Maritime Tactical Command and Control Analysis of Alternatives

Bradley Wilson ; Isaac R. Porche III ; Mel Eisman ; Michael Nixon ; Shane Tierney ; John M. Yurchak ; Kim Kendall ; James Dryden ; Sean Critelli

RAND Corporation

RAND Corporation

关键词: Modeling and Simulation;    Military Ships and Naval Vessels;    United States Navy;    Military Information Technology Systems;    Military Command and Control;   

DOI  :  10.7249/RR1383
ISBN  :  9780833095725
RP-ID  :  RR-1383-NAVY

学科分类：自然科学（综合）

美国|英语

来源: RAND Corporation Published Research

【 摘 要 】

This analysis of alternatives (AoA) is about a software system the U.S. Navy will need to support situational awareness and command and control (C2) afloat and ashore. Specifically, the RAND Corporation was tasked by the Chief of Navy Operations (OPNAV N2N6F4) to conduct an AoA, set forth by the director, for the follow-on to Global Command and Control System-Maritime (GCCS-M) called Maritime Tactical Command and Control (MTC2). MTC2 is a new maritime C2 program of record in Program Executive Office for Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Intelligence. The alternatives for MTC2 range from maintaining the current legacy system to new development that integrates with a Navy cloud that intends to bring big data techniques to the fleet. In this report, we analyzed four of the potential alternatives within this range. Alternative 1 would maintain the status-quo GCCS-M system that is already fielded afloat and ashore. Alternative 2 builds on the status quo by integrating and enhancing capabilities from the Command and Control Rapid Prototyping Continuum (C2RPC) applications. Alternative 3 is focused on new developments that provide the capabilities of the second alternative and also takes advantage of a shore-based cloud. Alternative 4 is also focused on new developments that take advantage of a shore-based cloud, and it also relies on an afloat cloud called the Navy Tactical Cloud. This analysis covers four distinct areas: performance modeling, cost analysis, a risk assessment, and an information assurance evaluation. Based on these efforts, Alternative 4 is recommended.