Joint Strike Fighter Integrated Subsystems

JOURNAL OF A IRCRAFT Vol. 40, No. 5, September–October September–October 2003

Joint Strike Fighter Integrated Subsystems Technology, A Demonstration for Industry, by Industry Alan Burkhard

¤

U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, Laboratory, Wright–Patterson Wright–Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio 45433-7531

and Richard Deitrich†  Joint Strike Fighter Program Of  éce,  éce, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4304 22202-4304

TheJoint StrikeFighter(JSF)Integr StrikeFighter(JSF)Integrate ated d Subsyst SubsystemsT emsTech echnologyDem nologyDemonst onstrat rationProgr ionProgram am wasa highly highly succe successssful industry-wide éve-year ve-year program in which normally competitive competitive JSF weapon system contractors contractors and suppliers suppliers worked worked together with competitors to accomplish accomplish technology maturation maturation and mitigate technological technological risks of a revrevolutionary subsystem concept for tactical aircraft that integrates the subsystems and utility functions thereby reducing reducing the associated major equipment equipment groups from 13 to 5. As a result of this integration, the volume, weight, weight, and costs costs allocate allocated d to these these subsyste subsystems ms are are signi signiécantlyreduced withoutsacriécing vehicle vehicle performanceand performanceand safety. safety. Majorand minor minor managemen managementt and execut execution ion methodsused methodsused to focus, focus, solidif solidify,and y,and maintainthis maintainthis industryteam industryteam over the  é ve-year program are outlined.

   6    6    8    6  .    2    /    4    1    5    2  .    0    1   :    I

   O    D    |   g   r   o  .   a   a    i   a  .   c   r   a    /    /   :   p    t    t    h    |    5    1    0    2  ,    9    1   y   r   a   u   n   a    J   n   o    Y    T    I    S    R    E    V    I    N    U    S    N    I    K    P    O    H    S    N    H    O    J   y    b    d   e    d   a   o    l   n   w   o    D

Introduction

Four Four of the many technologies technologies that were proposed by the S&T community community for JAST JAST consideration consideration seemed seemed ripe for evaluati evaluation on as an integrated set. These technologies were more electric aircraft (MEA),2 9 subsystemintegrationtechnology,(SUIT), 10 16 advanced vanced vehicle vehicle managementsystem managementsystem (AVMS (AVMS), ), 17 and advanced éxed area nozzle(AFAN). nozzle(AFAN).18 19 In general,the general,thesefour sefour technol technologyare ogyareas as had been developed developed independently independently,, and their respectiv respectivee visions visions of integration gration requirement requirementshad shad slightlydiffere slightlydifferentfocus.It ntfocus.It was conceivable conceivable,, however, however, that revolutionary vehicle-level vehicle-level performance and affordabilitybene éts mightbe mightbe achie achieva vablein blein the JAST AST time time frame frame of interinterest via an integratedapproach integratedapproach that would blend blend the best featuresof  the MEA, MEA, SUIT SUIT, AFAN, AFAN, andAVMS andAVMS technologythrust technologythrusts.This s.This was the premise of the technology integration study, which became known as the vehicle integration technology planning study (VITPS). To this end, in conjunction with JAST, four Wright Laboratory divisions and the U.S. U.S. Navy came together together to jointly manage manage this JAST JAST and U.S. Air Force Force funded study.

N January January 1994,the Departmentof Departmentof Defense Defense (DOD) (DOD) establisheda establisheda  joint servic e organiza tion, the Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST (JAST)) Program,to Program,to deéne and developaircraft developaircraft,, weaponsystem,and mission mission technologiesfor technologiesfor future tactical tactical aircraft aircraft systems. systems. The initial initial thrusts thrusts of this organization organization were to “catalogue “catalogue work already underway derway, conduct analysis analysis of joint service service requirement requirementss and identify identify 1 launchcandidatetechnologyefforts.” The programwouldestablish technology technology building building blocksfor the developmen developmentt of the next tactical aircraft. Among the érst tasks of this organization organization was was to “focus “focus and integrate” integrate” tactical tactical aircraft aircraft technologyprograms technologyprograms and coordinate coordinate a “technology roadmap.” To accomplish these objectives objectives the JAST JAST organization came to the aerospace industry and the U.S. U.S. Air Force Force and U.S. U.S. Navy science science and technology(S&T) technology(S&T) communi communitiesto tiesto identify what JAST Program called “low hanging fruit” (technologies alreadyunder developme developmentand ntand that had creditableafforda creditableaffordabilityand bilityand bene éts analysis showing showing that the technologieswere technologieswere bene écial and that the maturing of these technologies could be accelerated with additional additional funding). funding). A series of joint industry industry and government government meetings meetings were were held to discuss and identify which of the proposed technologies made the most sense to recommend for maturation in light of established JAST metrics. These érst meetings focused on structuring a set of unrelated unrelated component component efforts, efforts, each one of which which would would help solve a particularproblem particularproblem,, but did not not adequatelyaddress adequatelyaddress the JAST JAST metrics. The metrics of interest to JAST were vehicle-level bene éts such as systemacquisitioncost, systemacquisitioncost, triserviceapplicabil triserviceapplicability ity,sortie ,sortie generation generation rate, and reduced logistic footprint, rather than the kind of payoffs articulated by a single component or technology program. Therefore, the idea was born to pull together all of these technologies technologies or portionsof portionsof thesetechnologies,wh thesetechnologies,whiche ichevermade vermade sense,and enhanced the system-level bene ét in so doing.

I

¡

¡

;

VITPS TheVITPS statementof statementof work work was writtento writtento have have integratedprodintegratedproduct teams teams (IPTs) (IPTs) seriouslylook seriouslylook at all of the technologiesrath technologiesrather er than  just favorites and, most important, import ant, look at ways to integra te the best of all of the advanced advanced concepts concepts and technologies.The technologies.The push was to identi identifyand fyand quantif quantifyas yas much much as possibl possiblee the beneéts of technol technology ogy integration integration.Three .Three independentcontrac independentcontractorstudy torstudy teamswere formed. formed. Two study contracts were awarded and a third JSF weapon system contractor contractor (WSC) (WSC) decided to do this using independent independent research research and development development (IRAD) funds. These study teams had exceptionexceptionally broad industry participati participation on and signi écant depth, going going down one or two levels of suppliers.This extensive extensive supplier supplier participati participation on was stimulatedby stimulatedby the requestfor proposal proposal (RFP) (RFP) requiring requiring that approximately proximately 50% of the study resources go to the suppliers. The The government management team selected this approach because too often often theprimarystudycontra theprimarystudycontracto ctorreserv rreservesthe esthe majori majorityof tyof thestudy resources for itself and provides very little to its suppliers. In the case of these product areas, major WSCs procure this equipment from suppliers, suppliers, who often take responsibilityfor responsibilityfor some integration integration work, and it was essential essential to have the supplier supplier involvemen involvement. t. For the VITPS study, study, a large large supplier base was paid to participate, and therefore, a more complete understanding of what happens when technologies are integrated could could be assessed from the air vehicle down to individual components. These These independentindustry independentindustry study teams eval evaluated uated a broad range of completed and ongoing S&T and IRAD programs to identify which technologies, when integrated, had potential to yield large

Received 2 April 2003; revision received 13 June 2003; accepted for publication 15 June 2003. This material is declared a work of the U.S. Government Government and is not subject to copyright protection protection in the United States. States. Copies of this paper may be made for personal or internal internal use, on condition that the copier pay the $10.00 per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923; include the code 0021-8669/03 0021-8669/03 $10.00 in correspondence correspondence with the CCC. SeniorAerospace SeniorAerospace Engineer, Engineer, Air VehicleDirectorate,Room ehicleDirectorate,Room 112,Building 45, 2130 Eight Eight Street. Street. † Subsystems Lead, Vehicle Vehicle Systems Integrated Product Team. Team. ¤

906

907

BURKHARD AND DEITRICH DEITRICH

beneéts in life cycle-cost cycle-cost (LCC) (LCC) and war éghting capability. Additionally, an assessment was made as to which integrated technologies could be matured by calendar year (CY) 2000, CY2005, and CY2010 with some reasonable level of resource investment. Although the analysis from each study team indicated differences in the exact level of bene éts, they were surprisingly consistent as to which technologies technologies and integration integration concepts enabled those beneéts.18 20 It was apparent to the government management team that even though the VITPS studies were being conducted conducted independently independently,all ,all three studies were converging converging on a similar end state con éguration. Unfortunately, each study team thought they had identi éed an integration tegration conéguration guration that was was unique and desired desired to keep it from their competitorseven competitorseven thoughtwo studyteams develop developedtheir edtheir concepts using government funds. To To break this mind set, the government team pointed out that if there was to be a funded technology maturation effort based on the VITPS study results, it would have to be of bene ét to all three JAST WSCs. There were only enoughfundsavai enoughfundsavailabl lableto eto fund fund one matura maturatio tion n program program,, andin fact, fact, the JAST model required that technical maturation activities serve all WSCs. Therefore, the WSCs were encouraged to hold discussions to identify common ground in their independently developed conégurations. Out of these these discussions,it discussions,it became clear there was enough enough common ground that a single technology maturation program could serve all three JAST JAST prime contractors. Additionally, Additionally, for the JAST window window of opportunityand opportunityand JAST customers(U.S. customers(U.S. Air Force, Navy, Navy, and Marines) a common set of technologies could be integrated and matured that would result in vehicle-level vehicle-level LCC and war  é ghting beneéts that met and or exceeded JAST JAST metrics. As a result of  their extensive extensive participation in the the VITPS VITPS studies, studies, the airframe, engine, and subsystem subsystem contractorsdeterminedthat contractorsdeterminedthat this this suite could be readily transitioned. The three VITPS contractor study teams and the governmentmanagem governmentmanagement ent team prepared prepared an integratedadvocac integratedadvocacy y brieéng for the JAST Program Of éce. Each VITPS VITPS contractor presentedtheresultsof(their)studyshowinghowthistechnology,when matured, could help accomplish the JAST goals. The VITPS management agement team presented its approach for structuring structuring and managing a single single program that would would provide the technology technology maturation maturation desired by all all three WSCs. WSCs. Fund Fund approvalwas approvalwas then then given given by the JAST JAST Program Program Of éce to prepar preparee thenecessar thenecessarydocum ydocumenta entatio tionfor nfor a forma formall procurementsolicitation. ¡

   6    6    8    6  .    2    /    4    1    5    2  .    0    1   :    I

   O    D    |   g   r   o  .   a   a    i   a  .   c   r   a    /    /   :   p    t    t    h    |    5    1    0    2  ,    9    1   y   r   a   u   n   a    J   n   o    Y    T    I    S    R    E    V    I    N    U    S    N    I    K    P    O    H    S    N    H    O    J   y    b    d   e    d   a   o    l   n   w   o    D

Program Formulation The JAST ProgramOf  ProgramOf éce establisheda establisheda jointU.S. AirForce/Navy AirForce/Navy (USAF/USN) (USAF/USN) effort, the JAST JAST Integration Subsystem Technology Technology (J/IS (J/IST) T) demons demonstrat tration ion program program out of what what was was the VITP VITPS S government management team. This program was to execute the necessary necessary technical technical maturation maturation activiti activities es and promote promote transition transition of the industry-identiéed integrated subsystem suite. The objective of the J/IST demonstration program was to convince industry and governmentdecisio governmentdecision n makers makers that the integratedsubsyst integratedsubsystemsuite emsuite provides promised LCC reductions and increased war éghting capability pability.. Additionall Additionally,the y,the programwas to demonstratethat demonstratethat the technology on which this suite is based would be suf écientl ciently y mature mature to enter engineeringand engineeringand manufacturi manufacturingdevelopm ngdevelopment ent (E&MD) (E&MD) by the year 2000. A majorconsiderationin majorconsiderationin structuringthemanagementappro structuringthemanagementapproachto achto the J/IST J/IST demonstrationp rogram was its relationship to the overall JAST JAST program, which in time transitioned to a major DOD acquisition (ACAT 1D), the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program. 21 The JAST JAST program was a new way of doing business, business, bringing together war  é ghters, ghters, maintainers,technolo maintainers,technologists,and gists,and developers developers on a single  joint servic e team with a share d purpose. purpose . The team’s mission was to identify, mature, demonstrate, and transition technologies and concepts that meet war  é ghters needs while reducing the cost of these future joint strike warfare warfare aircraft weapon systems. To To accomplish this objectiv objective,the e,the JAST/JS AST/JSF F programhas three distinctphases, distinctphases, concept exploratio exploration, n, concept concept developme development, nt, and concept concept demonstrati demonstration on and èying demonstrators. The WSCs, who were developing their preferred weapon system concepts (PWSC) under this part of the

Fig. 1

JSF overall program program schedule. schedule.

JSF program, program, were viewed viewed as the customer customer of the technology technology maturation efforts. These technical maturation activities were to run in parallel with PWSC development and re énement, nement, as shown shown in Fig. 1. The J/IST demonstrati demonstration on programwas one of these technoltechnology maturation programs.

J/IST Demonstration Program In January 1995, a management team composed of USAF/USN personnel was established at the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, tory, Wright Wright Patterso Patterson n Air Force Force Base Base to plan and execute execute the J/IST J/IST demonstration Program. This team was responsible for planning, program control, énancial management, management, and program execution execution of  the J/IST J/IST demonstrati demonstration on program, program, subjectto oversightand oversightand approval approval of the JAST program of éce. Even though the J/IST demonstration program involves involves many technologies and must de al with multiservice application issues, the J/IST project team was intentionally made a small managementteam managementteam followingthe followingthe JAST model to foster technology technology integration.The integration.The team was made up of individuals individuals with diverse diverse service service and technical technical backgrounds,who backgrounds,who are focused focused on the comprehensive goal of transitioning integrated subsystems rather than nurturingtechnology niches. niches. One of the érst orders of business business for this team was to develop develop a concept of operations for how this small management team would would interface and work with industry. The The primary customers were the JSF WSCs, WSCs, who would would “buy” “buy” the productof productof the J/IST J/IST demonstrati demonstration on programthroughincorporationin programthroughincorpora tionin their JSF weapon weapon systemdesigns. Traditio Traditionally nally,the ,the customer customer for a technologymaturati technologymaturation on effort effort is the government project of éce that funds and executes the effort. This governmentprojectof éce would set the requirements,repres requirements,represent ent the interests of the JAST JAST program of éce, and act as an “honest broker” broker” among the executing WSCs who were in  é erce competition competition to win the JSF developmen developmentcontract.Fromthe tcontract.Fromthe start, start, theJ/IST management management team realized that their role would to be to act more like program shepherds than requ irement givers. givers. This realization emerged from the following facts. First, First, the VITPS VITPS study identi identiéed a subsystemintegrationconcept subsystemintegrationconcept tobematured,butdidnotidentifyanyrequirementsastosize,performance metrics, etc. Second, the JSF WSCs, who were developing their highly proprietary aircraft design, needed the J/IST demonstrati strationprogra onprogram m to provid providee value value to themwithout themwithout givin giving g away away their their proprietary concepts. Additionally, the PWSC concepts would be evolving throughout the duration of the J/IST demonstration program so that the requirements that de éned the J/IST program had to be robust robust enoughto enoughto permit permit the J/IST J/IST progra program m to be releva relevanteven nteven after several several design design iterations. iterations. To ensure a high probability of transition of J/IST technologies, the J/IST J/IST program program establishedan establishedan industry/ industry/custom customer er user team (ICUT) and invited the  é ve air framers, three jet engine manufactures, and governmentrepresentativesto participate.In establishing the ICUT, ICUT, the contractors contractors were told that J/IST demonstration demonstration program would be competitively awarded to accomplish demonstrationsthataddressthetransitionriskissuesidentiéedbytheICUT.All members of the ICUT not awarded awarded speciéc demonstrationshad the opportu opportunit nityto yto take take part part in the techni technicalrev calrevie iew w andassessmen andassessmentt team team that would closely closely track the progress progress and results results from this program. program.

908

   6    6    8    6  .    2    /    4    1    5    2  .    0    1   :    I

   O    D    |   g   r   o  .   a   a    i   a  .   c   r   a    /    /   :   p    t    t    h    |    5    1    0    2  ,    9    1   y   r   a   u   n   a    J   n   o    Y    T    I    S    R    E    V    I    N    U    S    N    I    K    P    O    H    S    N    H    O    J   y    b    d   e    d   a   o    l   n   w   o    D

BURKHARD AND DEITRICH DEITRICH

To start the discussions, the J/IST management team critically evaluated the results of the three VITPS VITPS study teams and then condensed the result to six essential technology technology sets or integrations integrations.. A document was prepared that captured a “consensus architecture” ture” that encompassed encompassed the six essential essential technology technology sets or integrations. grations. The initial draft draft of this document, the consensustechnology package (CTP), had the the J/IST management management team’s team’s perspective as to the transition risk issues that needed to be addressed in the J/IST J/IST demonstrati demonstrationprogram onprogram to reducethe transitionrisk transitionrisk to low for E&MD. The ICUT and selected government technical experts reviewed this document,and document,and after several several iterations,a iterations,a  é nal version emerged. This iterative process was facilitated in that the initial draft of  the CTP plainly stated that the forthcoming RFPs for the J/IST demonstration program would be a competition on methodology: the methodology to cost effectively demonstrate demonstrate the consensus architecture chitecture and reduce reduce to low the identi identiéed transition risks outlined outlined in the CTP. Novel ways of integrating, although interesting, were not to be used as source selection criteria. The resultant CTP was included as part of the Joint Advanced Strike Fighter Technology Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) (BAA) 95-3, issued by the program of éce on 7 April 1995. This announcement provided data to assist the bidder in proposal preparation.The preparation.The consensus consensus architectur architecturee that was part of the BAA is shown in Fig. 2. This This approac approachenabl henabledthe edthe J/IST J/IST custom customersto ersto make make sure sure that that their their issues and concerns that they chose chose to share would would be addressed in the forthcoming procurement. procurement. The focus was on capturing technitechnical issues issues and concern concernss ratherthan ratherthan the generat generationof ionof detaile detailed d design design requirements for for the demonstration hardware. This This would allow a bidder to be creative in using existing facilities and/or equipment that could work the issues and not be viewed by other contractors as working their prototype hardware con égurations for their proprietary prietary aircraft aircraft design.Any such perceptionwould perceptionwould have have destroyed destroyed willingness to work together and share share information. information. The J/IST demonstration program was planned to be a single program that reduces to low the transition risk for E&MD of integrated subsystems technology for all JSF WSCs. The consensus technology package captured the issues and concerns that needed to be addressed in the J/IST demonstration program; however however,, evevery airframe contractor could not be selected to accomplish every every demonstration due to funding limitations. Therefore, the evaluation criteria for BAA 95-3 clearly stated a major evaluation factor was the extentto which which the bidder and the proposeddemonstrationplan proposeddemonstrationplan would providemeaningful providemeaningful sharing sharing of progress, progress, results, results, and lessons lessons

Fig. 2

learned with the other JSF WSCs. Additionally, all bidders were required to propose demonstrations demonstrations that addressed all elements elements of  the J/IST J/IST consensusarchitec consensusarchitecture.Thiswas ture.Thiswas done so that for each ma jor technology techn ology set there would be several different demonstr ation approaches to choose from. This would would allow the source selection selection team to weave weave together the best mix mix of contractors and demonstrations. To facilitatethis facilitatethis approach, approach, cost and technicaleffort technicaleffort had to be proposed in easily identiéable and severable tasks. In the structuring of BAA 95-3, it was recognized also that the J/IST demonstration program had to address two categories of issues, technical technical and those related related to affordabilit affordability y. Two general types of tasks were called out in in the BAA. BAA. One task was to reduce to low the transition risk of this technology. technology. The other task task was to accomplish plish a more more reéned affordabili affordabilityassessmen tyassessmentt usingthe results results of the various various J/IST J/IST technical technical activities activities.. To further the likelihood that JSF WSC contractor issues and concerns concerns were worked, worked, the BAA required required the proposed proposed program to be divided into three phases: phase 1, program de énition and planning; planning; phase2, detail detail demonstratio demonstration n hardware hardware design; design; and phase 3, hardwarefabricat hardwarefabricationanddemonstrat ionanddemonstrationexe ionexecution.Th cution.Thee beginning beginning andendingofthesethreephaseswerekeymilestonesatwhichgo/nogo decisionscould be made. From From the proposals proposals received,contract received,contractorswere orswere selectedto selectedto accomplish major tasks and demonstrations. demonstrations. The contracts from the BAA BAA solicitationcont solicitationcontainedcontr ainedcontractlanguagethat actlanguagethat designatedthe designatedthe contraccontractor doing a particular particular task or demonstration demonstration as a responsible responsible agent agent contractorfor contractorfor theother JSFWSC contractors.A contractors.Ass a responsibleage responsibleagent nt contractor contractor,it ,it wasunderstoodthatthe executingcontr executingcontractorwasdoing actorwasdoing the work for the other two JSF WSC contractors contractors and the government, as well well as for their own company. company. To facilitate this, associate contractor agreement clauses and data sharing tasks were written into these contracts. This would allow direct sharing of technical information among the contractors and eliminate the government team being a choke point for this sharing.

Technical Program Planning Program Program planningwas planningwas envisione envisionedas das phase1, a four-montheffo four-montheffort, rt, for the J/IST demonstration program. It turned out that program planning occurred throughout the entire program. During phase 1, the J/IST suite concept and the innovative demonstration approaches, proaches, methodologies methodologies,, and techniques selected selected in source selecselection were converted into comprehensive comprehensive plans for implementation of the conceptand demonstrati demonstration on of the critical,enabling critical,enabling technolotechnologies so that technicallysoundand technicallysoundand affordablelow affordablelow-risktransitio -risktransition n into

J/IST BAA 95-3, consensus consensus architect architecture ure..

BURKHARD AND DEITRICH DEITRICH

909

   6    6    8    6  .    2    /    4    1    5    2  .    0    1   :    I

   O    D    |   g   r   o  .   a   a    i   a  .   c   r   a    /    /   :   p    t    t    h    |    5    1    0    2  ,    9    1   y   r   a   u   n   a    J   n   o    Y    T    I    S    R    E    V    I    N    U    S    N    I    K    P    O    H    S    N    H    O    J   y    b    d   e    d   a   o    l   n   w   o    D

Fig. 3

Requireme Requirements nts generat generation ion and technology technology maturation process process  è ow. ow.

E&MD could be assured. assured. This phase would allow allow contractors who were not selected selected to be the responsi responsibleagent bleagent contractorfor contractorfor a particparticular seriesof demonstrati demonstrationsto onsto make sure theirissues and concerns concerns were adequately addressed. At the initial J/IST J/IST phase 1 planning meeting, meeting, the J/IST J/IST management team made it it very clear that IPTs, IPTs, includingthe includingthe J/IST J/IST responsible agent contractors and JSF WSC design engineers, would be the forums to dovetail planning, review demonstration plans, and track/assess track/assess technical technical progress. progress. Members Members of the J/IST management management team would sit in on the IPT deliberations as facilitator/observers facilitator/observers and make make sure that contract contractual ual scope was not being violated. violated. Three IPTs were formed to execute the J/IST demonstration program. These IPTs IPTs were power power and actuation (P&A), (P&A), thermal energy management agement module(T/EMM), module(T/EMM), and integratio integrationand nand analysis(I&A).The analysis(I&A).The responsible responsible agent contractorwho contractorwho was primarily primarily responsiblefor responsiblefor the bulk of the demonstrations or technical activities that fell within each IPT technologydomain technologydomain was selected selected to lead and document document the IPT deliberations deliberations and summarize summarize the recommenda recommendations. tions. The I&A IPT was led by the J/IST management team because the I&A IPT was not responsible for executing executing demonstrations but rather rather ensurensuring that everything was integrated to produce the desired results. At érst it was dif écult for the two demonstration IPTs, T/EMM and P&A, to solidify. The apparent reason for this was the significantly icantly different different experience experience base of the engineers from the three JSF WSCs. For example, although they all wanted to work many of the same issues, the level of understanding or knowledge about about the existing state of the art around those issues varied greatly. An engineer engineer with limited limited experiencewith experiencewith the issue issue wanted wanted to use J/IST J/IST resources to work technology maturation concerns that have been already resolved by other technical programs. This was overcome by a contractorinitiati contractorinitiative ve to share with with the IPT the technicalcontent of their their own own propos proposalsubm alsubmitt ittedfor edfor theBAA 95-3competit 95-3competition ion.This .This provided a framework for everyone on the demonstration IPTs to come to a common common level of understanding understanding concerning concerning the various various perspectiv perspectives es on a given issue and the state state of the art for a particular technology technology.. It had the additional additional beneét of establishing establishing a level of  trust among the program participants.

Detailed Requirements De énition and Risk Tracking The product from phase 1 of the J/IST demonstration program was a robust robust set of integrated integrated design design and demonstrati demonstration on requirerequirements, along with with a risk-reducti risk-reduction on tracking tracking scheme for the rest of  the program.The program.The processto develop develop requirementsbegan requirementsbegan before the release of BAA 95-3. The activity to develop and establish a consensus technology package that was was part of the BAA BAA was the initial

step. During During phase 1, 1, the top-level notional consensus consensus architecture shown shown in Fig. 2 was evolvedinto a more detailed detailed engineeringfuncengineeringfunctional conéguration for demonstration demonstration purposes using the the process outlined outlined in Fig. 3. From From an overview overview perspectiv perspective, e, all participants,who participants,who proposed proposed to the J/IST BAA proposed two major technology maturation paths. One path was a series series of comprehensi comprehensive ve ground ground demonstrations demonstrations,, whereas the other path involved ground demonstrations followed by èight testing. These were judged to be acceptable and cost effective ways to mature the integrated J/IST technology suite. To accomplish this, the consensus demonstration architecture shown in Fig. 2 evolved into two major demonstration architectures, one for thosetechnologythat thosetechnologythat couldbe matured matured doingonly ground-based ground-based demonstratio demonstrationsandanotherfor nsandanotherfor thosetechnologiestha thosetechnologiesthatt requiredboth requiredboth ground demonstrationsand  èight testing. Where practical and cost effective, the same component elements were used for both technology maturation paths. This involved involved some adjustments to a few of the elements elements originallyproposed originallyproposed by the bidders. bidders. Each WSC came to to the demonstration IPTs with independently developedinputs developedinputs including including lists lists of key parametersand parametersand performance performance rangesthey wanted wanted demonstrate demonstrated d or measured. measured. On the whole, whole, these independentlyde independentlydevelopedinput velopedinputss were compatible,but compatible,but therewere areasofconèictingrequirement ictingrequirementsand sand desires.T desires.To o arriveat arriveat a setof robust robust designrequirementsfor designrequirementsfor a given given demonstratio demonstration,hardwareminitrade n,hardwareminitrade studies studies and analyses analyses wereaccomplished.These wereaccomplished.These analyseshad analyseshad to take into account both the desires desires of the WSCs WSCs and the hard constraints constraints imposed by the already purchased demonstrations. For example, item itemss tobe èown own had had to ét andbe compat compatiblewi iblewith th theF-16, theF-16, whereas whereas items that that had to interface interface with an F-119 engine engine had to be compatible with it. Extensive modiécations to either the the F-16 or the F-119 F-119 engine were out of the question question due to  é nancialconstraints. nancialconstraints. The mintrades mintrades and analyses analyses involved involved an iterative iterative process to balance WSC desires, J/IST hard demonstration constraints, laws of  physics, and and available available resources. The responsible agent contractor and team accomplis accomplished hed engineeringanalysis engineeringanalysis to identify identify a set of design parameters that would result in demonstration hardware that could provide provide data for as as many of of the WSC identi identiéed issue issuess as possible while still being compatible with all of the other constraints. This involved detailed detailed engineering analysis followed followed by an across the board review of of all of the issues and concerns to see how many were not addressed appropriately appropriately.. This iterativ iterativee process eventually eventually convergedtoa énal setof demonstrati demonstrationhardw onhardwarerequireme arerequirementsthat ntsthat the IPT felt would would allow allow the planneddemonstratio planneddemonstrationto nto appropriately appropriately address all of the identiéed issues and concerns. This iterative iterative process had an additionalbene additionalbeneét because the JSF WSCs gained insight

910

   6    6    8    6  .    2    /    4    1    5    2  .    0    1   :    I

   O    D    |   g   r   o  .   a   a    i   a  .   c   r   a    /    /   :   p    t    t    h    |    5    1    0    2  ,    9    1   y   r   a   u   n   a    J   n   o    Y    T    I    S    R    E    V    I    N    U    S    N    I    K    P    O    H    S    N    H    O    J   y    b    d   e    d   a   o    l   n   w   o    D

BURKHARD AND DEITRICH DEITRICH

into what were the key metrics or or parameters that drive the design. This knowledge knowledge often resulted resulted in WSCs restating restating their concerns concerns or issues in ways ways that still provided them the key knowledge knowledge and data theywantedbut enabledonedemonstrationhardw enabledonedemonstrationhardwaredesignto aredesignto work  all of the issues and concerns. The actual demonstrat demonstrations ions were were conducted conducted using a mixture mixture of  èight-designed and laboratory-type of hardware. Flight-designed hardware hardware was fabricatedfor fabricatedfor those componentswhere componentswhere risk issuesinvolved volved size and weight weight in relationto relationto performancelev performancelevel.Commonly el.Commonly,, laboratory laboratory or industrial industrial equipment equipment was used for features features such as lubrication systems or power supplies. This kept the focus on the primary primary purpose of the demonstratio demonstration, n, which was to gather gather data on the key risk elements of the architecture. To facilitate facilitate this technology technology maturation maturation process, a tracking tracking methodology was used to ensure all issues and concerns were addressed. Figure 4 shows the three charts used to capture this tracking methodology methodology.A .A compliancematrixcalled compliancematrixcalled the maturationmatrix maturationmatrix (MoM)was constructedthatlists,for constructedthatlists,for each milestone,the milestone,the WSC issue or issues that would be addressed by data and the results produced by completion of that milestone. A milestone could be the completion of a detailed analysis, passing preliminary review (PDR) and critical critical designreview(CDR), or completionof completionof a demonst demonstration ration or test. Before any technical work, the anticipated amount of risk  reduction available from each milestone for each WSC issue was assessed by the appropriate IPT. Based on this assessment, a second tracking tracking chart,the key element element risk tracking tracking (KERT) (KERT) chart,was

Fig. 4

Technology echnology maturation and risk-tracking risk-tracking charts.

Fig. 5

structured structured to track the amount of risk reduction reduction anticipated anticipated by the IPT from each demonstration milestone. From the KERT chart, a risk waterfallchart waterfallchart was constructedthat constructedthat tracksthe highestrisk highestrisk level level for any element of the J/IST Program. The waterfall chart shows the anticipated overall risk reduction progression as a function of  demonstration milestone. Figure 5 outlines the extensive participation of the IPTs in the planning and execution of the demonstrations. It also highlights IPT involv involvementin ementin the assessmentand assessmentand trackingof trackingof the riskreduction achieved from each demonstration. The three crosshatched crosshatched blocks representthe representthe activitiesaccom activitiesaccomplishedpri plishedprimaril marily y duringphase1 of the J/IST demonstration program. The rest of the blocks represent the activitiesbefore activitiesbefore and after after accomplishm accomplishmentof entof each milestone.After milestone.After a milestone event was completed, the responsible agent contractor who conducted it prepared a coordination memo documenting the results of the milestone event. The appropriate J/IST IPT would evaluate evaluate this document document,, technical technical data, and results results of the witnessed witnessed demonstratio demonstrationto nto determine determine if the desired desired level level of risk reductionwas reductionwas achieved, achieved, or to identify identify any shortfalls. shortfalls. If the milestone event produced risk reduction that met or exceeded the anticipated anticipated values, values, the JSF WSCs design team representatives signed the coordination memo. If the accomplished level of risk reduction was more than expected, expected, the KERT KERT and waterfall charts were adjusted to accurately re èect the actual achieved level of risk reduction. reduction. Conversel Conversely y, if the level of risk reductionwas less than anticipated, an evaluation to assess the impact impact of this shortfall was performed. performed. This assessment assessment examined examined the impact on the J/IST critical critical path leading to the overshadowin overshadowing g demonstratio demonstrations. ns. The overshadow overshadowingdemonst ingdemonstratio rationswere nswere thosefunctionsthat the J/IST J/IST customers indicated indicated had to be demonstrated demonstrated to transition transition this technologyto technologyto theirJSF aircraft aircraft designs.The designs.The J/IST J/IST customersidenticustomersidentiovershadowingdemonstra ngdemonstrations:1) tions:1) multimodeoperationof  multimodeoperationof  éed two overshadowi the integratedsubsystemssuite integratedsubsystemssuite with a F-119 engine during during an integratedground demonstrati demonstrationand onand 2) èyingthe F-16 F-16 with with all all primary primary èight control surfaces powered electrically. If the shortfall shortfall was not on the criticalpath, criticalpath, then it was just noted and the program continued continued as planned. If If the critical path was impacted,the responsibleagentcontrac responsibleagentcontractorfor torfor thatdemonstrationmil thatdemonstrationmileestoneproposedhow the risk reductionshortfal reductionshortfalll couldbe eliminated. eliminated. This proposal proposal could include include additionaltesting, additionaltesting, analysis, analysis, or modifymodifyingfuturedemonstrations. ingfuturedemonstrations.The The executingIP executingIPT T evaluatedthetechnic evaluatedthetechnical al merits merits of the proposal, whereas whereas the government government management management team and executing executing contractorevalua contractorevaluated ted the énancial nancial implicati implications ons of the proposal.

IPT risk risk redu reducti ction on plannin planning g and veri veri écation process.

911

BURKHARD AND DEITRICH DEITRICH

   6    6    8    6  .    2    /    4    1    5    2  .    0    1   :    I

   O    D    |   g   r   o  .   a   a    i   a  .   c   r   a    /    /   :   p    t    t    h    |    5    1    0    2  ,    9    1   y   r   a   u   n   a    J   n   o    Y    T    I    S    R    E    V    I    N    U    S    N    I    K    P    O    H    S    N    H    O    J   y    b    d   e    d   a   o    l   n   w   o    D

If the proposed modi éed work plan had no net cost impact and would solve the risk reduction shortfall, the plan would be implemented. mented. If, however however,, the only way of  élling lling in the shortfall shortfall required required technical technical and/or and/or programmat programmatic ic decisions decisions with with cost or schedule schedule impactsto majorprogrammilestonesor majorprogrammilestonesor involve involvedsigni dsigniécantdeviations from the demonstration demonstration consensus consensus architectur architecture, e, the ICUT became involved. The ICUT transitioned into what became the J/IST executive council. The name change from ICUT to J/IST executive council reèects the changing changing role of this group, group, a shifting shifting membership,and membership,and the providingof additionalprestige additionalprestige so that the appropriatedecision makers needed at these meetings would participate. This council was made up of the JSF programof  programof éce èight systems systems IPT lead, lead, JSF WSC subsystem subsystem design teams, J/IST management team, team, and the program managers from each of the J/IST J/IST contracts. If a particular demonstratio demonstration n had a shortfallin shortfallin achievingrisk achievingrisk reduction,this reduction,this council reviewed the associated technical issues and the recommended solution(s)proposedby solution(s)proposedby the responsibleagent responsibleagent contractor contractor.A .A particuparticular correctiveactionwas correctiveactionwas not implemente implemented d unless unless thiscouncilagreed that the approach still provided provided value to the JSF WSCs, and the potential tential level of risk reduction from this approach approach was acceptable. acceptable. In all cases, the  é nancial details details of any technical technical approach approach were never never presented presented to or discussed discussed by the J/IST J/IST executi executive ve council. council. All énancial discussions were private between the J/IST management team and the effected effected responsible responsible agent contractor contractor.. All that the executive ecutive council knew was the viability of the proposed approach within the current J/IST budget, budget, and whether it was within the contract scope of the effected effected contractor. contractor. If the risk reduction shortfall could not be corrected within the available available budget, the J/IST execexecutive utive council council identiéed lower lower prioritytasks prioritytasks that could be sources sources of  funding.

Affordability Assessment Planning The affordabilityassess affordabilityassessmenttask menttask within within the J/IST J/IST demonstrati demonstration on programwas a major activitythat activitythat in its énal form form requir requiredclosecoedclosecoordinationand ordinationand cooperationamong cooperationamong the threeJSF WSCs. WSCs. Initially Initially,, all threeJSF WSCs WSCs were contractedto contractedto work independently independently,essentia ,essentially lly rerunning the just completed VITPS type of bene éts assessments. All JSF WSCs would be using their own own VITPS generic study aircraft and methodology just like in the VITPS studies. This was viewed to be a low-cost effort because the WSCs had just completed the VITPS studies, and for the most part, all that had to be done was to rerun these studies using a more re éned set of component data producedduring producedduring the variousJ/IST variousJ/IST technicalactivi technicalactivities.The ties.The perceived value of this activity was validation of whether the pro jected  jecte d beneéts fromthe VITPS VITPS studies studies weremaintainedor weremaintainedor enhanced as the technologymaturation technologymaturation activities activities produced produced data. During the program de énition nition and planning planning phase, phase 1, of  the J/IST demonstration program, the JSF WSCs voiced concern that, from their perspective, there was not much value in reaccomplishing plishing the VITPS VITPS studies. The beneét assessments of great value value to them were those being made on their proprietary JSF competition aircraft as the J/IST J/IST technology was folded into into these designs. The resultant studies studies obviouslywould be proprietary proprietary,, but they saw the J/IST J/IST demonstrati demonstrationprogram onprogram providingneededre providingneededre éneddata that that they could use in these proprietary proprietary studies. studies. Re éned data of interest would be the emerging emerging results results of the variousJ/IST technologymattechnologymaturation efforts. Therefore, a VITPS-like study as part of the J/IST demonstration program seemed of of little value. During During the phase1 discussions,ano discussions,anotherperspect therperspectiveeme iveemerged.The rged.The JSF program of éce was developing the joint logistic modeling environment (JLME) that would eventually be used to help evaluate the proprietaryaircraftdesigns proprietaryaircraftdesigns for JSF E&MD E&MD selection.It selection.It seemed seemed that if J/IST J/IST, utilizing JLME, did an open-to-all WSCs beneéts assessment sessment within within the J/IST demonstratio demonstration n program, program, it would provide provide an opportunity to exercise this new environment where problems could be identiéed and worked out before use in the proprietary arena.This arena.This activ activit ity y wouldonly needone assessm assessmentstud entstudy y using using resources initially initially allocated allocated to accomplish accomplish the original original three studies. studies. Drawings Drawings of the candidate (non-proprietary) study aircraft were exchanged exchanged and review reviewed ed by the I&A IPT and JSF JSF WSCs WSCs to identify

which aircraft design should be used for the study. The consensus was that the The Boeing Company Seattle study aircraft would be appropriatebecause appropriatebecause it has suf écient technical technical detail detail available available.. Boeing Seattle was selected to crunch the numbers, with McDonnell Douglas Douglas (now Boeing St. Louis) Louis) and Lockheed Lockheed Martin CorporaCorporation providing the detailed parameters from their J/IST J/IST component suppliers.The suppliers.The list of componentswas componentswas divided,and divided,and the suppliers suppliers designed,through to least a PDR PDR level of detail, detail, components components for both a traditional traditional federated federated subsystem subsystem and a J/IST integrated integrated subsystem subsystem conéguration. The same supplier designed both the federated and J/IST components components for the same/similar same/similar function function to reduce unavoidable bias. The consensus consensus architecture architecture and requirements requirements were used to size and conégure the J/IST study components. The consensus requirementsand requirementsand an F-22-like F-22-like subsystem subsystem architecturewere architecturewere used to size and con égure the traditionalfederated traditionalfederated components. components. Abeneét assessmentinv assessmentinvolvesmore olvesmore informationthan informationthan just componentengineeringparameters nentengineeringparameters.Additionalstudie .Additionalstudiess wereaccomplished wereaccomplished to get a handle on some of these other factors. Virtual installation and supportability studies developed typical maintenance parameters and ground support equipment requirements for the J/IST subsystem.21 A quick-look quick-look study was also conducted conducted that looked at the impact of J/IST integrated subsystem on ground and carrier support requirements.22 The results from these supporting studies study.23 èowed into the overall beneéts assessment study.

Communication Communication and Team Building Good,open,and frequentcommunic frequentcommunicationis ationis criticalto criticalto team buildbuilding and the success of any large project involving many different players. This was especially important to the success of the J/IST demonstratio demonstration n program. program. Whereas Whereas the supplier supplier base was in in competicompetition to be the suppliers of choice for the JSF WSCs, the JSF WSCs were engaged in a  é erce competition to win the JSF JSF program contract.The J/IST J/IST demonstrati demonstrationprogramhad onprogramhad to resolvethe resolvethe issuesand concerns of all involved. To consolidate these voices into one, the J/IST management team used several mechanisms and techniques outlined outlined as follows. 1) The J/IST J/IST contractswere contractswere written written withclear delineationof delineationof technical task responsibilities responsibilities so that competition for doing J/IST J/IST tasks ended with the source source selection selection decision. decision. If the scope scope of a technic technical al task had to changeduring the executionof executionof the J/IST J/IST program, program, these changeswere made throughthe contract contractorresponsibl orresponsiblee for that task. 2) Team Team administrativet asks were distributed among J/IST contracts. tracts. The LockheedMartin LockheedMartin team was responsiblefor responsiblefor making énalized viewgraphs and charts for joint presentations. The Boeing St. Louis team was responsible for constructing the J/IST master master plan and risk-tracking documentation. 3) The Boeing Boeing Seattle Seattle and Lockheed Martin contracts contracts contained tasks to provide provide inputs to the developm developmentof entof the master plan being assembled by the Boeing St. Louis team. 4) The responsibleagentcontractorconceptwas responsibleagentcontractorconceptwas writteninto writteninto each contract. A responsible agent contractor was the contractor under contract to accomplish a given task task for the entire entire J/IST team. team. 5) Each J/IST contract had the requirement to establish associate contractor contractor agreement agreement clauses to enable direct information information èow between all participatingJ /IST contractors. contractors. This avoided avoided the problem of needingto funneldata throughthe governmentJ/IST governmentJ/IST demonstrademonstration team. 6) The J/IST demonstration team and the executing contractors  jointly briefed technic al plans a nd progress p rogress to the JSF program oféce. These were uni éed briefs, not contractor centric. It was common that one contractor would brief technical work being accomplished by another contractor because they were both working on different aspects of the same issues and the work logically  é t together for presentation continuity. continuity. 7) Weekly “meet-me” “meet-me” calls were held for e ach J/IST IPT. These weekly calls were standing meetings with written minutes. To facilitate discussions, copies of drawings, viewgraph charts, or test plans were e-mailed ahead of time time to the team members so that eveveryone had copies in front of them during these discussions. discussions. If the werelarge,sensitive,or containedpropri containedproprietaryinf etaryinformati ormation,they on,they éles werelarge,sensitive,or were uploaded onto a secure FTP FTP site operated by the JSF program

912

   6    6    8    6  .    2    /    4    1    5    2  .    0    1   :    I

   O    D    |   g   r   o  .   a   a    i   a  .   c   r   a    /    /   :   p    t    t    h    |    5    1    0    2  ,    9    1   y   r   a   u   n   a    J   n   o    Y    T    I    S    R    E    V    I    N    U    S    N    I    K    P    O    H    S    N    H    O    J   y    b    d   e    d   a   o    l   n   w   o    D

BURKHARD AND DEITRICH DEITRICH

of éce or e-mailed e-mailed in an encrypted form. Often Often additional additional telephone confere conferencecal ncecalls ls were were set up to holdin-depthdiscu holdin-depthdiscussio ssionsor nsor revie reviews ws of speciéc technical technical issues. issues. This approach approach saved saved the J/IST J/IST program travel travel costs and loss loss of producti productive ve work hours hours during travel. travel. 8) All J/IST J/IST contractors contractors particip participated ated in the demonstration demonstration hardware PDRs PDRs and CDRs. The tendency by some contractors to stamp almost everything everything as proprietary proprietary was strongly strongly challenged by the government team. If necessary, necessary, short, closed-door limited audience discuss discussionswe ionswere re held. held. Howe However ver,, forthe most most part, part, PDRs PDRs andCDRs were open meetings because eventually eventually all of this hardware hardware had to work together together in the various various demonstrati demonstrations. ons. 9) The role of government government technical technical experts experts is best summed summed up by the phrase, “insight, not oversight, oversight,” providingwise council from their expertise and experience, but not direction and/or establishment of requirements. Although most government experts understood and performed this role, there was a natural tendency on the partof some some of the cont contract ractorsto orsto look to the the govern governmen mentIPT tIPT memmembers for more. 10) Major programmatic decisions that emerged from program milestoneshortfall milestoneshortfallss were elevatedto elevatedto the J/IST J/IST execu executiv tivee council council for resolution. This council membership membership was was made up of the JSF program of éce  è ight systems systems lead, JSF WSC subsystemdesign teams, teams, J/IST management team, and the program managers from each of  the J/IST contracts. The entire team got together together about every every six months, months, initially initially for program planning, PDRs, PDRs, and CDRs. However, when the program moved into phase 3, technical interchange meetings (TIMs) were scheduled. scheduled. TIMs TIMs were contracted contracted meetings meetings for the last three three years of the program as forums where where the executing executing contractor contractor team, the responsible agent contractor, presented the technical progress for the past six months to the rest of the JSF WSC and J/IST contractor community. community. Additionally,th Additionally,th e executingcontractor presented plannedtechnicalactivity plannedtechnicalactivity for the next nine months. months. These These meetin meetings gs weretechnicalworkshopswith weretechnicalworkshopswith openexchangesamongthe technical technical experts, experts, which resulted resulted in extensivetechnicalinterc extensivetechnicalinterchange.The hange.The presentati sentationof onof the plannedtechn plannedtechnica icalacti lactiviti vitiesfor esfor thenext nine nine months months was to inform and invite JSF WSCs and J/IST contractor involvement in upcoming efforts if they so chose. Generally, Generally, participation involved special analyses, reviewing, and providing comments on test plans. Earlyon Earlyon in theprogram,thesuppl theprogram,thesupplier ierswerehesit swerehesitantabou antaboutbrie tbrieéng their technical technical work work with competitorsin competitorsin the room. Often, Often, a supplier supplier or two had to leave so that a proprietary proprietary brief could be made. However, as technical results became available, the level of sensitivity decreased decreased until a propriet proprietary ary brieéng was the excepti exception on rather than the rule. rule. One got the the impressionthat impressionthat they wanted wanted to broadcast broadcast their technical accomplishments. In the initial phase of the program, face-to-face meetings were commonp commonplac laceand eand encoura encouraged.It ged.It helps helps to fostergood fostergood workingrela workingrela-tionships tionships if individualshave individualshave met and developeda developeda relationship.Thi relationship.Thiss helpedto helpedto builda builda team team spiritbecau spiritbecauseyou seyou gotto meet meet and know know your your technical counterparts in the industry. To nurture this J/IST team spirit, spirit, after business business hours social social events events were commonly commonly scheduled scheduled in conjunctionwith conjunctionwith IPT meeting meeting and major programreviews.These programreviews.These events events rangedfrom cookoutsto cookoutsto dinnerstogether dinnerstogether at a localrestaurant localrestaurant with with local local charac character ter.Thes .Thesee were were alwaysarra alwaysarrange ngedand dand paid paid forby the individual, never at contract expense. As the program progressed, the approachof approachof choicefor IPT meetings,technicalplanni meetings,technicalplanning,and ng,and the executiv executivee council council were electronic electronic meetings meetings via meet-me meet-me telephone calls with with pre-distrib pre-distributeddocu uteddocumentat mentation.At ion.At the end of the program, program, face-to-fac face-to-facee meetings meetings were generall generally y only to witness witness a J/IST major major milestoneor milestoneor to attenda TIM. TIM. The technicaldetails technicaldetails and results results of the various various J/IST J/IST maturation maturation activitiesare activitiesare documented documented in the technical technical reports (Refs. 21, 23, 24–31).

Summary The J/IST J/IST demonstration program was was a highly successful technology maturation program that made available to all three JSF aircraft aircraft design teams teams the technical technical data, risk reduction,and reduction,and demonstrations strations that allowed allowed them to assess and, and, as appropriate, appropriate, use this integrated technology. The information and demonstration results

were made available available to all JSF WSCs WSCs to implement into their comcompetitive petitive JSF aircraft aircraft design, as applicable. applicable. In fact, the integrated integrated technology technology matured matured in this program has transitione transitioned d to the F-35 aircraft. The approach used in the J/IST demonstration program enabled one effort effort to serve all.

Acknowledgments The following individuals signiécantly contributed to the successful accomplish of the Joint Strike Fighter Integrated Technology (J/IST) (J/IST) Demonstration Program. The The J/IST Management Management team consisted of Richard Quigley, Jr., Team Leader 1994–1996; Alan Burkhard,Te Burkhard,Team am Leader Leader 1997–2001and 1997–2001and ChiefEngineer1994–199 ChiefEngineer1994–1996; 6; Richard Deitrich, Deputy Team Leader 1994–2001; Gerald Wyen, The Boeing Boeing Company Company Contractor Contractor Manager, Manager, 1995–2001 1995–2001;; Brian Hager, Hager, Lockheed Lockheed Martin Martin Corporation Corporation Contract Contract Manager 1995– 2001;GeorgeKline, Chief Chief Engineer,1997– Engineer,1997–2000;Randy 2000;Randy Smith, Smith, JSF Flight Flight Systems Systems Lead 1994–1998;Lawr 1994–1998;Lawrence ence Gresko,JSF Gresko,JSF Flight Flight System Lead, 1998–2001; and Hank Lystead, JSF Deputy Flight System Lead 1994–2001. The industry J/IST contract managers were SrI Iya (The Boeing Company), Dennis Eicke (Lockheed Martin Corporation), and Howard Carter, III, [Boeing (formerly McDonnell Douglas Douglas Aerospace)] Aerospace)].. The followi following ng contractorswere contractorswere also part of the J/IST Industry Team: Team: Honeywell Engines and Systems (formerly AlliedSignal Aerospace); BAE Systems (formely Lear Astronics); Moog, Inc.; Northrop Grumman Corporation; Pratt and WhitneyAircraft, United TechnologyCorporation;Parker Hannién; Hamilton Sunstrand; BAE BAE System (formerly Marconi Aerospace); Eagle-Picher; TRW Aerospace (formerly Lucas Aerospace); and Kilovac.

References 1

Morrocco, J., “JAST Funding Faces Skepticism,”   Aviation Week and  Space Technology, Vol. Vol. 139, No. 14, 2 5 Oct. 1993, p. 27. 2

Shah, N. R., Mahood, K., and Gerrard, P., “More-Electric F/A-18 Cost Beneéts Study,” U.S. Air Force Research Center, Rept. WL-TR-91-2093, Wright–Patterson AFB, OH, 15 May 1992. 3 Murray, Murray, W., Feiner, Feiner, L., Flores,R., “Evaluation “Evaluation of All-Electric All-Electric Secondary Secondary Power for Transport Transport Aircraft,” Aircraft,” NASA NASA CR-189077, Jan. 1992. 4 Shah, N., Ho, Y., and Cleek, K., “Power Management and Distribution System for a More-Electric Aircraft (MADMEL) Phase I,” U.S. Air Force Research Research Lab., Lab., Rept. WL-TR-93-2039, Wright–Patter Wright–Patterson son AFB, OH, Nov. Nov. 19 92. 5 Shah, N, Walia, P., Cleek, K., Chen, W., and Loweree, F., “Power Management agement and Distribution Distribution System for More-Electri More-Electricc Aircraft Aircraft (MADMEL) (MADMEL) Phase II,” U.S. Air Force Research Research Lab., Rept. WL-TR-94-2070, Wright– Patterson AFB, OH, July 1994. 6 Shah, N., Ho, Y., and Cleek, K., “Power Management and Distribution System for M ore-Electric ore-Electric Aircraft Aircraft (MADMEL) (MADMEL) P hase III,” U.S. Air Force Research Lab., Rept. WL-TR-95-2126, Wright–Patterson AFB, OH, Sept. 1995. 7 Shah, N., Cleek, K., Pollom, M., Lazarevic, A., and Klesse, B., “Power Management and Distribution System for More-Electric Aircraft (MADMEL),” MEL),” U.S. Air Force Research Research Lab.,Rept. AFRL-PR-WP-TR-2000-2043, AFRL-PR-WP-TR-2000-2043, Wright–Patterson AFB, OH, Jan. 2000. 8 Clough, B., “Lessons Learned in Electric Actuation Development for Flight Control Systems,” U.S. Air Force Research Lab., Rept. WL-TR-973069, Wright–Patte Wright–Patterson rson AFB, OH, June 1997. 9 Geiger, M., and Macy, W., “The Electrically Actuated Brake System Program—Final Report,” U.S. Air Force Research Lab., Rept. WL-TR-953085, Wright–Patte Wright–Patterson rson AFB, OH, Sept. 1995. 10 Barhydt, J., Carter, Carter, H., and Weber, eber, D., “SubsystemIntegrationTechnology (SUIT) (SUIT) Phase Phase I,” I,” U.S. U.S. Air ForceResearch ForceResearch Lab., Lab., Rept. Rept. WL-TR-93-3 WL-TR-93-3031, 031, Wright–Patterson AFB, OH, July 1993. 11 Blanding, D., Schlundt, D., and Aldana, J., “Subsystem Integration Technology Technology (SUIT),” (SUIT),” U.S. Air Force Research Research Lab., Lab., Rept. WL-TR-92-3105, Wright–Patterson AFB, OH, Dec. 1992. 12 Hill, Hill, B., Stern, Stern, P., Ho,Y., Ho,Y., andMartin, D., “Subsyst “SubsystemIntegra emIntegrationTec tionTechhnology (SUIT), Volume 1, Executive Summary,” U.S. Air Force Research Lab., Lab., Rept. WL-TR-92-3115,Wright–Patt WL-TR-92-3115,Wright–Patterson erson AFB, OH, Oct. 1992. 13 Hill, Hill, B., Stern, Stern, P., Ho,Y., Ho,Y., andMartin, D., “Subsyst “SubsystemIntegra emIntegrationTec tionTechhnology (SUIT), Volume 2, Phase 1 Report,” U.S. Air Force Research Lab., Rept. WL-TR-92-3116, Wright–Patte Wright–Patterson rson AFB, OH, Oct. 1992. 14 Hill, Hill, B., Stern, Stern, P., Ho,Y., Ho,Y., andMartin, D., “Subsyst “SubsystemIntegra emIntegrationTec tionTechhnology (SUIT), Volume Volume 3, Phase II Repor t,” t,” U.S. Air Force Research Lab., Rept. WL-TR-92-3117, Wright–Patte Wright–Patterson rson AFB, OH, Oct. 1992.

BURKHARD AND DEITRICH DEITRICH

15

   6    6    8    6  .    2    /    4    1    5    2  .    0    1   :    I

   O    D    |   g   r   o  .   a   a    i   a  .   c   r   a    /    /   :   p    t    t    h    |    5    1    0    2  ,    9    1   y   r   a   u   n   a    J   n   o    Y    T    I    S    R    E    V    I    N    U    S    N    I    K    P    O    H    S    N    H    O    J   y    b    d   e    d   a   o    l   n   w   o    D

Hill, Hill, B., Stern, Stern, P., Ho, Y., and Martin, Martin, D., “Subsyst “SubsystemIntegr emIntegrati ation on TechTechnolog y (SUIT) Volume Volume 4, Phase III Report,” U.S. Air Force Research Research Lab., Rept. WL-TR-92-3118, Wright–Patte Wright–Patterson rson AFB, OH, Oct. 1992. 16 Carter, Carter, H., Rupe, K., Mattes, Mattes, R., and Wiese, Wiese, D., “Subsystem “Subsystem Integration Integration Technology(SUIT), Technology(SUIT), Phase 2,” 2,” U.S. Air Force Researc Research h Lab., Lab., Rept. Rept. WL-TR96-3065, Wright–Pat Wright–Patterson terson AFB, AFB, OH, May 1997. 17 Gault,K., Gault,K., Bedoya,C., Bedoya,C., Miller Miller,, C.,and Mohr, Mohr, J.,“Adva J.,“Advance nced d Vehicle ehicle ManManagement System (AVMS) Architecture Studies,” U.S. Air Force Research Lab., Rept. WL-TR-92-2106,Wright–Patterson WL-TR-92-2106,Wright–Patterson AFB, OH, Oct. 1992. 18 Terrier, D., Hodge, E., Eicke, D. and Roberts, J., “Vehicle Integration Technology Planning Study (VTIPS),” (VTIPS),” U.S. Air Air Force Research Lab., Lab., Rept. WL-TR-96-2077, Wright–Patte Wright–Patterson rson AFB, OH, April 1996. 19 Weber, D., Hill, B., and Van Van Horn, S., “Vehicle “Vehicle Integration Technology Planning Study (VTIPS),” U.S. Air Force Research Research L ab., ab., Rept. WL-TR-973036, Wright–Patte Wright–Patterson rson AFB, OH, Feb. 1997. 20 Fulghum, D., “JAST Snags New Name, Additional Funds,”   Aviation Week and Space Technology, Vol. Vol. 143, No. 16, 16 Oct. Oct. 1995, pp. 20, 21. 21 Carter, H., “Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)/Integrated Subsystems Technology (J/IST) Demonstration Program, Volume 1: Executive Summary,” U.S. Air Force Research Lab., Rept. AFRL-VA-WP-TR-2001-3028, A-WP-TR-2001-3028, Wright– Patterson Patterson AFB, OH, June 2001. 22 Venetsky, A., and Strizak, M., “Quick-Look Study on Support Equipment and Shore-Based Facilities’ Impacts of Joint Strike Fighter Integrated Subsystem Technology for U. S. Navy and Marine Corps,” U.S. Naval Air Warfare Center, Rept. NAWCADLKE-MISC-481600-0047,1 March 2000. 23 Iya, S., Harlan, R., and Hawkins, L., “LCC and War Fighting Assessment of J/IST Suite,” U.S. Air Force Research Lab., Rept. AFRL-VA-WPTR-2000-3016, Wright–Patter Wright–Patterson son AFB, OH, 17 March 1999. 24 Rupe, K., and Carter, H., “Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)/Integrated Subsystems Technology Technology (J/IST) Demonstrati Demonstration on Program, Program, Volume 2: Program Integration,” U.S. Air Force Research Lab., Lab., Rept. AFRL-VA-WP-TR-2001AFRL-VA-WP-TR-2001-

913

3029, Wright–Patte Wright–Patterson rson AFB, OH, June 2001. 25 Heydrich, H., and Roddiger, H., “Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)/Integrated Subsyste Subsystems ms Technology echnology (J/IST) (J/IST) Demons Demonstra tration tion Program, Program, Volume olume 3: Thermal/Energy Thermal/Energy M anagement anagement Module (T/EMM) Turbomachine Turbomachine,,” U.S. Air Force Researc Research h Lab., Rept. AFRL-VA-WP-TR-2001-3030, A-WP-TR-2001-3030, Wright– Patterson AFB, OH, June 2001. 26 Dastur, N., and Roddiger, H., “Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)/Integrated Subsyste Subsystems ms Technology echnology (J/IST) (J/IST) Demons Demonstra tration tion Program, Program, Volume olume 4: Thermal/Energy Management Module (T/EMM) System Integration,” Integration,” U.S. Air Force Researc Research h Lab., Rept. AFRL-VA-WP-TR-2001-3031, A-WP-TR-2001-3031, Wright– Patterson AFB, OH, June 2001. 27 Anderson, G., and Waffner, W., “Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)/Integrated Subsystems Technology (J/IST) Demonstration Program, Volume 5: High Power Electric Actuation,” U.S. Air Force Research Lab., Rept. AFRL-VAWP-TR-2001-3032,Wright–Patterson WP-TR-2001-3032,Wright–Pa tterson AFB, OH, June 2001. 28 Torchia,D., orchia,D., and RupeK., “JointStrikeFighter(JSF “JointStrikeFighter(JSF)/In )/Integ tegrat rated ed SubsysSubsystems Technology (J/IST) Demonstration Program, Volume 6: Power Management Integration,” U.S. Air Force Research Lab., Rept. AFRL-VA-WPTR-2001-3033, Wright–Patte Wright–Patterson rson AFB, OH, June 2001. 29 Anderson, J., and Roddiger, H., “Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)/Integrated (JSF)/Integrated Subsystems Subsystems Technology Technology (J/IST) Demonstrati Demonstration on Program, Volume 7: Engine Integration,” U.S. Air Force Force Research Lab., Rept. AFRL-VA-WP-TR-2001AFRL-VA-WP-TR-20013034, Wright–Patte Wright–Patterson rson AFB, OH, June 2001. 30 Eicke, D., “Joint Strike Fighter In tegrated tegrated Subsystems Technology Technology (J/IST) Power Power and Actuation Actuation FlightDemonstration FlightDemonstration Program,” U.S. Air Force Researc Research h Lab., Lab., Rept. AFRL-PR-WP-2001-2036, AFRL-PR-WP-2001-2036, Wright–Patters Wright–Patterson on AFB, OH, Jan. 2001. 31 Eicke, D., “Joint Strike Fighter In tegrated tegrated Subsystems Technology Technology (J/IST) Power and Actuation Flight Demonstration Program, Executive Summary,” Summary,” U.S. Air Force Research Research Lab., Rept. AFRL-PR-WP-2001-20 77, Wright–Patterson AFB, OH, Jan. 2001.