HAF AVIONICS Upgrades A Systems Engineering and

Project Management Perspective

LT.COL. ILIAS KONSOULAS, MSC, CENG, PMP, MIET

When you already know the answer for your

Operational Problem,

how do you find the correct questions to address it?

Answer: How Things Should Be to Gain Tactical Advantage (known).

Questions: What and How Should Be Done to reach that Advantageous Point (unknown).

HAF AVIONICS UpgradesA Systems Engineering and Project Management Perspective

HAF AVIONICS UpgradesA Systems Engineering and Project Management Perspective

Topics Covered

• The Competitors

• Critical Success Factors

• Risk Identification (Threats and Opportunities)

• Project Scope Management

• Acquisition Phase Activities

• Collateral Benefits and Damages

• Logistics Support of the Final Product

• Lessons Learned

Raytheon in partnership with BAE Systems

proposed the

“Raytheon Air Combat Radar – RACR”

aka AN/APG-84 AESA Radar.

RACR is a scaled-down version of

AN/APG-79 already operational on F/A-

18E/F Super Hornet and Boeing EA-18G

Growler.

The AN/APG-79 employs about 1100 GaAs

Transmit/Receive Modules (TRM’s) [3].

More Info about RACR can be found here.

HAF AVIONICS UpgradesThe Competitors

Northrop Grumman in partnership with Lockheed Martin Aeronautics proposed the “Scalable Agile Beam Radar – SABR” aka AN/APG-83 AESA Radar.

SABR is a scaled-down version of AN/APG-81 AESA Radar installed on F-35 JSF (1200 T/R Modules [3]).

The AN/APG-81 is also a scaled-down version of AN/APG-77 used on F-22’s.

The latter one employs 1500 T/R Modules [3]

Selected for USAF, Taiwan and S. Korea F-16 AVIONICS Upgrades.

More Info about SABR can be found here.

HAF AVIONICS UpgradesThe Competitors

HAF AVIONICS UpgradesCritical Success Factors – Non-Technical

Availability of relevant staff within the organization.

(System Engineers and Project managers).

Availability of Funds.

Organizational Leadership Commitment.

Capability and Readiness of National Defense Industry

(to execute the Upgrade).

Strict Implementation of the Program Master Schedule.

If a new/upgraded system has a service life of 30 years and the whole fleet

upgrade lasts 6 years, by the end of the program, the equipment of the last

upgraded article will have spent 20% of its operational life waiting on the

shelf!

HAF AVIONICS UpgradesCritical Success Factors – Technical/Operational

Is it a developmental or an already fielded system?

Is the seller an established company in the defense industry?

Is the seller the platform OEM?

Did this company execute similar contracts recently?

Has the new system been integrated and flight tested on this

specific platform?

Is Project Scope Management well defined?

HAF AVIONICS UpgradesRisk Identification – Threats

What is the commitment of higher state leadership/government to the program?

What is the new upgraded radar’s devaluation rate due to obsolescence? i.e. what

is going to be its Net Dollar Value in 10 years after the completion of the program?

What about its operational value in 10 years?

What is the Maturity of the new avionics subsystem?

• If Experimental/Under Development then expect “infant mortality” issues.

• If Already fielded then it will be obsolete by the end of the upgrade program.

What is the Contractor’s Experience on similar programs. (South Korea, Taiwan).

What is the Contractor’s Solution on the existing Ground Support Equipment (GSE)?

• Upgrade or Condemn the existing Automatic Test Equipment (ATE)?

What are the requirements on the support & maintenance manpower and their

training?

Are there any “hidden upgrades” anywhere in the operations/technical

support/logistics system that are not identified early in the process? (e.g. GSE

upgrades, new facility requirements, environmental concerns etc.).

Has the contractor an established Obsolescence Management procedure? Is it

reliable?

How does the post-acquisition plan addresses the long-term sustainment of the

system?

• E.g. What is the projected Follow-On Support cost for the first 10 years (cost of ownership).

What type of contract is the contractor after? (FFP, CPFF, other?). This is a risk

because the contractor may claim more funds after the contract is awarded.

HAF AVIONICS UpgradesRisk Identification – Threats

Configuration Management/Awareness

• Target I: Maximum Commonality. In HAF: To Homogenize 4 different AVIONICS

suites to a single advanced one.

• Target II: Maximum Interoperability with other national/allied systems.

Is the new configuration compatible with the existing national/NATO air defense

environment? A System-Of-Systems approach is required to maximize interoperability.

Supply System Modernization – Supply Chain Control Improvement.

HAF AVIONICS UpgradesRisk Identification – Opportunities

Follow On Support (FOS) Concerns.

• Experience suggests that it’s best to negotiate the FOS contract in the context of the

acquisition negotiations in order to minimize future sustainment cost. That is the time

when your negotiation power is maximum. Companies are willing to sacrifice some

profit to gain an enormous contract!

• This method also reduces significantly the overall bureaucratic procedure delays

because everything is negotiated, decided, approved and signed only once.

Perform Other Relevant Mid-Life Upgrades (MLUs) to Maximize the Future

Availability of the Platform and Capitalize on the already unavoidable downtime.

• Execute Concurrently Airframe Structural Upgrades

• Execute Concurrently Engine Structural Upgrades.

HAF AVIONICS UpgradesRisk Identification – Opportunities

Plan Scope Management

Collect Requirements

Define Scope

• Project Scope Statement (output)

Product Scope Description

Acceptance Criteria

Project Deliverables

Create WBS

Validate Scope

Control Scope

HAF AVIONICS UpgradesProject Scope Management – According to PMBOK

®Guide [1]

Project Exclusions

Project Constraints

Project Assumptions

Planning

Monitor & Control

Defining project scope is critical to the success of any project

because it spells out exactly what the final product of the project

looks like.

Conversely, poor scope definition might lead to cost increase,

rework, schedule delays and low morale.

HAF AVIONICS UpgradesProject Scope Management

HAF AVIONICS UpgradesAcquisition Phase Activities – System Life Cycle

Pre-acquisition

Phase

Acquisition

Phase

Utilization

Phase

Retirement

Phase

Conceptual

Design

Preliminary

Design

Detailed Design

& Development

Construction

and/or

Production

Operational Use

and

System Support

Diagram Reproduced

from [2], page 16.

HAF AVIONICS UpgradesAcquisition Phase Activities

Conceptual Design Preliminary DesignDetailed Design &

Development

Construction and/or

Production

Diagram Reproduced

from [2], page 17.

Business Needs

and

Requirements

(BNR)

Stakeholder

Needs and

Requirements

(SNR)

Functional Baseline

System Requirement

Specification (SyRS)

System Design Review

(SDR)

Allocated Baseline

Development

Specifications

Preliminary Design

Review (PDR)

Product Baseline

Product Specifications

Critical Design Review

(CDR)

System Acceptance

Formal Qualification

Review (FQR)

Other long-needed upgrades may fit in the “window of opportunity”.

(e.g. Structural, Support Equipment, Facilities, Infrastructure).

Replaced Units/Test Equipment may be sold to allies who still use the old

configuration thus reducing the overall upgrade cost.

An opportunity for “professional mentality upgrade” for your personnel

(this holds for everyone involved: Pilots, Engineers and Technicians).

HAF AVIONICS UpgradesCollateral Benefits

Necessary withdrawal of old configuration support and maintenance

infrastructure is a source of extra cost in addition to that of the new AVIONICS

systems.

Old training and experience becomes irrelevant to a variable degree. Therefore,

people need to be retrained and gain new more relevant experience.

New more stringent environmental requirements for may lead to strict

requirements for totally new facilities.

HAF AVIONICS UpgradesCollateral Damages

The new system will present current and maybe previously unforeseen challenges for

an existing supply chain.

What is the new maintenance concept?

• 2 or 3-Level Maintenance?

• How far your operational bases are from production lines (length of supply chain)?

What is the efficiency of your existing supply system? How is it going to

accommodate the new systems requirements?

What are the provisional stock levels for a guaranteed system availability?

Integrated Logistics Support (ILS) was integrated in the design for a new AVIONICS

suite that would operate on a platform in CONUS or in Europe?

HAF AVIONICS UpgradesLogistics Support of Final Product

Money is not the only critical factor for program success (but lack of it, is a big risk).

What an organization needs is Relevant Manpower and Experience

(Project Managers, Systems Engineers and Subject Matter Experts).

During their presentations, company delegates will not disclose any threats or risks.

Timeframe of Execution is Essential (Start-to-Finish) for success.

Contractor representatives suffer from the “job candidate interview” syndrome. They try

their best to persuade you that:

• They can do everything, honestly, reliably and efficiently.

• At Minimum cost, On Schedule with Perfect Quality and No Risk.

If they haven’t done it before the Uncertainty of such a Program is Huge.

If they have done it before, the Uncertainty of such a Program is Great but Acceptable.

HAF AVIONICS UpgradesLessons Learned

Radar manufacturers will not reveal all the operational details/capabilities of their system

from the beginning for competition reasons. They will wait for customer’s commitment.

Once the customer is close to a decision, they will reveal some indicating operational

parameters but again not the full story.

Finally, the customer will have to take an “educated decision” based on figures of

different performance metrics.

The best way to choose among candidate radar systems is to perform independent,

carefully designed operational capability flight tests.

Some good references for designing such AESA radar flight tests are:

i) J. M. Clifton, “Introduction to AVIONICS Flight Test”, AGARD-AG-300 Vol. 15, 1996.

ii) R. E. McShea, “Test and Evaluation of Aircraft Avionics and Weapon Systems”, 2nd Ed.

SciTech Publishing, Edison NJ, 2014.

HAF AVIONICS UpgradesLessons Learned – Unveiling the Product Gradually

HAF AVIONICS UpgradesA Systems Engineering and Project Management Perspective

Topics Covered

• The Competitors

• Critical Success Factors

• Risk Identification (Threats and Opportunities)

• Project Scope Management

• Acquisition Phase Activities

• Collateral Benefits and Damages

• Logistics Support of the Final Product

• Lessons Learned

[1] A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, (PMBOK Guide), 5th

Ed. , The Project Management Institute Inc., 2013.

[2] Faulconbridge I., Ryan, M.J., “Systems Engineering Practice”, Argos Press,

Canberra, Australia, 2014.

[3] Defense Science Board Advisory Committee, “Future DoD Airborne High-

Frequency Radar Needs/Resources”, (2001).

HAF AVIONICS UpgradesReferences

Questions ?

HAF AVIONICS UpgradesA Systems Engineering and Project Management Perspective