Naval Internet of Things (IoT) Effectiveness and Efficiency
Navy STTR 2018.A - Topic N18A-T027 ONR - Mr. Steve Sullivan - [email protected] Opens: January 8, 2018 - Closes: February 7, 2018 (8:00 PM ET)
TECHNOLOGY
AREA(S): Information Systems, Sensors ACQUISITION
PROGRAM: Maritime Tactical Command and Control, Distributed Common Ground
Station � Navy (PMW 150 and 120) OBJECTIVE:
Objective is to develop and test Internet of Things (IoT) concepts in relevant
environments.� The performer will prototype an agent-based framework populated
by smart objects and Artificial Intelligence (AI)-controlled force units; and
demonstrate its effectiveness and efficiency. DESCRIPTION:
The goal of the topic is to prototype an agent-based framework populated by
agent-controlled units and smart objects including sensors and logistics
assets.� As part of development, the performer will evaluate an implementation
of the above with a military simulation (e.g., JSAF, VBS3, etc.) of their
choice.� Progress will be tracked by computing the ratio of a set of measures
of performance (simulation outcomes) divided by the number of bits sent
in-between and between objects (sensors, weapons, and logistics support assets)
and units (individual warfighters and/or platforms to three at-sea platforms or
three land-based companies).� The offeror should utilize multiple scenarios to
prove the utility of their Phase I research.� All messages count, including
object/unit discovery.� Assumptions made concerning the abilities of smart
sensors need to be justified in literature (e.g., a small Unmanned Aircraft
Systems (UAS) should not be allowed to send specific target confirmation
messages from 10 miles away).� During Phase II, the offeror will work towards
demonstrating with real things during an operational exercise.� Phase III will
focus on transitioning the validated architecture and whatever part of the
agent-based framework populated by smart objects is not currently fielded.�
Transition should be accomplished through redesign of existing platform and
sensor systems, for example, to make them intelligent, enabled by the use of
efficient communication protocols. PHASE
I: Study possible simulations using multiple scenarios with differing measures
of effectiveness, instrumented in a way that measures communication volume
between things.� Document smart capabilities given to sensors, platforms, and
weapons plus the logic used by things to decide why/when/how to communicate.�
Identify metrics to validate performance of analytic processes with the goal of
reducing technical risk associated with building a working prototype, should
work progress.� Performers should produce Phase II plans with a technology
roadmap and milestones. PHASE
II: Develop a prototype and perform a field demonstration of the prototype,
which may take place in concert with an operational experiment.� In Phase II,
the small business may be given access by the Government to subject matter
expertise to help validate information sharing logic.� The offeror should
assume that the prototype system will need to run as an application in cloud
architecture or World Server Network (WSN) of a large number of nodes and have
matured a design for a responsive human computer interface.� Phase II
deliverables will include a working prototype of the system, software
documentation including a user�s manual, and a demonstration. PHASE
III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Phase III will focus on transitioning the validated
architecture and whatever part of the agent-based framework populated by smart
objects is not currently fielded.� The final system design must be capable of
deployment.� The system should be adapted to transition as part to a larger
system or as standalone commercial product.� Commercial interest should be
great as the ever-connected world remains power- and bandwidth-constrained.�
The Phase III system should have an intuitive human computer interface,
providing operator engagement but not overload.� The software and hardware
should be modified and documented in accordance with guidelines provided by
market plan or transition customer. REFERENCES: 1.
Abdulrahman, Y. A. et al. �Internet of Things: Issues and Challenges.� Procedia
CIRP 2016, 16:3�8. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Internet+of+Things%3A+Issues+and+Challenges+Abdulrahman+procedia&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C47&as_vis=1 2.
Lee, J, Kao, H-A, and Yang, S. �Service Innovation and Smart Analytics for
Industry 4.0 and Big Data Environment.� J. Theoretical and Applied Info Tech,
2014, V94, No1 E-ISSN 1817-3195. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212827114000857 3.
Fraga-Lamas, P., et al.� �A Review on Internet of Things for Defense and Public
Safety.� Sensors 2016, 16, 1644; doi: 10.3390/s16101644. http://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/16/10/1644/htm 4.
Palmer, D., et al. �Defense Systems and IoT: Security Issues in an Era of
Distributed Command and Control.� GLSVLSI 2016 Proceedings of the 26th edition
on Great Lakes Symposium on VLSI. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2903038 5.
�The Cisco Edge Analytics Fabric System.� Cisco whitepaper (2016). http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/products/collateral/analytics-automation-software/edge-analytics-fabric/eaf-whitepaper.pdf 6.
Oteafy, S. M. A. and Hassanein, H. S. �Resilient IoT Architectures Over Dynamic
Sensor Networks with Adaptive Components.� IEEE Internet of Things J., 2017, 4,
2 doi: 10.1109/JIOT.2016.2621998. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7707340/ KEYWORDS:
Internet of Things; Cloud Computing; Data Science, Embedded Processing;
Communication Protocols; Artificial Intelligence
|