Air Power: Ongoing improvments for the AP-3C Orion | ADM Feb 2011
Tom Muir | Canberra
With a number of capability enhancements for the RAAF AP-3C Orion fleet completed or underway and a second tranche of system and capability upgrades in the offing under a second phase of the Capability Assurance Program (CAP), one would hope that the fleets’ eventual high level capabilities are at least matched by those of its planned replacement – the P-8A Poseidon.
AIR 5276 has been around for a long time. It started life as the P-3C Refurbishment project which, following an initial project definition study, saw the 18-strong fleet of maritime patrol aircraft then undergo a major upgrade, including new avionics and sensor suites, emerging (somewhat tardily) as the AP-3C weapon system.
Further phases, now completed, included the acquisition of a new full flight simulator with remarkable capabilities, and an Electronic Warfare Self-Protection suite comprising the ALR-47 countermeasures dispensing system (CMDS) and the AAR-60 missile approach warning system (MAWS).
But another pre-CAP phase, the $129 million Electronic Support Measures upgrade, has been declared a project of concern. According to the DMO, an estimated delay of 26 months to the in-service date from December 2010 to February 2013 has been attributed by BAE Systems to a dependency with AIR 5077 (AEW&C) and the contractor’s under-estimation of the software development activity. While the dependency with AIR 5077 has been largely mitigated through a differing evolved design, Defence says the dependency on a common contractor/subcontractor remains a risk.
The Capability Assurance Program
Under the restructuring of Air 5276’s forward program of work, introduced in 2006, the program is being delivered in coordinated CAP blocks. Previously the various phases focussed primarily on the delivery of discrete mission systems.
Approved in July 2008, the first phase, CAP 1, included upgrading the Electro-Optic system originally installed in those aircraft deployed for service in the MEAO, to the fleet-wide fitment of a fully integrated version of the FLIR Systems Star Safire III EO/IR system.
Installed in a retractable chin turret under the nose radar it provides real time high-resolution colour TV and infrared imaging for surveillance duties, in keeping with the Orion’s increased overland intelligence gathering requirements. The Safire III is one of the world’s most popular gyro-stabilized EO/IR systems and is in wide use by US military, NATO and nations worldwide.
To transmit the Safire III’s very high fidelity colour video and infrared images all 18 aircraft were ‘fitted for but not with’ Tactical Common Data Link (TCDL) capabilities while those fitted initially with the upgraded EO/IR system were also equipped with TCDL systems supplied by L-3 Communications via a Foreign Military Sale.
This operational TCDL capability, was acquired, integrated, tested and fielded to a very aggressive schedule to meet initial operational requirements enabling AP-3C crews to provide commanders on the ground with real-time video imagery well beyond line-of-sight over ranges of more than 150 nautical miles.
In line with the original concept of acquiring systems only for those aircraft to be operationally deployed a small number of systems were acquired initially, with the idea of shifting these between aircraft heading towards or returning from the Middle East. Under CAP1, all aircraft are being equipped with TCDL systems.
The next phase: CAP 2
Successive DCPs have revealed what appears to be growing uncertainty about the scope of CAP 2 especially in relation to the AP-3C’s Data Management System (DMS). According to the 2006-16 DCP, CAP 2 (previously elements of Phase 9) was intended to replace/upgrade the AP-3C Data Management System (DMS) for $75-$100 million.
It noted that the DMS is the centre of the AP-3C mission system and upgrades are essential to ensure the continued availability of AP-3C’s capabilities. An updated DMS will also ensure that follow-on systems sought under CAP 3 will have a robust and modern core to facilitate the task of integration and through-life support.
But the DMS receives dwindling mention in the successive 2009 and 2010 DCP updates. In the former, CAP 2 is re-scoped as intending to treat AP-3C DMS, electronic support measures, and ground support systems obsolescence and sustainment issues.
While the 2010 version of the DCP does not mention the DMS, it notes that the AP-3C navigation and communication system, electronic support measures and ground support systems have been identified for treatment by CAP 2 to resolve identified obsolescence or supportability issues. It goes on to say that treatment of these systems is essential to ensure the continued availability of AP-3C capabilities.
There is then reference to the Flight Simulator and the Operational Mission Simulator as having been identified for treatment by CAP 2 and that acoustic warfare and data link system upgrades will be considered to ensure the AP-3C capability edge is maintained until the aircraft’s planned withdrawal date. All of these point to the importance of a DMS that can handle the increased throughput and other demands of the AP-3C’s upgraded systems.
Evidently there appears to be considerable indecision regarding the upgrading or replacement of the DMS so it may be opportune to look at the system currently installed in the Orion fleet and what options may be up for consideration.
Data Management System
The DMS is the heart of the AP-3C’s mission system and includes a central processing unit known as the DDC-060. It is an enhanced derivative of the AN/ASQ-212, manufactured by Lockheed Martin and operated by the US Navy. The Australian version integrates new and existing hardware and uses many of the existing card level replaceable units. As well as a slightly different architecture and larger memory, the enhanced processing is achieved through the use of Motorola 68060 processors (as distinct from the USN’s 68030 processors).
Two dual redundant 1553 buses are central to the overall mission system architecture. One bus controls the sensor and weapon systems, while the other bus controls navigation and communication with processing in dual avionics processors.
The DMS provides coordinated interfaces to tactical crew members presenting sensor data on the dedicated displays and enabling sensor control through input devices. SS4 (the acoustic operator) has the added ability to display IRDS on the 19” screen. The tactical picture is displayed on the tactical display for the mission commander, providing mission system control via input devices.
Some DMS functions may now be redundant with new capabilities added because of improved technology. These include the use of colour, display of radar, IRDS, ESM, and acoustic video at stations other than the prime station, the flexible use of Windows, online Harpoon launch capabilities, and display of coastline maps and bottom contours.
According to a 2007 case study* by Damian Kennedy and Sergey Nesterov, concerning third party maintenance of software intensive legacy systems on the AP-3C, software packages running on the mission computer were originally implemented in Ada-83 and contain more than one million lines of code. The authors say that from a maintenance perspective the DMS software may be classified as a legacy software system in that:
• The software was implemented many years ago
• Its architecture has deteriorated, or remained unchanged over time
• Its replacement would involve a large capital investment
• The original developers are not available or their availability is limited
• With respect to Defence needs it is mission critical, and
• It is a proprietary-based solution.
Acquired by the Commonwealth in 2002, the DMS software was developed in the latter half of the 1990s, was outsourced to Tenix Aerospace (subsequently BAE Systems Australia) and Defence for maintenance in 2003 with the acceptance of the Software Engineering Laboratory (DMO 2005).
A 2005 ANAO audit of the Orion fleet upgrade found significant delays of up to seven years for the acceptance of the aircraft. It noted that among the main reasons for the delays were the greater then expected software development effort and integration problems with the DMS, due to the complexity of the software and the integration of potentially overlapping and incompatible systems.
The authors go on to say that it has been widely noted within industry that programs developed under one version of an operating system may not necessarily run under a newer version. Conversely, older versions of an operating system may not run on new hardware platforms, so the maintainer is forced to keep updated computers in order to continue the maintenance effort.
Problems of third party maintenance
The study authors say that a major problem facing third party maintainers is the initial substantial knowledge gap of the software system. When a software intensive system is handed over to maintainers, it is extremely difficult for them to ensure that all of the design documentation and so on, are complete and accurate enough to allow them to successfully bridge the knowledge gap.
In the case of the AP-3C Orion software there was a ‘hand over’ period where the maintainers were able to query a group of the developers. But it seems this period was both too short and at the incorrect time as the maintainers did not have sufficient time to review the documentation and thus begin to gain an understanding of the system. Due to this the questions posed were insufficient to gain any advantage from access to the developers.
Despite the many drawbacks of using a third party maintainer, the study authors say there are also advantages; a major one being the reduction of cost based on tender competition. Another is that any future migration of the system may not be locked into an OEM solution and may be smoothly provided by the maintainer. Finally, they suggest that use of a third party maintainer is likely to increase the level of innovation if the maintenance organisation provides R&D resources.
Upgrade or replace?
It would seem that no decision has yet been made regarding the future of the AP-3C DMS. Will BAE Systems, as part of the P-3 Accord, be tasked with upgrading the system possibly by beefing up the running system to increase throughput?
Could this be achieved by replacing card-level LRUs and updating the near antique Motorola processors, perhaps using modern processors similar to those proposed for the P-8 Poseidon’s mission systems. The task for BAE Systems would be not only to upgrade the system but then maintain it for the fleet’s life of type.
Or has there been a proposal by DSTO to breathe new life into the DMS through the application of emulation technology? This might be along the lines of their virtual solution for the Seahawk mid-life upgrade which was primarily concerned with resolving obsolescence in the Seahawk’s main mission computer, the Display Generator Unit (DGU).
Emulation refers to the process of mimicking, in software, a piece of hardware or software so that other processes think the original equipment/function is still available in its original form. Emulation is essentially a way of preserving the functionality of, and access to, digital information which might otherwise be lost, due to technological obsolescence.
If there is a DSTO-inspired virtual solution it would presumably be considered for first pass consideration as one option. A third option would be the business case for a replacement DMS. One would assume that the upgrade option chosen would be heavily influenced by risk, cost and of course the possibility that the AP-3C replacement may be available earlier than currently anticipated.
In light of the foregoing, ADM suspects that rather than replacing the DMS, BAE Systems will be tasked with upgrading the current system and maintaining it for the remaining life of the aircraft.
*Damian Kennedy, Sergey Nesterov: ‘Issues with Third Party Maintenance of Software Intensive Legacy Systems’ Defence & Systems Institute, University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes, South Australia 2008.