13-1

Probability of Win Based on Bid

1

.8

.6

.4

.2

-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10% Below % Above

Probability of Winning

Expected Competitive Bid

13-2

Return $ Based on Bid

-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10% Below % Above

Expected Competitive Bid

Return $

10%

13-3

Expected Return Based on Bid

-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10% Below % Above

Expected Competitive Bid

.-2.2%

Return $ Discountedby Prob. of Win

Marginal Return $ X

Prob. Win

13-4

Technology RoadmapDevelopment Process

13-5

Roadmap Development Overview

Baseline ForceCapability

PreliminaryRanking of

ConfigurationOptions

OtherConsiderations

TechnologyPush

Pre-DesignStudies

RequirementsAnalysis

Master ConfigurationRoadmap

1

2

3

4

5 6

7

13-6

Roadmap Development Activities

13-7

Baseline Capability

• Missions/Tasks for Each Own Force Aircraft Must Be Identified Based on Warfare Objectives

• Evaluations of Effectiveness Must Account for Mission/Tasks within Air-to-Air and Air-to-Ground Categories. Summations of Kills “Over Time” Across Both Categories Are Particularly Meaningful.

1

13-8

Sample Multirole Aircraft Missions/Tasks

Warfare Objectives to Be Achieved

Top-Level Multirole AircraftRequirements Identification

Massive Firepower In-Theater“At a Pace and in Numbers Sufficientto Field an Over-Whelming Force”

Direct Support of the GroundCampaign“Slow the Enemy’s Offensive Tempuntil Friendly Ground Forces Can Massand Counter the Advance”

Establish Air Superiority“Denying the Enemy Use of His Airpower and Defenses”

Reconstitution“The ability to Reconstitute a CredibleDefense Faster Than Any Potential Opponent Can Generate an Over-Whelming Offense”

1. In-theatre Sortie Generation2. Supportable

3. Kill Armored Vehicles4. Destroy Critical Chokepoints

5. Destroy Enemy Aircraft in Air and on Ground6. Destroy Enemy Air Defenses

7. Reconstitutable

13-9

13-10

13-11

Technology Push

• Sources of Options– Government Labs - Defense Industry– Commercial Organizations - Educational Institutes

• Upgrade Option Categories– Airframe - Electronic Warfare– Propulsion - Avionics Architecture– Fuel Carriage - Comm/Nav/Ident– Materials - Weapons Int./Carriage– Takeoff/Landing Systems - Mission Planning– Flight Controls - Training Systems– Pilot Vehicle Interface - Reliability/Maint./Supp.– Sensors - C3I

2

13-12

Technology Upgrade Option Candidates

• Airframe– Structure– Wing– Tail– Inlet– Electroluminescent Strip

Lighting– Signature Improvements

• Propulsion

– Improved Engine

– Nozzle

– Thrust Vectoring

• Electronic Warfare- Threat Warning- Threat Info Management- Dispensers- Expendables- Towed Countermeasures- Electronic Countermeasures

• Avionics Architecture- Data Bus- Processor Memory- Processor Throughput- Tactical Data Management

13-13

Technology Upgrade Option Candidates(Cont.)

• Fuel Carriage

– External Tanks

– Conformal Tanks

– Dorsal Tanks

• Materials

– Composites

– Advanced Metals

• Takeoff/Landing

– Gear

– Drag Chute

– Braking

– Thrust Reversers

– Longer Life Tires

• Comm/Nav/Ident

– Anti-Jam Voice Data Link

– Global Positioning System

– Improved IFF

– Infrared Navigation

• Weapons Int/Carriage

– Standoff Weapon

– Air-to-Air Missiles

– Air-to-Surface Weapon

– Digital Store Management System

• Mission Planning

– Automated Planning Aids

13-14

Technology Upgrade Option Candidates(Cont.)

• Flight Controls– Terrain Following/Avoidance– Ground Proximity Warning

• Pilot Vehicle Interface– Color Moving Map– Night Vision– Helmet-Mounted Display– Tactical Situation Awareness

Display• Sensors

– Radar– Infrared Targeting– All Weather Targeting– Day/Night Capability– Laser Designators– Synthetic Aperture Radar

• Training Systems

– Pilot

– Mission

• Reliability/Maint./Supp.

– Modular Avionics

– Auxiliary Power Unit

– Integrated Diagnostics Testing

• C3I

– Real-Time Intelligence to Cockpit

– On-Board Data Fusion

13-15

Format For Technology Summaries

• Description– Basic System Characteristics– Integration Issues– Manufacturers

• Benefits/Costs– Operational Improvements– Performance Impacts– Reliability and Maintainability– System Impacts (Weight, Volume, Cooling, Power)– Development Cost– Unit Cost

• Status– Development Required– Availability– Risk and Other Considerations

13-16

Other Considerations

• Known/Suspected Threat Change Plans

• Projected New Technology Capability Must Be Accepted and Embrace by Both Military and Civilian Leadership

• Technology Must Allow Appropriate Self-Sufficienecy

• Technology Must Be Compatible with Manpower, Training, and Skill Levels

Political Drivers

3

13-17

Other Considerations (Cont’d)

• Must Enhance Future Market Potential

• In-Country Support Concept Must Be Workable

• Availability to Tailor Subsystems to Specific Foreign Customer Needs (Example : Adaptability to Existing Weapons)

International Market Competitiveness

• Must Be Affordable in Relation to Baseline Aircraft Cost• Technology Must Be Low to Moderate Risk in Timeframe Planned for Implementation

Budget/Timeframe

13-18

Preliminary Ranking4

13-19

Quantifying Technology Upgrade Benefit

13-20

Rankings of Sample TechnologiesSuggests Most Promising Options

13-21

Pre-Design Studies

• Cost - Estimate Life Cycle Cost Components of Technology

• Availability - Determine Earliest Implementation Timeframe

• Feasibility - Assessment of Technology Impact on Design Margins (i.e., Available Volume, Weight, Cooling, and Electrical Power). Define Feasible Upgrade Options without Regard to Implementation Time Sequence

5

13-22

Life Cycle Cost Composition

WEAPON SYSTEM COST

• Tech Data• Publication• Contractor Service• Support Equipment• Training Equipment• Factory Training

• Management• Hardware• Software• Nonrecurring "Start-up"• Allowance for Changes

FLYAWAY COST

PLUS PLUSPLUSPLUS• Initial

Spares• RDT&E• Facility Construction

• Operations & Support (Includes Post-Produc- tion Support)

• Disposal

PROCUREMENT COST

PROGRAM ACQUISITION COST

LIFE CYCLE COST

13-23

13-24

Requirements Analysis6

13-25

Principal Steps in ComprehensiveRequirements Analysis Assessments

1. Identify Decision Factors within Broad Decision Categories (Note: This Step Can Be Performed Before or During Pre-Design Studies)

2. Quantify Decision Factors for Each Configuration

3. Analyze Customer Preferences for Each Decision Factor (Note: This Step Can Also Be Performed Before or During Pre-Design)

4. Assign Weights to Decision Factors

5. Score Each Configuration (Sum Weights x Preferences)

6. Perform Sensitivity Analysis on Weights If Configuration Scoring is Close)

13-26

Sample Configuration Decision Categories

Air Vehicle

Effectiveness Cost Risk

Threat AcquisitionAvoidance

Hit AvoidableGiven Acquisition

Sortie Survival Given Hit

Target Acquisition

Target KillGiven Acquisition

Kills per Sortie

Targets KilledOver Time

Flyaway

Weapon System

Procurement

Program Acquisition

Life Cycle

Technical

Cost

Schedule

Producibility

Supportability

Management

13-27

Utility Functions - Preference Indicators

• Utility Functions Provide a Good Technique for Translating Diverse Criteria Into a Common Scale. (i.e., Range in NMi, MTBF in Hours, etc.)• Utility Scores Range From 0 to 1 With 0 Being Least Preferred and 1 Being Most Preferred.

Range in MNi MTBF in hoursThreshold Objective

1 1

Examples

Utility for Range Utility for MTBF

Threshold Objective

13-28

Hints for Determiningthe Shape of Utility Functions

After Establishing theMinimum Requirementsand Goal, Draw NeutralPreference Position asShown Neutral

Preference

1

2 Divide Decision Factorinto Quartiles and Assess 25%, 50%, and 75% Points Relative toNeutral Preference

Req Decision Factor Goal

Req Decision Factor Goal

1

1

Critical,Risk Prone

Non-Critical,Risk Average

13-29

Final Steps in Development of Master Configuration Roadmap

• Time Phase Prioritized Technologies with Yearly Budgets for Upgrades (i.e., Pace Upgrade Implementations with Planned Budgets)

• Resequence Time Phased Prioritized Technology Upgrades as Necessary Dependent on Implementation Availability for New or Emerging Technologies

7

13-30

13-31

How to Determine a FundingProfile for Program Phases

QUESTION: How to select the development cost so that development and production cost is minimum?

Key Factors: Design Margins Extent of Risk Reduction

Development +Production Cost

Development Cost

13-32

Relating Risk Resolution toDevelopment Cost

Design MarginsRequired

Extentof Risk

Resolution

Extentof Risk

Resolution

DevelopmentCost

H

L

.

.

When risks are resolved development cost increases.

13-33

Relating Design Margins to Production Cost

Design MarginsRequired

Extentof Risk

Resolution

Extentof Risk

Resolution

DevelopmentCost

H

L

.

.

Design MarginsRequired

ProductionCost

When design margins are increased, production costs increase.

13-34

Relating Production Cost and RiskResolution to Development Cost

Design MarginsRequired

Extentof Risk

Resolution

Extentof Risk

Resolution

DevelopmentCost

H

L

Design MarginsRequired

ProductionCost

..

ProductionCost

DevelopmentCost

13-35

Observation

When development cost goes up (due to risk resolution in order to decrease design margins), production cost goes down.

Question: How can development and production cost be balanced?

13-36

How to Determine Development Cost

Development +Production Cost

Development Cost

Sum the development and production cost and graph as a function of development cost.

13-37

Summary of Course

Review different Systems Engineering sub-processes from the perspective of

1. Existing industry standard (i.e., current state-of-the art)

2. Emerging trend not widely implemented

3. Idea for improvement

13-38

Fear Tigers Not Mice

Work to identify risks and decide how to best handle them.

In the absence of periodic focus on risks your program teams will focus on accomplishable tasks.

13-39

Concluding Thoughts

Each of you can implement systems engineering and/or risk management process improvements in areas you are responsible for, assuming existing company procedures do not already dictate a procedure. When company procedures exist, a new procedure “pilot” will many times be a good tack for gaining approval to proceed.

Suggestions for improvements in areas outside your responsibility may be considered and not implemented.

Choose wisely!