Single- vs. Multi-Function Systems

Here is Navy Matters on single vs. multi function system design:

So many people want to cram every capability they can think of onto every ship built.  They claim that every ship should be able to do every task because, well …, you just never know what situation will arise.  Multi-function allows greater flexibility, they say.  We don’t have enough ships so they should all be as capable as possible.  A little extra equipment doesn’t really cost all that much more.  And so on…

 

Single function does not, literally, mean only one function as so many of you sea lawyers seem to think.  If that were true, a single function ship would have an engine and nothing else because that would constitute its single function.  Well, that’s ridiculous!  So, obviously, a single function ship must have more than one function.  Huh?  Well, then, what is a single function ship? 

 

A single function ship is one that is built with a single, primary function that dictates all of its design characteristics like size, shape, speed, weapons, sensors, etc.  The key concept is that the term ‘single function’ refers to a single PRIMARY function.  Nothing about that definition precludes a lesser, secondary function as long as that secondary function does not negatively impact the primary function and does not significantly impact the overall cost.

I recently posted on DARPA’s attempts to dis-aggregate complex platforms into a system of systems as one way of reducing costs. DARPA was suggesting that we have a highly capable platform that disaggregates its functions into many smaller systems. Here, platform design is the central aspect, but entails the logistics problem of communication and decision with the disaggregated subsystems.

Alternatively, Navy Matters suggests that we have single-mission platforms. They have their functions all integrated, but there’s no reason the components can’t be swapped out and upgraded. Their function is not dependent on vulnerable communication with command.

When you talk about creating a larger number of single-function systems, you will continue to need some kind of command and control. I suppose this can come from either a centralized system that requires communication, routing, analysis, and decision, or, it can come from mission-command.

Mission command is the military concept that under the fog of war, communication and logistics is very hard. The commander must lay out his objectives clearly and give wide latitude to the soldiers on the ground to take the initiative. But ultimately, those soldiers are coordinating themselves based on local information and local communication only.

This is the benefit of single-mission systems with human operators. Even if AI is doing most of the system operating, humans will be far better (for the foreseeable future) at reliably recognizing the context and making effective decisions. They can coordinate with each other and mutually learn new contexts without having to continually reach back to command and control for decision support.

But that puts a heavy load on human training and coordination. It puts a premium on culture. But ultimately it would be the most resilient form of system of systems design. It avoids catastrophe from a single countermeasure.

Certainly there is a tension between greater efficiency of top-down control, and the greater resilience of bottom-up emergence. Both must be pursued simultaneously in the total defense system of systems, which creates some conflict but results in growth.