Weapon System Virtualization and Continuous Capability Delivery for US Navy Combat Systems
- 1. United States Department of Navy
- 2. Naval Research Lab
- 3. Herren Associates, Inc., US
Description
The US Navy envisions a Fleet that applies advances from the technology sector to improve the delivery of warfighting capability. Due to constraints imposed by legacy hardware design inherent and the inherent limitations of x86 servers, significant inefficiencies exist in the hardware and software delivery process. The US Navy leveraged advancements in virtualization technology to field combat system software in virtual machines, effectively removing computing hardware as a capability limiter. Adoption of hardware-agnostic virtual machines also significantly reduced the delivery timeline for improved warfighting capabilities at a lower cost. This paper will review the evolutionary enhancements in AEGIS Combat System computing architecture and describe why it is critical for the Surface Navy to adopt a new capability delivery model. This paper also outlines the key engineering and testing advantages of the US Navy AEGIS Virtual Twin effort, which recently demonstrated continuous capability delivery to the Fleet. Finally, this paper will explore the multifactor framework of the Balanced Scorecard as a tool to align the benefits of virtualization and advances in computing technology with a new model for future US Navy Combat Systems.
Files
EAAW VIII Paper 010 Voth Final P.pdf
Files
(2.4 MB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:7ea70a6ec8fe092abd772bd226d53d18
|
2.4 MB | Preview Download |
Additional details
References
- Arslan, İ. and Özbilgin, İ.G. (2017). Virtualization and security: Examination of a virtualization platform structure. In 2017 International Conference on Computer Science and Engineering (UBMK). IEEE.
- Geurts, J. (2019)., Keynote Address. The US Navy League's Sea-Air-Space Exposition.
- Kaplan, R. and D. Norton (1996) The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action, Boston: HBS Press.
- Kaplan, R. and D. Norton (2001) The Strategy-Focused Organization: How Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Competitive Environment, Boston: HBS Press.
- Kaplan, R. and D. Norton (2006). Alignment: Using the Balanced Scorecard to Create Corporate Synergies, Boston: HBS Press.
- Kaplan, R. and D. Norton (2008). The Execution Premium: Linking Strategy to Operations for Competitive Advantage, Boston: HBS Press.
- Kotter, J. (1995) Leading Change: Why transformation efforts fail, Harvard Business Review, 73(2): 59-67.
- Quattrone, P. and Busco, C. (2015) Exploring how the Balanced Scorecard engages and unfolds: Articulating the visual power of accounting inscriptions, Contemporary Accounting Research, 32(3): 1236–1262.
- Mattis, J. (2018) Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America. Department of Defense Washington United States.
- Moore, T., Smerchansky, J. (2017) Naval Sea Systems Command Expanding the Advantage. Washington, DC: US Department of Navy.
- Richardson, J. (2018) A Design for Maintaining Maritime Superiority 2.0. Washington, DC: US Department of Navy.
- Spear, S. (2009) The High Velocity Edge: How Market Leaders Leverage Operational Excellence to Beat the Competition. McGraw-Hill
- Trump, D.J. (2017) The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. Executive Office of The President Washington DC.