JPEO JTRS

As we’ve noted previously, the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) program is growing up and changing.  Military Embedded Systems recently published a very good overview of the effort’s history and current status (also in e-zine format).

It’s hard to believe that almost 15 years have passed since the foundation for JTRS was laid.  You might want to pause for a moment and think about how dramatically electronics, communications and networking have changed since this forward looking program was initiated in 1997.

I also appreciate that the article covers SDR solutions like the excellent Harris Falcon III AN/PRC-117G radios and the Thales AN/PRC-148 JEM (nice PDF for the AN/PRC-148) radio that were developed outside the JTRS funding umbrella.

If you’re at all interested in the history, and current status, of JTRS, you should definitely take the time to read this excellent article.

In closely related news, the Rifleman Radio, one of General Dynamics C4 Systems‘ (GDC4S) significant contributions to the JTRS program successfully completed a key operational test at the Network Integration Evaluation (NIE) 12.1.

“The Joint Tactical Radio System, or JTRS, Rifleman Radio and its Soldier Radio Waveform, known as SRW, Network Manager component were the only systems under a formal program of record test at the recently concluded Network Integration Evaluation 12.1 here.  While Soldiers from the 2nd Brigade, 1st Armored Division, also informally evaluated more than 45 other tactical communications systems, the Rifleman Radio test represents a key step toward fielding the Army’s future network.

The two-pound radio, which is carried by platoon, squad and team-level soldiers for voice communications, can connect with handheld devices to transmit text messages, GPS locations and other data.  Through SRW, it connects lower echelon soldiers to one another and back to their leaders at the company level so they can rapidly exchange information.”

GDC4S Press Release

Hearty congratulations to the smart folks over at GDC4S for bringing this component of the JTRS effort along so successfully!

This is certainly a great time to be working on Software Defined Radio.

JTRS Brings SDR Capabilities to the Battlefield
Image Credit: GDC4S

The full text of the posting follows:

General Dynamics C4 Systems provides cutting-edge technology, products and systems that protect some of the most sensitive information in the world. Information that saves lives and protects nations.
Serving a customer base that includes government agencies, the U.S. Department of Defense and select international users, our secure communications technologies include:

• Secure voice, data, and computer products
• Network encryption
• Space encryption equipment
• Networked radios for public safety and disaster management
  • Combat search and rescue radios
  • Software-defined tactical handheld and manpack radios
  • Shipboard digital modular radios
  • Air traffic control radios

At General Dynamics C4 systems, our employees define our company. We foster a culture of innovation and creativity, encouraging our people to think independently in the pursuit of excellence. That excellence is realized through the creation of products and technologies that protect lives; recognized by our customers’ continued trust; and personified by our dedicated staff of secure communications technologies professionals.

To provide senior level systems engineering to a software defined radio products organization across multiple programs and opportunities. Responsible for working with other senior members to define architectures, establish requirements and then drive implementation of said radio products. First position is targeted for the Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) User Entry Segment (UES): Wireless Communications System Engineer for a UMTS/WCDMA – based radio application designed to execute within a satellite environment on a JTRS SCA compliant software-defined radio. Candidate will provide systems level oversight of UES including all aspects of the waveform including red and black side feature and architecture, security concerns for waveform implementation, along with the implementation of the waveform development environment WDE for the final development of the waveform. Additional activities include participation in definition and update of requirements and call flows related to registration, call setup, QoS negotiation, netted communications, authentication and provisioning. Overarching design considerations include system capacity, latency and real-time performance of the embedded WCDMA application hosted in FPGAs, microprocessors and custom hardware (e.g., RF).

Tasks include:

• Providing technical leadership of SW architecture design for software defined radio products
• Oversight for software code and test including participation in peer reviews and integration
• Oversight of WDE design for MUOS waveform development
• Participation in Technical Interchange Meetings and major design reviews
• Collaboration with other MUOS segments in establishing viable design solution

Education and Experience
Bachelor’s degree in systems engineering, a related field, or the equivalent experience is required. Advanced degree preferred. In addition, a minimum of 15 years of relevant experience is required, 20 years of relevant experience preferred.

Must be able to travel 20% of the time.

Applicant must be capable of obtaining a U.S. security clearance.

Applicant must be a US Citizen.

Must have a working knowledge of TCP/IP stacks and embedded Real-Time processing and experience designing for software-defined environments, encryption (IPsec, SCIP/HAIPE), Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) Software Communications Architecture (SCA); 3G WCDMA; 3G UMTS; WiMAX highly desired. Must be intimately familiar with systems engineering process and procedures and have had extensive experience in working in complex communication environments. Experience with ClearCase, ClearQuest, Doors, RequisitePro, Rational Rose a plus. Candidate must have excellent initiative, communication, technical skills and technical leadership skills. Applicant must be capable of obtaining a US Security Clearance.

Scottsdale, AZ

Scottsdale, Arizona

Good luck!

GMR Terminated

According to a number of reports, including this one from Bloomberg:

“Boeing Co. (BA)’s largest U.S. Army radio program [GMR] was ended yesterday by the Defense Department because of rising costs, according to the Pentagon’s acting top weapons buyer.”

The article continues with a couple of choice jabs at the systems produced under GMR:

“Inadequate affordability analysis, a misunderstanding of the technical challenges due to immature technology and poor contractor and program performance all contributed to the cost growth, according to [Frank Kendall, Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics].”

and

“Soldiers were concerned about the radio’s size and heat. That was their biggest issue.[Brigadier General Michael Williamson, Joint Program Executive Officer for the Joint Tactical Radio System]“

From my perspective, both of these are clear examples of straightforward, and humiliating, failures of systems engineering.  As I’ve written previously (and here), proper execution of a performance engineering methodology would have allowed Boeing and the JPEO JTRS to completely avoid this embarrassing outcome.  I don’t feel too bad for Boeing, though.  They reportedly extracted roughly US$2B from the program while failing to manage both customer expectations and the delivery of a system that met its operational requirements.

US Army orders US$66.3M worth of Falcon III AN PRC-117G Radios from Harris

Harris AN/PRC-117G Type-1 Wideband Tactical Radio
Image credit: Harris RF Comm.

Moving on, we see that Harris RF Communications isn’t missing a beat.  Despite being a member of the failed Boeing team, this group went outside the scope of GMR to develop the Falcon III line.  The AN/PRC-117G put in a solid showing at the US Army’s recent Network Integration Evaluation (NIE), conducted at Ft. Bliss and the White Sands Missile Range.  Harris is even getting favorable coverage from Wired.com’s Danger Room.  The company announced last week that the U.S. Army has placed an order for US$66.3M worth of Falcon III AN/PRC-117G radios.  With the success of the Falcon III AN/PRC-117G, we see that the DoD, and other agencies worldwide, are procuring proven technology based on solid engineering that matches the actual requirements for the device with the capabilities supported.

The Nett Warrior “Smartphone-like” End User Device (EUD)

I recently explored some of the concepts behind the Nett Warrior EUD, which careless reporters insist on calling a smartphone.  It’s not, but it is a serious effort to bring situational awareness to the center of the fight with a GUI and form factor that is familiar to today’s soldiers.

General Dynamics C4 Systems Awarded US$65M contract to maintain the WNW

If I recall correctly, the WNW was originally closely linked to GMR:

“GMR — formerly Cluster 1, run by the Army, was to equip Marine and Army ground vehicles, Air Force Tactical Air Control Parties (TACPs), and Army helicopters. Cluster 1 also included the development of a Wideband Networking Waveform (WNW), a next-generation Internet protocol (IP)-based waveform designed to allow mobile ad-hoc networking (MANET).”

The connection between WNW and GMR is also mentioned in this informative post on the Low-Power Wireless blog.

The latest WNW news strongly suggests that the responsibility for maintenance of, and enhancements to, the waveform has been transitioned to GDC4S under the Wideband Networking Waveform Software In-Service Support (WNW SWiSS) contract.  This seems to indicate that GDC4S is being recognized for their success with SRW and the Rifleman Radio.  Again, the JPEO is putting its faith in vendors that have delivered proven technology.

May you live in interesting times…

So, what does this all mean?  From where I sit, these developments are all extremely encouraging.  Although it was a US$2B lesson, I believe that the JPEO has learned that it cannot just throw big piles of money at defense contractors and hope that the right thing happens.  Instead, I’m optimistic that the program’s leadership will focus on deploying proven technology and properly scaling requirements for specific nodes in the network.  This more pragmatic, and (hopefully) performance engineering based approach, should allow the program to deliver on its fundamental goals of improved situational awareness at the tip of the spear and a more comprehensive view of battlefield dynamics across all levels of the chain of command.

Let’s all remember why we do this.

The Tip of the Spear
Image credit: US Army

Nett Warrior EUD
Credit: Wired
Click for larger image

Unfortunately, Wired’s Danger Room chose to give their coverage of the Nett Warrior End User Device (EUD) a somewhat misleading title:  "Army Shows Off Soldier Smartphone Beta."  It actually appears that the Android powered EUD will connect directly to secure military networks via the Rifleman Radio.  You didn’t seriously think that they were going to be taking iPhones onto the battlefield and connecting over commercial 3G networks, did you?

In addition to the small tablet form factor EUD pictured to the right, the Nett Warrior system includes a monocle to provide heads-up display of maps and unit location data (this bit comes from a Defense Systems report).  To help you visualize the setup, we have a 2010 vintage mock-up of the (then current) Land Warrior kit below.

Apparently the proposed EUD weighs less than 0.5 kg, and provides a familiar touch based user interface.  With this announcement, it’s clear that the Army is getting closer to providing our fighting forces with state of the art communications technology.  However:

"This is not a phone," clarifies Brig. Gen. Camille Nichols, [commander] of the Army’s […] Program Executive Officer Soldier

Even though it’s not, strictly speaking, a “smartphone”, the EUD is yet another example of the flexibility and power that the JTRS program is bringing to the Networked Battlefield and we’re proud to be a part of the effort to develop this critical technology.

By the way, the system is named for Col. Robert B. Nett.  Colonel Nett was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his actions during the Battle of Ormoc Bay in WWII.

Nett Warrior gear mock-up — vintage 2010 — on a frightening mannequin
Credit: Wired Danger Room

The Harris MBC-100
Credit: Urgentcomm

I’m fascinated by how necessary, and ubiquitous, Internet access has become.  In the latest clear demonstration of this trend, we have the Harris MBC-100 “Mobile Subscriber Device.”  This nifty little bit of gear provides first responders with connectivity over 700 MHz LTE networks, all in a ruggedized enclosure.  According to the company’s press material, the device:

“… delivers up to 18 Mbps of service to LTE network subscribers for high-bandwidth applications. It also delivers 128-bit encryption for secure voice and data communication while utilizing industry-standard 3GPP Release 8 telecommunications requirements for 700 MHz LTE networks. These requirements mean that the MBC-100 is capable of advanced LTE modulations including 2×2 Multiple Input/Multiple Output (MIMO) that allows the device to boost network performance by utilizing two antennas for the transmitter and receiver.”

Of course, the really interesting question is how they’re doing it.  For that, we turn to Altair Semiconductor, self-proclaimed as “the world’s leading developer of ultra-low power, small footprint and high performance 4G LTE chipsets.”  These chipsets are built around Altair’s O²P™ Software Defined Radio (SDR) processor:

“O²P is a completely new architectural approach to solving the flexibility/performance/power paradigm.  Designed and optimized from its atomic level up to the switching fabric to process 4G/OFDM signals, the O²P processor is capable of performing more than 20 GIGA MACS (Multiply Accumulate per Second) per second operations while consuming a fraction of the power of any communications-optimized DSP in the market.  Harnessing such extreme processing capabilities enables the O²P SDR to cope with not only 4G processing but also with legacy 2G/3.5G technologies. The O²P’s architecture is software defined to support various combinations of 2G/3.5G standards (e.g. LTE in conjunction with EDGE/HSPA+/EVDO) simultaneously, implementing a true roaming-capable, multimode “world” solution.”

We’ve all heard horror stories about the power budgets required to handle LTE.  Some have even gone so far as to suggest that the relatively limited number of handsets supporting LTE is largely due to battery life issues.  It sounds like the folks at Altair Semiconductor have overcome these challenges with a solution that meets Harris’ requirements.  I expect that we’ll be hearing a lot more from Altair in the SDR future!

Altair "FourGee" 3100/6200 chipset
Image Credit: Altair Smiconductor

His position, with which I whole heartedly agree, is that the traditional definition is far too binary.  Radio systems run the gamut (I didn’t want to use spectrum here…) from pure hardware to nearly pure software.  As Mr. Martin so eloquently phrases it,

‘… this definition seems to take an “all or nothing” position in which everything that was done hard (with hardware) is now done soft (as software running on processors). This is a little too absolutist. I think in modern embedded systems, the key phrase is “software-defined“, but not necessarily “100% software implemented”. That is, software running on embedded processors defines the functionality of the system, and will definitely be the implementation vehicle for much of that functionality, but not necessarily all of it. However, where functions continue to be delivered via hardware blocks, software, and the processors it runs on, will control it, shape it, and thus define what it is.’

The real challenge lies in determining the “right” mix of hardware and software.  You need to strike the optimal balance between requirements for performance / functionality and constraints on power consumption, package size, schedule & BOM costs.  Fortunately, there is a solution.  Performance Engineering allows you to examine all aspects of your system and ensures that all trade-offs are made based on real data.  As Mr. Martin so ably points out, later in his post:

“[This notion of Software-defined everything] emphasises [sic] the need for sophisticated up-front design space exploration and architectural analysis: that is, part of ESL (electronic system level design)”

He’s absolutely right, and our solutions are by far the most effective way of performing these analyses for complex highly constrained embedded systems.  I’d even go so far as to say that you cannot achieve the best possible design for these challenging systems without a Performance Engineering approach.  I’d love to hear from you if you disagree.

Pretty Much all Hardware:  Schematic for the General Radio & Telephone MC-5
Image Credit: CBTricks.com

General Radio & Telephone MC-5
Image Credit: CBTricks.com

“… the Ground Mobile Radio (GMR), is undergoing a recertification process following a Nunn-McCurdy breach. If the program is recertified, it will still require additional testing ahead of a Milestone C production decision. Because of these delays, lawmakers have transferred $51.0 million from the program to the Navy’s RDT&E account to support addition testing, while deferring $153.8 million because the funds will not be used in FY12.”

As we discussed previously, this troubled program has experienced a number of “challenges.”  While his comments weren’t directed specifically at GMR, Paul’s keen insight into the issues with JTRS are always well worth reviewing.

I sincerely hate to see any defense funds being wasted, so I’m pleased that there may be some accountability for just plain doing a bad job.  While I’m certainly not gloating, this saga strongly reinforces my contention that a Performance Engineering based approach is the only way to tackle extremely complex highly resource constrained embedded systems.

If you’re a participant in the JTRS program, we really need to talk.  Foresight Systems M&S won’t just dump a bunch of software on you and wish you luck.  We provide a complete model based solution that ensures that your platform / SDR waveforms will meet all program requirements and constraints.  We’ll help you identify issues early, and resolve them well before your part of the program is being considered for “funding deferral” by the Senate Appropriations committee.  Seriously, get in touch with me and let me explain how we can help your project avoid this unfortunate outcome.

Ground Mobile Radio
Image credit: Boeing

Of course, when I think of wireless technology from Finland, my mind immediately leaps to Nokia.  As one might expect, the innovative offspring of the communications pioneer are doing some extremely interesting work.  That’s why I’m always keeping my eyes on news from the “Land of a Thousand Lakes.”

Recently, the announcement that the Finnish military would be adopting EB, Elektrobit’s wireless IP networking technology for tactical communications caught my attention.  For those who are, like me, unfamiliar with EB:

“EB develops advanced technology and transforms it into enriching end user experiences. We specialize in demanding embedded software and hardware solutions for the automotive industry and wireless technologies.
…
EB Wireless Business Segment turns the next generation wireless technologies into state of the art products, services and solutions. Its extensive offering constitutes from:

• Wireless device development and infrastructure solutions
• Device offering; Device/platform development, Reference designs & technology demos and Products.
• Infrastructure offering; Mobile WiMAX basestation framework and RF variants
• R&D services
• Test tools for measuring, modeling and emulating the radio channel environments.”

EB Wireless IP Net for TacComm
Image credit: EB

The particular offering that’s interesting here is the company’s Wireless IP Network for Tactical Comm.  This appears to be a “network in a box” system that can be deployed to the area of operations to create an “instant” communications infrastructure:

“The EB Tactical Wireless IP Network is a stand-alone military/authority wireless broadband network that can be deployed in any location. It is enables the formation of an independent IP network and is compatible with existing infrastructure, both wire-line and wireless. Being based on software defined radio makes the product versatile, upgradeable and easy to adapt. It enables a mesh network solution with high data rate and automatic network configuration required by battle groups on the move. The product has an excellent performance and form factor as both network node and router functionality are integrated into a single product. This tactical communications product was developed to be compatible with the SCA and ESSOR software architectures.

System benefits

• Supports Mobile Ad-hoc network (MANET)
• Coverage 0-30 km depending on antenna configuration, antenna height, and frequency
• Point to point, point to multipoint and MESH network configurations
• Fully independent nodes, free network entry and exit for nodes
• Capacity shared between connected nodes
• Prioritization between nodes can be set to provide capacity to most important nodes
• Fully IP compatible”

Providing sufficient reliable bandwidth for tactical communications under extreme conditions is really the fundamental challenge for the networked battlefield.  It looks like the engineers at EB are well on their way to providing a solution.

Finland, The Land of a Thousand Lakes
Image credit: happytellus.com

Porting embedded software to new platforms can be a frustrating task.  As I write this, I’m smiling, because I’m thinking about all of the times that product managers have nonchalantly planned a port to a new platform believing that it would be inexpensive and then had the project overrun by an order of magnitude.  The estimation error is often exacerbated by a number of factors including:

• The software may have been written in a high level language, using all of the latest portability guidelines, so expectations of portability are unrealistically high
• A “skunkworks” project may have performed an initial exploratory port very quickly, giving a false sense of assurance
• Often the software is enhanced at the same time that it is ported, adding both uncertainty and risk
• The new platform behaves differently in subtle and unexpected ways
• Those doing the port are often not the original developers, and they may not have access to complete explanations for why the code “is the way that it is”

I recently ran across a 2002 article by EDN Technical Editor Robert Cravotta aptly entitled “Fear and loathing of porting embedded software.”  Mr. Cravotta does an excellent job of discussing these and other embedded software porting pitfalls, as well as their remedies.

Consider these two quotes from Mr. Cravotta’s article:

“You can improve the success of a software port if you perform a requirements analysis and establish your criteria for a successful effort before you start. Defining success criteria provides a basis for your porting decisions and allows you to objectively determine when the port is complete.”

and

“Define the amount of system headroom you need the port to finish with to be considered successful. You are probably not performing this port just for the fun of it. Your original platform is lacking sufficient headroom to some sensitivity vector. You might need more processor capacity for your new algorithms, or you might need a system that consumes less power. You risk another premature porting effort if you have insufficient headroom after completing the port. Remember that, although you may need to optimize the ported code, the main goal of the porting effort is to transfer a function to a new platform. Balance your project time frame with the system-headroom and -performance requirements. This effort will help you complete a good enough port without expending more time and resources than necessary.”

Making the investment to reverse-engineer an application and build a simulatable model of it will save significant time and money in the long-run.  This is particularly true of large, complex applications where the team doing the porting is not the original development team.  On the other hand, blindly undertaking such a challenging port will always be much more costly than anticipated.  JTRS waveform porting is a case in point.

One of our SDR clients, a true believer from hard experience, recently made this statement:

“The most significant business driver for the ongoing funding of the [waveform] modeling effort is the cultivation of transferable [waveform] expertise within [the company] that is being applied to [multiple] products to solve emerging network operational issues, meet operational requirements and eliminate [the company's] dependence on [the waveform developer].”

Over the years, disciplined application of our Resource Aware Modeling and Simulation (RAMS) performance engineering process has helped numerous clients dramatically improve the results of their embedded software porting programs.  This methodology tames the porting beast in a number of ways, including:

• Minimizing the risk in cost assessments when planning the port.  Truly understanding the magnitude of the task can be the determining factor in whether the team gets the contract or funding for the port.
• Providing structure for understanding the application and capturing the knowledge gained by reverse engineering.  This captured knowledge yields huge benefits when the port runs into problems.
• Finding and fixing performance problems BEFORE testing does.
• Determining resource requirements (processor throughput, memory, bus bandwidth, power, etc.) early.
• Allowing the team to explore enhancements to functionality and their impacts via simulation before they result in unpleasant surprises for the project team.

Porting embedded software to new platforms is just plain hard, but an approach based on RAMS methodology will manage the complexity.  You’ll have a much better understanding of the challenge up front, and you’ll be much more likely to complete the port on time and on budget while meeting all of your objectives.

Trying to port a complex resource constrained embedded system to a new hardware platform without using RAMS makes about as much sense as this:

This Fellow Doesn't Use RAMS When He Ports Embedded Systems to New Platforms
Image credit: ThreadBombing.com

Kuma Signals, LLC

“The U.S. Navy has awarded Kuma Signals, LLC a $750,000 contract to further develop their Dillo platform, a wireless communications technology providing connectivity in extreme conditions. Kuma lands the contract as an extension of their $100,000 Phase I effort demonstrating the feasibility of Dillo.

The 2-year effort, which includes a $500,000 base contract with a $250,000 option, began in September and will result in a real-time demonstration of Dillo on military-grade software defined radios. Rockwell Collins, Inc. is providing their FlexNet radio platform as subcontractor on the effort.”

I’m especially impressed with their emphasis on “providing connectivity in extreme conditions.”  This is a challenge that I’ve spent quite a bit of time thinking about recently.  It’s a tough nut to crack.  I’ll be very interested in learning about their results.

Their release continues:

“Dillo integrates into the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS), the next-generation of wireless systems planned for the U.S. military. “

It’s really nice to see another focused (ok, small) company having such success within the JTRS program.  Great work guys!  (Yes, all of the principals identified on their site are male — don’t send me nastygrams accusing me of being a misogynist)