Introduction

A new approach to developing and acquiring computersfor the military has been under development over the past21/2 years by the Army's Electronics Command and theNavy's Air Systems Command. Known as the MilitaryComputer Family Program, the joint effort now includesthe Air Force's Electronic Systems Division and RomeAir Development Center (as observers). It is aimed at pro-

viding defense system developers with a software-compatiblefamily of military computers that have extensive systems/support software. The various phases of the work being per-formed under the MCF Program are the subject of the prin-cipal articles in this issue. The overall objectives and majorthrusts are summarized below.

Military computer hardware and software have usuallybeen acquired in one of two ways: either they are sub-contracted by the system prime contractor, or they are

available through previous, independent procurementby a government project office. In the first approach, thesystem prime contractor provides a new computer with an

architecture designed to be "optimized" for the specifictask-and thereby inadvertently adds another computerarchitecture and associated software that DOD mustsupport. The application software for the system'smission is then often developed concurrently with thecomputer hardware, leading to cost/schedule problemson the overall project.

In the second approach, the government either specifiesor furnishes the desired computer to the systems con-

tractor. In this case, the government tends to standardizeupon specific computer hardware-thereby limiting com-

petition among hardware suppliers as well as leading totechnological obsolescence.Both of these scenarios have led to unnecessary prolif-

eration of computer architecture, lack of meaningful com-

puter resource competition, and obsolete technologyduring the entire life cycle. The results of these short-

12

The MilitarjComputer itmilg:ANew. Joint-ServiceApproach to MilitarijComputer AcquiisitionAaron H. ColemanU.S. Army Electronics Command

William R. SmithU.S. Naval Research Laboratory --

comings have in turn been excessive life cycle costs aswell as system performance limitations (see Figure 1).A project manager for a military computer-based -system

is roughly equivalent to the "original equipment manu-facturer" in the commercial or industrial sector: Typically,both assemble systems for end users. But the OEM hasseveral significant advantages over his military counter-part. He can acquire off-the-shelf commercial minicom-puters (and an increasing number of microcomputers) ona competitive basis and with a wide range of price/per-formance capability. Most minicomputer manufacturersoffer one or more software-compatible product lines whichare accompanied by a growing base of systems andsupport software. Moreover, each well-established mini-computer manufacturer provides extensive documentationservices to assist the OEM in integrating minicomputerswithin his turnkey system and numerous courses for train-ing programmers, operators, and maintenance personnel.Finally, intensive competition forces each minicomputermanufacturer to update his product line periodically whileat the same time maintaining software compatibility andarchitectural integrity.

Objectives of the MCF Program

The Military Computer Family Program is aimed atproviding the developers of military weapon systems anddata systems with computer resources comparable tothose available to their industrial counterparts. Funda-mental to achieving this objective is the developmment ofa qualified, software-compatible family of military com-puters that have extensive systems/support software andthat are available off the shelf from a number of qualifiedsuppliers. If successful, this effort should produce anorder-of-magnitude reduction in computer resource lifecycle cost.To ensure a graceful transition from currently employed

multiple computer architectures, the MCF will also needto provide for software transportability from the most

COMPUTER

SOFTWARE

PROBLEM AREAS

HARDWARE

SOFTWARE INCOMPATIBLE

COMPUTER

PROLIFERATION

INADEOUATE SOFTWARE

MANAGEMENT

TOOLS & TECHNIOUES

OBSOLETE TECHNOLOGY

LACK OF COMPETITION

(SINGLE SUPPLIER)

CONCURRENT HDW/SW

DEVELOPMENT

SYSTEM

Figure 1. MCF computer resource problem areas.

widely used Army/Navy prior-generation computer archi-tectures-e.g., the AN/UYK-7, AN/UYK-19, AN/UYK-20,AN/GYK-12, and System 360-40.

Overall approach

The overall approach adopted by the Army and Navyhas consisted of two major thrusts (see Figure 2). First,the unnecessary proliferation of computer architectures*and associated support software must be reduced andeventually eliminated. A limited set of computer archi-tectures is proposed for a majority (but not all) of DODdefense system applications. This set consists of (1) a

number of military computer architectures which are

already commonly employed in military computers and(2) a single preferred computer family architecture as theeventual basis of the software-compatible MCF for futuremilitary applications.

*"Computer architecture" as used here is defined in the article in thisissue by Burr and Gordon.

MLU

C.) u1cc

LLj<

~<M

LL.

The second thrust is to standardize, control, and im-prove hardware and software MCF members by (1) devel-oping form, fit, and function specifications for thesemembers in conjunction with industry and (2) competitivelyprocuring such members during the entire life cycle, on

the basis of those specifications. Form, fit, and functionspecifications for an equipment unit (component, module,box, or system) define the functional requirements for-and the physical environmental, electronic, and logicalinterfaces to/from-the unit. Such specifications avoid as

much as possible the inclusion of internal unit design or

technology requirements. This approach is similar tocommercial airline avionics equipment procurementmethodology which has been successfully developed byArinc Corp.23 over the past 30 years and is graduallybeing adopted within the military services.

Architecture standardization and control. Table 1indicates computers which are already used in currentArmy/Navy military systems and whose architectureshave been proposed for inclusion in an initial set of DOD-approved military computer architectures. These com-puters, which have been designated as prior-generationmachines, represent a software investment too large to bediscarded upon the introduction of a new standard com-

puter family architecture. (The IBM S/360-40 shown inthe table refers to commercial equipments which are

mounted in air-conditioned military vehicles and usedwithin Army management information systems.)By using modern, high-performance, militarized emula-

tors to implement the MCF members, the program willaccommodate users of prior-generation computers who needto upgrade their old hardware without impacting their soft-ware as well as provide a smooth transition to the com-

puter family architecture for new applications. Theseemulators will yield advanced-technology computers that,with the insertion of the appropriate CPU and I/O inter-face cards, will be able to replace and execute the softwareof prior-generation military computers or else serve in newapplications as computer family architecture members.The emulation approach is well within the state of the

art and has already been demonstrated in several ongoing

STANDARDIZE, CONTROL & IMPROVE COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE

lII

IIllII

'Iz Figure 2.

Major MCF thrusts.

October 1977

HARDWARE GROWING NUMBER T LIMITED SET OF COMPUTER FAMILY

CHITECTUHR OF ARCHITECTURES ARCHITECTURES ARCHITECTURREOBTAIN COMPUTERHARDWARE VIACURRENT MILITARY A BACQUISITIONPRACTICE

ACQUIRE MCFEMBERS/MODULE

VIAFORM, FIT& C DFUNCTION SPECS

U)2-jcoC)crCL

mcr

.ZC)C-)U)crC)

C-)

13

Table 1. Army/Navy prior-generationcomputer/architectures.3-7

A/N NOMENCLATURE INITIAL MFR./MODEL NO.

1. AN/UYK-7 UNIVAC2. AN/UYK-19 ROLM 16023. AN/UYK-20 UNIVAC4. AN/GYK-12 litton 130505. ---- IBM S/360-40

military computer acquisition programs. For example, theArmy and Navy have separately and independentlyawarded contracts to CDC for the engineering develop-ment of the TMPP (Tactical MicrQ Programmable Pro-cessor) and the AN/AYK-14 computer, respectively.These modern military computers incorporate micropro-grammable processors that emulate the AN/GYK-12 andAN/UYK-20 computers, respectively, and consist of an

assembly of basic modules which can be procured viaform, fit, and function specifications. Also, Litton DataSystems is developing the L30E microprogrammablecomputer to emulate the AN/GYK-12. Such militarizedemulator hardware procured from multiple vendors repre-sent an important step in the direction of the MCF.To achieve the goal of a software-compatible MCF

based upon a single preferred computer family architecture,a Computer Family Architecture Committee representinginterested Army/Navy organizations was formed with theresponsibility for recommending a preferred architecture(see the articles by Fuller et al. and Burr in this is'sue).Operating under the ground rule that the preferred archi-tecture should be an existing (military or commercial),proven one, the committee settled on the PDP-1 1 productline (designated AN/GYQ-21 in military systems) as therecommended computer family architecture for futureMCF applications and product planning.

It seems clear that standardization upon a limited setof computer architectures as well as higher-order pro-gramming languages for DOD defense systems willreduce DOD support software life cycle costs (as shownin Figure 3). Underscoring this is DOD Instruction 5000.31,dated November 1976, which established an interim set ofapproved HOL's listed as No. 2 to No. 7 in the left-handcolumn of Figure 3 for use in defense systems. A DODPanel on HOL standardization has been active duringthe past two years in developing user requirements andfunctional specifications for a possible DOD-preferredHOL (indicated on Figure 3 as HOL No. 1). The proposedset of DOD-approved computer architectures are listedas No. 1 to No. 6 in the uppermost row in Figure 3. Foreach HOL/computer family architecture combination,compiler and associated software support tools are

required. In the past, unbridled proliferation of bothHOL's and architectures has led to requirements for as

many as i xj sets of compilers and software tools. Estab-lishment of an interim set of approved HOL's and com-

puter architectures, as shown in Figure 3, will reduce themaximum possible number of defense compiler/supportsoftware systems to 42. A further reduction in the numberof either approved HOL's or approved computer architec-tures can significantly increase DOD's return on its sup-

port software investment by permitting R&D concentra-tion upon a handful of compilers and support softwaresystems.Standardization, control, and evolutionary improve-

ment of a computer family architecture for defense appli-cations are no simple matter. In certain respects, thosetasks are more complex than similar efforts undertaken

14

by a computer manufacturer, since viable, continuouscompetition for production of software-compatible com-

puters based-upon the controlled computer family archi-tecture is desired by most in government and industry.And yet, such architecture control on a joint service,

cooperative basis would be essential if the benefits of a

software-compatible MCF are to be achieved. CurrentMCF Program plans include provisions for standardization/control and improvement of the architectures listed inFigure 3 and associated hardware implementations.

Hardware standardization, control, and improvement.The first step in this second major thrust of the MCFProgram is to structure and quantitatively define theArmy/Navy (and possible Air Force) market for militarycomputers, peripheral equipments, and associated systems/support software. Once defined, this market survey mustbe periodically updated, since it will provide a major inputto both government and industrial R&D program plan-ning in this field. Preliminary indications are that, witha common joint service standard, this market is big enoughand stable enough to justify industrial R&D expendituresfor advanced -development of military computers andcertain system/support software packages. As part of thismarket research effort, approximately 35 current andfuture Army/Navy applications of military computerswere defined and described in 1976 and are serving as

one major input for the development of MCF members/modules and their form, fit, and function specifications.

Figure 3. DOD support software systems.

The second step in this part of the MCF Program is thedevelopment of an initial set of MCF members/modulesand associated form, fit, and function specifications.This approach will provide the basis for the subsequentprocurement from multiple suppliers of modern militarycomputer hardware incorporating prior-generation militarycomputer architectures and thereby providing for prio-generation software transportability via emulations.The third step in this part of the program provides

for a software-compatible MCF based upon the preferredcomputer family architecture. To implement this step, a

contract was awarded to Itek Applied Technology Divisionin September 1976 for the MCF Systems ImplementationPlan. To be completed in December 1977, this plan will

COMPUTER

INTERIM SET OF COMPUTER ARCHITECTURES

DOD APPROVED 2 3 4 5 6

HIGHERORDER /LANGUAGES (HOL'S) t' \>. c /

/ D/

1POSSIBOLE DO-Dl1 HOL

2 FORTRAN

3 COBOL

4 TACPOL

5 CMS-2

16 1SPL-17 JOVIAL J73

*: ___S

include (1) MCF System Configuration Handbook/Inter-face Standards; (2) form, fit, and function specificationsfor MCF members/modules; and (3) MCF cost-effective-ness analysis. This plan is being developed with theadvice and guidance of Army/Navy computer-based systemdevelopers and over 35 industrial firms and universities.One of the major objectives of this effort is to achieveform, fit, and function standardization and control of theplug-in modules which comprise military computers. Ifthese modules can be economically supported as leastreplaceable units and not repaired in the field, then thereis a high probability of attaining two major MCF goals:viable competition over the entire life cycle and a reason-able degree of hardware technology independence. U

References

1. L. J. Graham and B. L. Retterer, "Airline ProcurementTechniques," Arinc Research Corp. Technical PerspectiveNo. 26, dated July 1976.

2. G. Boring and B. Retterer, "Form, Fit and Function Specifi-cations," Arinc Research Corp. Technical Perspective No. 16,June 1974.

3. Sperry-Univac Document, "AN/UYK-7 Technical Descrip-tion. "

4. Rolm Corp. Operation and Maintenance Manual, Model 1602(AN/UYK-19) Rugged Nova Computer, Vol. 1.

5. U.S. Navy Specification SB-10160, "Product FunctionSpecification, Data Processing Set AN/UYK-20(V) andAN/UYK-20X(V)."

6. Electronics Command EL-CP2508-TO, Baseline Specifica-tion for AN/GYK-12 Computer for TOS2 System.

7. IBM System/360 Principles of Operation Manual.

Aaron H. Coleman is a division chief in theU.S. Army's CENTACS (Center for TacticalComputer Systems) at Fort Monmouth, NewJersey. He has been engaged in the develop-ment of the Military Computer Family since1973. Previously, he was responsible for thedesign and development of military and com-merical computers (at Univac, Philco, andRCA), air defense systems, and radar. Hereceived a BEE from CCNY, an MEE from

Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, and a BBA from RutgersUniversity.

William R. Smith is a section head in thett00fi1.XX$Information Processing Systems Branch, the

Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C.His work at NRL has included the areas ofcomputer systems simulation, microprogram-mable processors, hardware and software forsignal processing applications, and computer

architecture evaluation. He has particular

interest in the proper role of standards formilitary applications, in achieving a profit-

able-for DOD and industry-balance between global applicationof one development and ad hoc "optimization" for every applica-tion. Smith received a BSEE from Virginia Polytechnic Instituteand an MSEE from the University of Maryland.

Reader Service Number 4

_P.qt 70

_=

s _

October 1977