This article originally appeared on Government Technology Insider.
The U.S. Navy boasts one of the most powerful and dominant submarine fleets in the world – with 53 fast attack, 14 ballistic-missile, and four guided-missile submarines. As modern warfighting continues to become more complex with adversaries deploying technologically advanced systems and capabilities, the threats to maritime security are rapidly escalating.
To keep pace with these evolving threats, the Navy is currently modernizing and updating the systems onboard its submarines and has announced plans to double the production capacity of its fleet.
To learn more about the complexities of the system architectures of today’s submarine fleet and the Navy’s efforts to modernize them, Government Technology Insider sat down with Sigma Defense’s Executive Vice President, Ed Anderson, and Senior Program Manager, Michelle Lemmon.
Government Technology Insider (GTI): What is the current state of the systems – both hardware and software – on America’s submarine fleet? What challenges does the military face when attempting to modernize the fleet?
Ed Anderson: There is a lot of work being done today to modernize the architecture and systems of the U.S.’s submarine fleet. The systems that are currently deployed on today’s fleet can still be used for another decade or so before they reach the end of their useful life, but we need to continue down the modernization path that we are on.
One challenge of modernization is that it takes a great deal of effort to fully compile and create an installable image for each submarine. Because of that, fixes and upgrades can be a very long and drawn-out process. If we had submarine software in a modern and containerized architecture, those challenges would be less difficult to overcome.
For the AUKUS (Australia, U.K., U.S.) defense partnership, the combat system and the weapons control are a prime concern, because each country has its own hardware and software for their fleet. Creating a single submarine that can accommodate all three countries’ needs is a unique challenge. But there is a rational and documented path to modernize the hardware and software architectures for AUKUS, and what will be done for AUKUS will be mirrored and led through the programs of record that are currently supporting the combat systems and weapons on U.S. submarines.
To be clear, there is not a notion or need to modernize. There’s a deliberate plan now to do that.
Michelle Lemmon: Submarines are still performing their missions, and we have the capability to provide a more optimized and efficient methodology to modernize the software in submarines. That is what AUKUS is currently setting out to do. We must continue down the current path to modernizing their systems and architectures.
GTI: What new advantages, technologies, and capabilities will the Navy have at its disposal when upgrading and modernizing these systems?
Ed Anderson: By upgrading, installation times will be shorter going forward and the ability to more rapidly insert upgrades will be strongly enhanced.
Michelle Lemmon: One point that is making its way into the current modernization conversation is the use of artificial intelligence (AI). The Navy is dipping its toe in the AI waters. From a forward-looking perspective, having AI-powered applications will certainly make the lives and jobs of sailors much easier.
Ed Anderson: I agree. The Navy is already implementing smart techniques and intelligence machine techniques for pattern recognition that will prompt and direct users toward what they should be looking for. AI will also enable operators to accomplish complex and difficult tasks with higher rates of productivity.
GTI: Why are the systems on board America’s submarine fleet so complex?
Michelle Lemmon: One primary reason that the systems can be complicated is because it involves – through AUKUS – three different program offices with three different budgets that have three different requirements for hardware and software. The complexities come into play because they all have to work together.
Ed Anderson: One hurdle that the Navy is getting after is re-architecting submarine systems so that they enable disaggregation of hardware and software. It is a major warfighting advantage to be able to write the best software and have it work on any hardware on the submarine. The Navy is still working towards that because it’s a very difficult task.
Today all of the software that is written is bespoke to the hardware configuration, which provides significant limitations. Typically, one set of software works with two versions of hardware, and that’s it. Each year we’re upgrading the software, but it will only go on a couple of different versions of the hardware.
Disaggregating the software will enable a broader, more rapid increase in warfighting capability. Enabling the hardware to move independently of the software – and vice versa – will be another key advantage as we modernize the software architecture.
Michelle Lemmon: The speed and relevance of upgrades and modernization have not been able to keep pace with the requirements of submarine forces and the availability of boats.
There is a lot that goes into installing these upgrades that are outside of our control. Installations are lengthy and boat availability shifts all the time. We have not been able to solve that puzzle yet on how to make the installations go faster.
Ed Anderson: Disaggregation of hardware and software will help resolve that challenge, as it will enable shorter availabilities and shorter removal from a usable asset.
GTI: What approach can and should the Navy take to modernize these systems? What technologies can help?
Ed Anderson: One approach that will benefit the Navy’s modernization efforts is embracing a true DevSecOps mentality and adopting fully containerized software that allows updates of parts of the system without affecting other components of the system.
Michelle Lemmon: And utilizing a DevSecOps platform for software development and delivery will allow the Navy to have flexible and secure software production that can adapt quickly to changing demands. And that all aligns with the Navy’s goals going forward.
