‘Computer That Happens To Fly’: Chiefs Multi-Domain Future

[spazsinbad]

The WORLD WIDE WICKED WEB - NIFC-CA anyone? Air Forces Get BUSY WITH IT (including RAAF et al with PLAN JERICHO).

‘A Computer That Happens To Fly’: Chiefs On Multi-Domain Future
16 Apr 2018 Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.

"“I grew up flying fighters,” says Gen. David Goldfein, the Air Force Chief of Staff, "and I will tell you, when I see the F-35, I don’t see a fighter. I see a computer that happens to fly."

It’s not just the F-35, Goldfein told a Mitchell Institute audience this morning: “You also have to think about an Aegis cruiser in a different way. You’ve got to think about a Brigade Combat Team in a different way.” “I’m so adamant that, if we start thinking about these systems as not the planes or ships or what have you but as computers we need to connect….it gives you new insight,” Goldfein elaborated to reporters after his public remarks.

So think in terms of computers that float or submerge; that crawl on tracks or roll on wheels; that fly with rotors or on wings. The platforms we have today — ships, subs, tanks, trucks planes, helicopters, etc. — will mostly still be around in 20 to 30 years, “so the fundamental question then becomes is, how do we connect them,” Goldfein says. “That connective tissue is something all the chiefs are talking about, all moving forward under this concept of multi-domain operations.”...

...what in heaven and earth is a multi-domain operation? Goldfein argues it’s the United States’ decisive “asymmetric advantage.” When people ask him how the F-35 would fare against China’s new J-20 stealth fighter, for example, he tells them “that’s a 20th century discussion,” Goldfein said. “A J-20 is never going to see an F-35 by itself. It’s going to see an F-35 connected to low earth orbiting satellites in several constellations. It’s going to see it connected to penetrating ISR (intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance), stand-off ISR, to smart weapons technology, to a light maneuver brigade, to an Aegis cruiser, to our allies and partners.” [<sarc on> YEAHBUTT DOGFIGHTING DOO DOO STILL <sarc off>]

Don’t focus on individual platforms. Focus on the networks, which are advancing at a much faster rate, agreed British Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Hillier, speaking alongside Goldfein at a celebration of the Royal Air Force’s centennial. The first battle-winning example of an airpower network was actually the British air defenses in the Battle of Britain, he argued, which used radar to spot the enemy, command posts to correlate the data, fighters to act on it, and radio to connect it all. You probably remember the indelible images of women in uniform moving planes around on a large table, with generals looking down as they leaned on the balustrade above. But today the power of information technology is vastly greater and just keeps growing.

Like the US Air Force, the RAF will be flying many of the same planes in 20 years, Hillier said. “What will be different will be this next generation networked air force (with) air, space and cyber (in an) integral multi-domain process, with command and control that is radically different than the way we do it at the moment — rather than a centralized function, a much more distributed function.”...

...“There is a risk that we see information as a defense acquisition issue (like) previous defense acquisition issues,” Hillier said, “where we say, well, ‘this is what we want to do, we want to join all of these platforms, (so) we will launch a grand project which in 10-15 years time will somehow fuse that all together.'” That didn’t work 15 years ago at the height of the “network-centric” craze and it won’t now, he said.

“How we’ve looked at this before from the military is, ‘we have a requirement, how does the technology get developed to meet that requirement?'” Hillier said. (Emphasis ours). What we need to do, he argued, is to see that ” the technology is there — how do we adapt as an organization to best exploit that technology?”...

...Rather than try to create “some big joint thing that will pull it all together,” Hillier said, “we need to describe a framework we can all operate together within” and let different countries and companies plug-and-play their technology in that framework. (The term of art for this is open architecture).

It’s not impossible, Hillier argued: Cellphones manage this today. “I’ve got a different phone from you, I’ve got a different network that I’m running it on, I’ve got a different set of my apps on my thing, but if I tap in those numbers, your phone will ring,” Hillier said. “It’s that sort of approach we need to take rather than, ‘we all must buy the same phone.'”... [ 'BP' will have to explain for the PhoneLess Ones such as I I'll have to get a mobyfone when NBN (Oz Vfast Broadband network) rolls in but that is in the never-never it seems]

...Open Architecture
This kind of bring-your-own-device approach — be that device a smartphone or an F-35 — relies on everyone agreeing to certain common standards for how the devices interact. (Underneath this common interface, the code for each device can be as quirky, proprietary, and secretive as desired). That’s at odds with the traditional Pentagon process, Goldfein reminded reporters, where the company that wins a contract gets to build a system using its proprietary data formats. The resulting incompatibility between different US systems, let alone US and allied, forces operational commanders into awkward, time-consuming kludges that just won’t be acceptable in the future....

...Goldfein’s message for allies and partners? “What you procure is up to you, but….you’re going to want to hitch your wagon to our command and control network,” he said. “Whatever you procure as an individual platform or sensor or weapon…. you’re going to want to be able to tap into the information network, the command and control that we provide.”

“Looking at the future of warfare, how fast are we going to have to sense, decide, and act?” Goldfein asked reporters. “And what command and control network do you need to be able to do that, in an environment where we’re back into peer competition, with folks who can actually get in and do some things to degrade our systems?”

Against such adversaries, “what you’ve go to do is make sure that you have resiliency built into your system and alternative pathways,” Goldfein said. “If we build this so we have one critical vulnerability, then we’ve gone the wrong way.”"

Source: https://breakingdefense.com/2018/04/a-c ... in-future/

[hornetfinn]

I think Internet is a good model for this as it was created for networking all kinds of computers in robust and fault-tolerant manner. Nowadays all kinds of devices can just connect to each other without much hazzle and data can be quickly and pretty reliably and also safely transferred between those devices. Devices can form smaller networks which connect to other networks even globally. Users don't need to do much for all this to happen and don't need to know how the data is transferred. Devices have diffenent kinds of services that they can just use and don't have to worry much about technical details in network layers etc. Basically an Apple iPhone or Android phone can communicate and share data with some cloud computing service in Japan which can consist of many different kinds of computers and devices. It can also send and receive MMS and SMS messages and have phone conversation with someone using landline phone in Brazil.

It seems like this is very much happening especially with F-35 which seems to use this kind of approach. It's based on software apps and services instead of dedicated hardware boxes for different needs. Like there is no more actual radio devices but software-defined radios. There is no more datalink terminals (like Link 16/JTIDS, MADL) as these are done with software. There is no more IFF device as it's just IFF application. Pilot does not operate devices but uses software based interfaces. When some new capability is added, there is often no need to install new boxes and devices as much can be done with software. Of course there are limits to this and new hardware is sometimes needed, but this also allows easier and better integration of totally new capabilties that do require new hardware.

[zero-one]

[<sarc on> YEAHBUTT DOGFIGHTING DOO DOO STILL <sarc off>]

Well its either that or
<sarc on>WE'LL KILL THEM BEFORE THEY EVER KNOW THEY WERE IN A FIGHT, (F-4, F-14 tag lines) <sarc off>

[blindpilot]

....
Well its either that or
<sarc on>WE'LL KILL THEM BEFORE THEY EVER KNOW THEY WERE IN A FIGHT, (F-4, F-14 tag lines) <sarc off>

Well you do understand that is exactly what has been happening since F-22's joined exercises (Red Flag etc.) and there is at least 1 Iranian F-4 in real world confrontation that witnesses to it's reality ... etc. And there have already been aircraft in the middle east that tried to avoid the air cap of the F-22 fighter pilot, flying cover from the O-Club bar.

Just saying .. <no sarc>,
BP

[wrightwing]

[<sarc on> YEAHBUTT DOGFIGHTING DOO DOO STILL <sarc off>]

Well its either that or
<sarc on>WE'LL KILL THEM BEFORE THEY EVER KNOW THEY WERE IN A FIGHT, (F-4, F-14 tag lines) <sarc off>

That's kind of the point. No aircraft in production or development, has first look, first shoot, first kill advantages over the F-22/35.

[magitsu]

I think Internet is a good model for this

Indeed, kill web is mentioned occasionally.

https://sldinfo.com/2017/09/the-maritim ... -kill-web/
http://www.sldforum.com/2017/08/force-d ... -kill-web/