sensor network technology

Sensor Network Technology for Joint Undersea Warfare

P. 1

Presented at the NDIA Joint Undersea Warfare Technology Conference, San Diego, March 21, 2002 . Copyright ©2002 John Walrod, Planning Systems Inc.

Sensor Network Technologyfor

Joint Undersea Warfare

John WalrodPlanning Systems Incorporated

[email protected]: 1-228-863-0007 x117


P. 2


Ubiquitous Sensors + Ubiquitous Networks

2000: 100 million image sensors sold worldwide (Cahners In-StatGroup)

2006: 1 billion ‘mobile’ sensors on 21 million telematic-enabled carsin US (Telematics Research Group)

2006: 2.5 billion devices on the Internet (Dr. Vinton Cerf)

2010: 60 trillion wireless sensors deployed worldwide (Ernst & Young)

= Ubiquitous Sensor Networks


P. 3


Commercial Sensor Network Evolution1976: Ethernet 31 Nodes/segment <1 Mbit/s1977: ARCnet 255 Nodes max <10 Mbit/s

1990s: Industrial bus wars. AS-I, BACnet, CAN, ControlNet, DeviceNet, Fieldbus, Interbus, LonWorks, ModBus,

Profibus, Seriplex, SDS <32k nodes, <10 Mbit/s

1997: IEEE 1451. 2 ‘Smart Sensor’ standard

2000+: Wireless networks: 802.11, Bluetooth, proprietary

2002: Ethernet/Fast Ethernet in factories. CAN in vehicles.802.11b gaining ground. Lots of Bluetooth hype.Killer apps: Machine vision, machine monitoring,SCADA, telematics


P. 4


DoD Sensor Network Evolution1950s +: SOSUS wired hydrophone networks

1965-72: Unattended Ground Sensors (UGS) used in Vietnam

1975-date: MIL-STD-1553. 31 Nodes max 1 Mbit/s

1980’s: Various UGS: seismic, magnetic, acoustic, IR, radar-USA Remote Battlefield Sensor System (REMBASS)-USMC Tactical Remote Sensor System (TRSS)

1990’s: DSPs enable measurement and signature ID capabilities in sensor nodes.

-USAF Tactical Automated Security System (TASS)


P. 5


DoD Sensor Network Evolution1990s: Limited deployment of FDDI incl. non-standard versions

1995+: ATM-SONET in towed arrays, ranges, surveillance arrays, shipboard monitoring systems, combat systems

100’s-1000’s sensors <1 Gbit/s

1995+: Fibre Channel in sonars, radars, data recording systems100’s - 1000’s sensors <1 Gbit/s

Jan98: Cebrowski & Garstka publish NCW paper in NavalInstitute Proceedings

1999 Alberts, Garstka, & Stein publish Network Centric Warfare, CCRP Press


P. 6


DoD Sensor Network Evolution

1999: DoD Sensor Network R&D initiatives- Extending the Littoral Battlespace ACTD- DARPA SensIT, AMSTE, AT3, Wolfpack programs- OSD SensorWeb program- USAF Steel Eagle ACTD ---> ARGUS- ONR/DARPA Netted Search, Acq, & Targeting (NetSAT)- SPAWAR SeaWeb, DADS, FDS, ADS

2001: FBE India: “Operationalizing NCW”-Target-strike-BDA cycle reduced by factor of 4

CEC passes Navy OPEVAL Test - 10 Nodes- Army and Air Force connectivity under R&D


P. 7


ADS

Source: James Gilbert, TRW, "Advanced Deployable System as a Force Protector for Expeditionary Forces” , DTIC/NDIA 6th AnnualExpeditionary Warfare Conference, 29 Oct - 1 Nov2001, http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2001ewc/index.html


P. 8


DADS

Mark Hatch (SPAWAR), “Dynamic Control of Acoustic Communication Routes for an Autonomous Undersea Distributed Field of Sensors”, 2nd DARPA-JFACC SYMPOSIUM ONADVANCES IN ENTERPRISE CONTROL, MinneapolisMN, July 10-11, 2000, http://www.darpa.mil/ito/research/jfacc/ACESYMP/2AEC_program_linked.htm


P. 9


CEC

COHERENT, FIRE CONTROL QUALITY TRACK PICTURE HELDBY ALL UNITS IN A COMMON, SHARED DATA BASE

Benefits of Sensor Network • Near Real Time Exchange Of sensor measurement data• Cueing Of Remote Sensors• Jam Resistance/low Probability Of Intercept

JAMMERS

TBM

E-2CAWACSLAMPS

PATRIOTTHAAD/GBRHAWK

COMPOSITETRACK

FADE ZONE

RAIN

HORIZON

SHORE SHIP

JAMMING

HORIZON

MULTI-PATH

AIR

JAMMING

HORIZONRAIN

INTERFERENCE

Source: Alberts, Garstka, “Info Superiority & NCW”, IS/C2 Seminar, Dec. 14, 1999, www.ccrp.org


P. 10


THOR

Source: Mike Brininstool, “Underwater Communication Links”, THOR Industry Day, November 29, 2001 ,p.37

UUV Optical LinkMbps

@ 100 m

UAV-UAV Gbps DuplexOptical link @ 400 km

Node-NodeOptical Links

Mbps@ 30 m

Multi-comm NodeRF, IR laser

BG laser, acoustic, fiber

Fiber LinksGbps

@10 km

UAV-GroundMbps Duplex Optical link

@ 50 km

UAVUAV


P. 11


Sensor Networks Improve Performance

Sensor Network

USS Yorktown Aegis missile cruiser

USS Yorktown Aegis missile cruiser

• Generates engagement qualityBattlespace Awareness with reducedtimelines

• Fuses multi-sensor data

• Quantum improvement in trackaccuracy, continuity, and targetidentification

• Extends detection ranges

Time CompressionTime

TrackAccuracy

(Uncertainty)Engagement

QualityAccuracy

Stand Alone Sensor

Sensor Network

Sensor Data Fusion DecreasesTime Required to Generate

Engagement Quality Awareness

E-2C Hawkeyes

Cruisers

Source: Alberts, Garstka, “Info Superiority & NCW”, IS/C2 Seminar, Dec. 14, 1999, www.ccrp.org


P. 12


Sensor Networks DecreaseTotal Cost of Ownership

• Affordable COTS network equipment and software• Proper choice of standards provides long architectural lifetime• Creates common network-centric sensor interfaces across programs

- Enables possible cross-platform networking of these systems

NUWC ATM-SONETTowed arrays,

measurement ranges

NSWC ATM-SONET

UUVs,measurement ranges

SPAWAR ATM-SONETSurveillance

arrays

NAVSEAATM-SONET

VA Classsubmarine C3I


P. 13


Enduring Freedom

“Persistence over the battlefield” for the first time through jointly fused sensors

• Decreased sensor-shooter loops enabled time critical targeting

• ISR shown to be the most important mission for UAVs

• Navy P-3 ‘maritime’ aircraft used for ISR over a land-locked country

• UAV sensors and piloted strike aircraft linked together for first time

• National and tactical sensors networked to C2 nodes

• E-mail, Web services, and common operating picture are killer apps


P. 14


“We are seeing the emergence ofsensor-based warfare. The reality is,

the world knows if we can sense it, wecan kill it”

Retired Navy Vice Adm. Arthur Cebrowski

Office of Force Transformation

February 5, 2002

Source: Dan Caterinicchia, “Keys to DOD transformation outlined”, Federal Computer Week, February 6, 2002, www.fcw.com


P. 15


Global market formilitary sensor network systems is

estimated at $4 billion through 2010

2000: Raytheon organizes new unit: Joint Sensor Networking

2001: Lockheed Martin announces ‘LinkSensors’ system

2002: DARPA NCW-related program funding >>$200M

2002+ ForceNet, Expeditionary Sensor Grid, Global Information Grid, ...

Source: J.T. Wilson, “Making sense of sketchy or incomplete information”, M&AE, Nov. 2001, p.27


P. 16


Key Issues• Interoperability and open architectures

- Across sensors, platforms, command levels, forces, coalitions- Through a variety of network and application layers- With legacy sensors, nets, comms, and stovepipe processes

• Future SensorNets must service an open and UNPREDICTABLE setof sensor types, users, applications, and comm links

• Security and Info Assurance; Fault tolerance and reliability- Thousands of distributed sensor nodes;- Nodes will be compromised; Nodes will fail; Nodes will be destroyed- Lightweight security protocols & encryption needed for distributed sensors- LPI/LPD, Anti-Jam, fault resistance, source and access authentication

• Dynamic, Scalable Solutions- An ESG will have 100’s-1000’s of sensors- A modern aircraft carrier has some 50,000 sensors- A global grid will have millions-billions of sensors


P. 17


Key Issues• Shortage of Bandwidth, Spectrum, Time, Space, Power, and $$$

- Raw sonar, radar, or optical images @ Gbps versus SATCOM @ Mbps- FCC spectrum wars are emerging- Real-time control loops; minimize latency; prioritize data; guarantee QoS- Affordable, low-power, small nodes required for most applications

• Accurate sensor synchronization, time stamping, and geo-location- Location/time addressing potentially more useful than logical addressing

• Manageable, automated systems- Set-up, operation, adaptive reconfig, PM & FL, maintenance, upgrades - Ad-hoc, mobile, dynamic, & scalable across harsh environments

• Extraction of USEFUL information from the Sensor Grid- Tasking the grid; understanding the information display; aiding C2 decisions- Providing situation awareness- Providing TRUSTWORTHY information


P. 18


Active R&D Areas• Higher bandwidth: Wideband RF data links, free space optical links, and high-speed acoustic modem links.

- UltraWideBand (UWB) - Spectrum sensing with adaptive RF utilization- Better QoS and prioritization methods

• Intelligent agents for distributed computing and machine-machine interactions a.k.a. mobile code, smart agent, inference agent

• Ad-hoc positioning and sync systems; miniature GPS receivers- Geo-location based routing and ad-hoc organization

• Processes to reduce info overload- Neural networks - Automatic Target Recognition- Fuzzy logic - Fusion- Artificial intelligence


P. 19


Active R&D Areas• Lower power and smaller sensor nodes; MEMS

- Energy-based routing and ad-hoc organization schemes

• Network components, protocols, and algorithms for ad-hoc, mobile, and real-time sensor nets

• Protocols, processing, and electronics for distributed unattendedsensor nodes (e.g., wireless microsensors)

• Architectures for wide area (global), large scale sensor networks

• Interoperability of legacy sensor systems with emerging grid concepts such as ForceNet and ESG


P. 20


Interoperability• Layered model architecture

- Independent modular layers? Best for interop, but limits capability- Interfaces between layers defined- Each layer can be independently changed & upgraded

• Open interfaces to layers- Use commercial standard layer protocols whenever possible- Avoid proprietary layer structures and protocols- Interfaces to layers must be open; protocol definitions must be published

• There is currently little guidance for sensor system design relative to DoD interoperability requirements for joint NCW

The DoD (OSD, OFT, JCS/J6) should provide a set of recommended (mandated?) layerstructures, protocols, data structures, and architectural guidelines for DoD sensorsystems to enable future sensor grid applications


P. 21


Key Standard Protocols for Sensor NetworksProtocol What makes it key? Notes

Ethernet Ubiquitous in LANs; Low-cost Be careful if moving real-time dataMost popular industrial sensor net

Fibre Channel Popular in SANs; Fast; excellent for data recordingmodest deployment in sensor nets(sonar, radar, vehicles, combat systems)

802.11b Rapid adoption in WLANs Emerging use for sensor networks

Bluetooth Low-cost, low-power WLAN Several vendors offer sensor nodes

FireWire Rapid adoption in multimedia Consumer video & image sensorsHigh speed and low cost

ATM-SONET Ubiquitous in WANs; Superb scalability, real-timede facto in many Navy sensor nets; support, LAN & WAN use, QoS,

& clock distribution capabilities


P. 22


Other Key Standard ProtocolsProtocol Notes

CAN Controller Area Network. Rapid adoption in vehicle sensor nets. Somedeployment in industrial sensor networks.

IEEE1451 IEEE smart sensor standard. Defines interfaces & network commsfor sensors. Wireless version of standard is in works.

IP Internet, Ubiquitous. IPv6 migration necessary

TCP Diddo. Requires extensive memory resources in high-speed sensor networksto support retransmit requests.

UDP Used instead of TCP in sensor nets to minimize resources.

XML Enables data exchange across nodes. Rapid adoption; soon ubiquitous.Under R&D for military sensor networks.


P. 23


Other Key Standard ProtocolsProtocol Notes

SOAP Simple Object Access Protocol. Enables distributed objects/processing. Runs on top of XML. Simple enough for embedded sensor nodes.

LDAP Lightweight directory service. Small and efficient protocol (good forembedded apps like sensor nodes)

SNMP Simple network management protocol; extensively deployed. Good for sensor network device management.

HTTP, HTML Ubiquitous. Good for sensor network user interfaces, status, control.

JAVA/JINI Currently in R&D for distributed self-organizing SensorNets


P. 24


Protocols to watchProtocol Notes

CORBA Dynamic S/W composability. Fine for large platform nodes, but too complex for limited resource nodes (e.g., UGS). Some use in SensorNets.

DCOM Diddo

IP-SEC Very secure, but too complex and resource hungry for many node types.Internet will make it ubiquitous.

SSL Diddo

RTP/RTCP Real-time transport protocol/control protocol for multicast multimedia

MPLS Alleviate network complexity, automate service provision, and providetraffic engineering. Support QoS on IP networks.


P. 25


The legacy comms issue• Hundreds of legacy military data comms, links, protocols, networks

- Most are not interoperable, open, or conducive to sensor networking- Many can’t handle even simple IP packet fields (e.g., JTIDS Link-16)- Others may have trouble scaling (e.g. CEC DDS, Link-16)- Most are isolated stovepipes (e.g., TPN, SINCGARS, EPLRS, CDL)

• Develop new equipment to consolidate legacy systems? (e.g., JTRS)- Significant JTRS R&D is focused on legacy radio compatibility- Diverts funding away from the more critical issue:

Our Forces need higher speed, interoperable networks!

• Deploy expensive outdated architectures for ROI? (e.g., Link-16) - The US has been developing Link-16 for 2 decades - The US plans to buy $150M worth of Link-16 systems in FY03

- Highly customized non-commercial-practice architecture- May never ‘play well’ with the rest of the network world.

Not just a ‘SensorNet’ issue; a joint NCW issue


P. 26


Sensor Network Adaptive Processor -SNAP• PSI and SPAWAR are developing a common middleware node for

integration and interoperability of new and legacy sensor systems tosupport emerging FORCEnet sensor network architectures andconcepts

- Highly adaptive, reconfigurable middleware node with sensor network processor- Small size and low-power for embedded applications- Provides network interface and switching capability

i.e., can interface sensors and network data

SNAPSwitchNode

Configurable Sensor Interface Ports

Configurable NetworkInterface Ports

ConnectSensors

Here

ConnectNetwork

Here


P. 27


SNAP 4-port Multi-Protocol Switch

1.5 inch OD

Power Power

Memory

SwitchProcessor

Switch Fabric BackplaneSerialI/O

Serial Ports

SONET

ModularPHY PORT

DaughtercardSONETSONET

SONETModular

PHY PORTDaughtercard

ModularPHY PORT

Daughtercard

ModularPHY PORT

Daughtercard

4.5 inches• Daughtercard PHY ports- Modular and configurable - Multi-protocols

• Switch baseboard- Highly configurable and adaptable


P. 28


Conclusion• Sensor networking has emerged as the foundation grid for NCW

- There are numerous issues and opportunities for the S&T community- Ad-hoc networking, automated management, security, bandwidth, QoS

- Intelligent agents, fusion, AI, ATR

• Commercial support, interoperability, scalability, trustworthiness,and joint standard guidelines are necessary to realize an affordablesensor grid with wide-scale deployment, joint use, and longarchitectural lifetime.


P. 29


Thank You!Portions of this work were supported by

SPAWAR PD-18under a Phase II SBIR contract.

Mr. Don Ringel - PM

The author would like to thankMr. John Garstka,

Office of Force Transformation,for his helpful insight on this subject.

John WalrodPlanning Systems Inc. (PSI)

[email protected]

sensor network technology

Documents