This report is about software systems that support situational awareness and command and control (C2) for the U.S. Navy. Specifically, this report provides the results of an analysis of alternatives for the follow-on to the Navy's Global C2 system Maritime (GCCS-M), and quantifies performance of mission tasks, cost, and analyzes risk for new systems that incorporate cloud technologies afloat and ashore.

Maritime Tactical Command and Control Analysis of Alternatives

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

ResearchPublished Aug 29, 2016

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.

Key Takeaways

Of the Four Alternatives, Alternative 4 Is Preferred

  • Alternative 1 would maintain the already-fielded GCCS-M system. This system has been found to be deficient in performance and has a high life-cycle cost compared with Alternatives 3 and 4.
  • Alternative 2 builds on the status quo but does not eliminate it, thus adding capability but not rectifying other performance and cost concerns.
  • Alternative 3 is focused on new developments that provide a lightweight afloat capability and a shore-based cloud. This reduces life-cycle cost but is riskier programmatically because of dependencies on other programs.
  • Alternative 4 is also focused on new developments that take advantage of a shore-based cloud and an afloat cloud called the Navy Tactical Cloud. This system may be the most robust in performance and cost, yet it is risky in terms of schedule and program. Despite the risk of this alternative, the potential to improve performance and reduce life-cycle cost is too great a benefit for the Navy to ignore.

Recommendations

  • The results from the performance, cost, and risk analysis are a preference for Alternative 4.
  • Alternatives 3 and 4, as new systems for replacing GCCS-M, result in potential annual sustainment cost savings through fiscal year 2030.
  • Information-assurance assessments acquired through in-person interviews suggest that Alternatives 3 and 4 will be relatively easier to achieve and maintain information assurance (IA) compliance than Alternatives 1 and 2, but a more-thorough IA analysis is needed.
  • Maintaining the status quo supposes the least amount of risk in cost and schedule but at a monetary cost that is higher than it needs to be, given the Navy's migration to Consolidated Afloat Networks and Enterprise Services (CANES) and a performance cost whereby GCCS-M cannot meet a number of the critical performance measures identified by the Navy.
  • Given this analysis, and given that the Navy is already embarking on providing shared infrastructure to support other programs that MTC2 can leverage, we recommend Alternative 4.

Topics

Document Details

Citation

Chicago Manual of Style

Wilson, Bradley, Isaac R. Porche III, Mel Eisman, Michael Nixon, Shane Tierney, John Yurchak, Kim Kendall, James Dryden, and Sean Critelli, Maritime Tactical Command and Control Analysis of Alternatives. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2016. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1383.html.
BibTeX RIS

Research conducted by

This research was sponsored by the Department of the Navy, and conducted within the Acquisition and Technology Policy Center of the RAND National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Combatant Commands, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the defense agencies, and the defense Intelligence Community.

This publication is part of the RAND research report series. Research reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND research reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.