use Cost avoidance through wider re-use Cost avoidance through Intial re-use 350M Development cost Baseline cost 300M 250M 200M 150M 100M 50M 0M Tikal Stage 2 UCAS Demo TMUAS 1 Watchkeeper UCAS Scavenger Follow-on TMUAS 2

29 Benefit Outputs Weighted Scores by Criteria Increased Commonality/Scalability Agile Capability Acquisition Increased Interoperability Increased Commonality/Scalability Reduced System/Sub-System Integration Time Increased Modularity Increased Interoperability Higher Quality Technology Upgrades More Efficient Obsolescence Management Rapid S&T Exploitation Increased Interoperability Agile Capability Acquisition More Efficient Obsolescence Management Increased Interoperability Economic Growth Through Exports Healthy and Competitive UK Industry Increased Agility Increased Adaptability Technology Advantage Increased Resilience Option A Option B