Download - The Joint Strike Fighter Program - Applied Physics … · he Joint Strike Fighter Program, ... line campaign results provide a robust deficiencies analysis, a required features and

C. E. STEIDLE

he Joint Strike Fighter Program, formerly the Joint Advanced Strike TechnologyProgram, is the DoD focal point for defining affordable, next-generation strike aircraftweapon systems for the Navy, Air Force, Marines, and our allies. This joint program waschartered to bring the Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps together to work jointly atreducing costs of future strike warfare concepts by maturing and transitioning advancedtechnologies, components, and processes. The program provides the focus and directionto future strike technology by applying a strategy-to-task-to-technology processinvolving an integrated team of users and developers. User-defined future operationalneeds determine which technologies and demonstrations will be pursued and funded.The program thus serves as the critical link among the requirements community, thetechnology community, and the eventual acquisition program office, while focusing onreducing both cost and risk of technology, process, and concepts to meet future jointoperational needs affordably.(Keywords: Advanced strike technology, Affordability, Joint acquisition program, JointStrike Fighter, Joint warfare.)

T

The Joint Strike Fighter Program

Craig E. Steidle

INTRODUCTIONIn the summer of 1993, the Secretary of Defense

Bottom-Up Review acknowledged the Services’ needto affordably replace their aging strike assets to main-tain the nation’s combat technological edge. In Sep-tember 1993, during the presentation of the Bottom-Up Review, the Secretary of Defense formallyannounced his intent to cancel the Navy AdvancedAttack Fighter (AF/X) and the Air Force Multi-RoleFighter (MRF) programs and create the Joint Advanced

6 JOH

Strike Technology (JAST) Program. Together, the AF/X and MRF programs were unaffordable. In October1993, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisitionand Technology (USD[A&T]) approved the initialjoint Service plan for the JAST Program as a compre-hensive advanced technology effort to prepare the wayfor the next generation of strike weapon systems. Afterannouncing his approval of the joint Service plan tothe Congressional Defense Committees and requesting

NS HOPKINS APL TECHNICAL DIGEST, VOLUME 18, NUMBER 1 (1997)

THE JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER PROGRAM

their support, the USD(A&T) formally established theJAST (now the Joint Strike Fighter, JSF) Program inJanuary 1994.

FY 1995 Congressional legislation merged the De-fense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)Advanced Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (AS-TOVL) Program with the JSF Program. Additionally,the United Kingdom Royal Navy is committing $200million to the current Concept Demonstration Phaseof the JSF Program, extending a collaboration begununder the DARPA ASTOVL Program. Negotiationshave been initiated with Norway, Denmark, and theNetherlands to include them in future cost–perfor-mance requirements generation validations.

THE JSF PROGRAM DEVELOPMENTPROCESS

To reduce the costs of development, production, andownership of the JSF family of aircraft, the program isfacilitating the Services’ development of fully validat-ed, affordable requirements. The following Serviceneeds were presented to the program at its initiation:

• Navy: A first-day-of-the-war, survivable strike fighterto complement the F/A-18E/F

• Air Force: A multirole aircraft (primary air-to-ground)to replace the F-16 and A-10 and to complement theF-22

• Marine Corps: A STOVL aircraft to replace the AV-8B and the USMC F/A-18

• United Kingdom Royal Navy: A STOVL aircraft toreplace the Sea Harrier.

Doing Business DifferentlyNumerous acquisition reform initiatives and major

commissions have provided guidance and recommen-dations on how to reap financial benefits by applyingstreamlined, nontraditional business approaches. TheJSF Program has adopted the recommendations of the1986 Packard Commission:

• Get the warfighter and technologist together to en-able leveraging cost–performance trades.

• Apply technology to lower the cost of the system, notjust to increase the performance.

• Adequately mature technology prior to engineeringand manufacturing development.

• Ensure that the solutions are joint.• Instigate and catalogue acquisition reform.

This guidance has been aggressively embraced andimplemented into the JSF affordability philosophy asreflected in Fig. 1, the strategy-to-task-to-technologyprocess. The JSF Program has recently been added tothe Major Defense Acquisition Program list as a jointDoD 5000 Acquisition Category 1D program. There

JOHNS HOPKINS APL TECHNICAL DIGEST, VOLUME 18, NUMBER 1 (1

are several important themes running through the 5000documents, which have been demonstrated consistent-ly in the strategy-to-task-to-technology approach of theJSF Program. These themes include the following:

• Teamwork. The JSF Program has operated on theprinciple of teamwork, involving government andindustry working together in a true integrated productteam.

• Cost as an independent variable. The JSF ProgramOffice facilitated an innovative process that involvedthe warfighters early in the design process and led tothe timely approval of a Joint Initial RequirementsDocument (JIRD), a definition of top-level initialrequirements for the three Services. This process,supported by modeling, simulations, analyses, andtrade studies, will continue in an iterative fashionleading to affordable requirements.

• Best practices. JSF acquisition activities have beencharacterized by a willingness to incorporate soundideas for improvement in each solicitation, use ofstreamlined acquisition vehicles such as Broad AgencyAnnouncements whenever appropriate, insistenceon paperless, streamlined industry proposals, andelectronic processes that streamline source selection.Because of their affordability, commercial items, com-ponents, processes, and practices have also beenused.

The process shown in Fig. 1 is the key to “doingbusiness differently.” Using a very vigorous, facilitatedquality-function-deployment process, the ProgramOffice, with the Services’ warfighters (Operational Ad-visory Group) and government and industry technicalexperts, executed a top-down strategy-to-task approachto requirements definition. This process led the teamfrom National Security Policy through concept ofoperations and operational objectives, to specific warf-ighting tasks. This effort produced an auditable,credible trail of the decision-making process. The warf-ighter/technologist teams melded these derived taskswith Defense Intelligence Agency–supplied threats andfuture force structure in simulation-assisted wargaminganalyses of the Defense Planning Guidance–basedMajor Regional Contingency scenarios.

Five major wargames were conducted to assess thecapabilities of our strike forces projected in 2010 andto determine deficiencies in force capabilities. Integralto this activity was the examination of nonmaterialsolutions (tactics, doctrine, procedures) to address de-ficiencies in accomplishing operational tasks. The base-line campaign results provide a robust deficienciesanalysis, a required features and characteristics analysisfor cost–performance trade studies, and a benchmarkfor future evaluation of contractor concepts for theJSF Program. Exploiting modeling and simulation inthis way will support the creation of an affordable

997) 7

C. E. STEIDLE

Mission

Combat

Engagement

Campaign

CONOPS

Modeling andsimulation

Systemdesign

National security policy

Military strategy

Operational objectives

Operational concepts“best practices”

Target set

Threat

Forceelements

Mission

Engineering

Engagement

Campaign

Nonmaterialsolutions•Doctrine•Tactics

Deficiencies

Required features and characteristics(joint and Service-unique)

Affordable cost trades

Investment plan

Modeling andsimulation

Technology andoperational

conceptdemonstrations

Affordable effectivetechnologies

Packard Commission

•Get warfighter and technologist together to enable leveraging cost-performance trades•Apply technology to lower cost of the system not just increase its performance•Adequately mature technology prior to entering engineering and manufacturing development•Ensure that solution is joint•Instigate/catalyze acquisition reform

Tasks

3

3

3

Figure 1. The strategy-to-task-to-technology process incorporates the guidance and recommendations of numerous acquisition reformcommissions.

weapon system by providing early (user, governmenttechnologist, and industry) cost–performance tradestudies.

An additional quality-function-deployment effortthen generated the strategy-to-task-to-technology pro-cess that explicitly linked JSF technology projects tothe derived material deficiencies, and thus to strikewarfare tasks and strategies. Rigorous cost-performancetrade study analyses, using cost as an independentvariable, were required prior to defining the JSF Pro-gram investment plans. Each technology maturationproject required a cost–performance trade study, a life-cycle cost perspective, and an operational objective inthe strategy-to-task process. A cost-performance traderesult with the JSF-derived analysis tool, the four-dimensional response surface, is shown in Fig. 2.

The technology maturation results are availableto all JSF weapon system contractors teams, not justto those that perform the technology work. This inno-vative approach is working for both the governmentand industry, even in a highly competitive programenvironment.

As mentioned, developers and users together con-ducted the wargames and participated in trade studies

8 JOH

to address key weapon system features and character-istics. This analysis provided the rationale for the JIRD,(Table 1), which was endorsed by the Joint Require-ments Oversight Council.

Designed as a living document bridging the Services’mission needs to the Operational Requirements Doc-ument, the JIRD will undergo several refinements in aliving, continual cost and operational performancetrade analysis prior to the Operational RequirementsDocument release in FY 1999 (Fig. 3).

JIRD Characteristics

Sortie Generation Rate and Logistics Footprint

A weapon system with a lean footprint and an en-hanced sortie generation rate can deliver impressivecombat potential as a force application tool available tothe Joint Force Commander. Historical DoD-sponsoredstudies (e.g., B-2 bomber and C-17) have consistentlypointed to the value of achieving high sortie generationlevels. Baseline Force Process Team campaign wargam-ing illustrated that the sorties available by current strikeplatforms delayed attainment of Joint Force Command-


weapon system diagwith airborne updamunications, comthrough a fully intesystem. The autonto the human nerrespond without cotics support explo

6

5

4

3

2

15

4

3

2

1

5

4

3

2

1

Rel

ativ

e co

st

Countermeasu

reTreatment

0.998 0.987 0.9350.9450.9560.9660.977 0.8930.9030.9140.924 0.882

Figure 2. Modeling and simulation chart showing results of cost–performance tradeanalysis.

er objectives. Analyses determined that early-phase mis-sion requirements would be optimized through com-bined improvements in the rate of force closure(achieved through reduced logistics footprint—numberof C-141 loads) and high sortie generation rate capa-bility. Lethality metrics such as kill rates show thata 25% increase in sortie generation rate and 50%reduction in deployment footprint have the best


synergistic effect on campaign out-come. The JIRD-I values for sortiegeneration rate and logistics foot-print fall within these ranges.

Key to JSF affordability is thecommonality inherent in a coredesign from which all three Ser-vice variants are derived. The JSFAutonomic Logistics SupportConcept defines a support infra-structure capable of generating thefull range of initial surge and sus-tained combat sortie rates requiredby each Service. This infrastruc-ture will also minimize the sizeof the initial combat sortie gener-ation element and sustaining infra-structure. It exploits, to thegreatest extent, the reliability,maintainability, supportability, anddeployability characteristics foundin the air vehicle design to maxi-mize support system commonalityand interoperability.

Autonomic logistics support is anew paradigm. It is the spontaneouslogistics response to an initial statusstimulus from enhanced onboardnostics. This response is concurrenttes via the command, control, com-puters, and intelligence networkroperable joint logistics informationomic logistics process is analogousvous system, where basic functionsnscious thought. Autonomic logis-its the full strength of enhanced

JOHNS HOPKINS APL TECHNICAL DIGEST, VOLUME 18, NUMBER 1 (1997) 9

Table 1. The Joint Initial Requirements Document operational characteristics.

USAF USN USMC

Sortie generation rate Significantly greater than current F-16, F/A-18, and AV-8Logistics footprint Significantly fewer N/A Significantly fewer

than current F-16 than current AV-8Payload (internal) plus 1000-lb class 2000-lb class JSOW 1000-lb class

four external stations AIM-120 and gun AIM-120 AIM-120IR signature — — —RF signature — — —Range (nmi) 450–600 600 450–550Speed and Capabilities comparable to current

maneuverability multirole fighters such as F-16 and F-18Carrier aviation suitability — Yes STOVLBasing flexibility — — YesAffordability 28M 31–38M 30–35MNote: A dash indicates not applicable for this variant; STOVL = short take-off vertical landing.

C. E. STEIDLE

Living cost and operational performance trades (COPT)

Analysisof alternatives

(AOA)

Legacy force•F-16 upgrades•AV-8B upgrades

JORD(1999)

AOA Milestone II

•Target acquisition•Accuracy•Identify target•IR signature•Maneuverability•Pass/receive timely information•Payload•Radar cross section•RCS vs ECM•RCS vs supportability•Situational awareness•Sortie generation rate•Basing flexibility/carrier suitability•Reliability

JIRD II(1996)

Affordability

•Radar cross section•IR signature•Speed•Maneuverability•Payload•Sortie generation rate•Log “footprint”•Shipboard compatibility•Interoperability•Range

JIRD I(1995)

Affordability

•Adverse weather/ night•Multirole capability•Mission planning•Mission flexibility•Mission level intelligence•Route planning•Emissions control•Accurate navigation•Countermeasures•Commonality•Interoperability•Ferry range•Weapon/sensor integration

JIRD III(1997)

Affordability

•Low visual signature•System redundancy•Hardening•Battle damage assessment•Weapons carriage versatility•Low acoustic signature•Maintainability

JIRD IV(1998)

Affordability

Figure 3. Continual cost and operational performance trade process leading to the Operational Requirements Document (RCS = radarcross section; ECM = electronic countermeasures).

diagnostics and expanded database management. Em-bedded in the “Smart” weapon system, enhanced witha multifunction portable maintenance aid, Joint Inte-grated Maintenance Information Systems diagnosticsand database management can provide a responsible,precise logistics and support system to the Smart flight-line technician. The autonomic logistics support rede-fines the interface among the weapon system, mainte-nance technician, and support infrastructure to sustainhigh sortie generation rates and reduce logistics foot-print and total life-cycle costs.

Infrared and Radio Frequency Signatures

Initial survivability studies on radio frequency andinfrared signatures and self-protection suite combina-tions using detailed campaign-, mission-, and engage-ment-level analyses demonstrate that high survivabilityprovided by stealth is one of the more leveraging JSFattributes. Survivability is the key to weapon systempersistence. Reduced signature allows for a reduction inthe number of combat support sorties required.

Range

The JSF Program explored the unique target distri-bution of each of the Defense Intelligence Agencythreat countries to determine the range required for theJSF to strike targets. When combined with all theresources available to the Joint Force Commander, aJSF range of 400 nmi into enemy territory is sufficientto strike 100% of the target set. The actual combatrange required then becomes dependent upon servicebasing concepts. The Navy will operate from carriersoffshore at a distance in concert with the threat andwill require a minimum of 600 nmi combat range. The

10 JOH

quantity of aircraft the Air Force would deploy intotheater and the basing distribution of those aircraft willrequire an Air Force combat range of 450–600 nmi.The Marine Corps concepts of basing flexibility andforward basing, both afloat and ashore, produce rangerequirements of 450–550 nmi.

Carrier Aviation Suitability and Basing Flexibility

Carrier aviation (CV) suitability is fundamental tonaval basing and operational employment. Basing flex-ibility in the Marine Corps provides the foundation forforward basing, which, in turn, increases responsive-ness. This flexibility increases the number of airfieldsfrom which to conduct operations, decreases the re-sponse time of aircraft without the use of airbornesupport, and provides dispersal for high-value assets.

Speed and Maneuverability

Speed and maneuverability are characteristics wheremore capability is historically considered better. How-ever, the increased requirements will rapidly acceleratecost. The JSF cost–performance trade analysis deter-mined that we must retain capabilities comparable tocurrent multirole aircraft. This level of performance isnecessary and sufficient to successfully engage, counter,and survive both future air-to-air and future surface-to-air threats.

Affordability

Because cost was considered as an independentvariable, the JSF acquisition strategy was based on afamily of strike variants in order to enhance total sys-tem affordability. All requirements trades are beingevaluated not only for their operational value, but cost



as well. Performing continuous Cost of OperationalPerformance Trades will enable the program to optimizereturn on investment for DoD and remain within pro-grammed funding levels.

JIRD-I was focused on qualities and characteristicsthat drive the outer mold line of the aircraft designs.JIRD-II (Fig. 4), nearing completion, will emphasizekey avionics trades, especially target acquisition, weap-on system deliveries, and accuracy; supportability ver-sus radar cross section; and supportability versusdiagnostics.

Virtual Strike Warfare EnvironmentAs we have refined our modeling, simulation, and

analysis process, we have moved through constructive

simulation and inthe verge of comvironment (VSW

This VSWE pstations, reconfigintegrated techndemonstrations, Demonstrations, porating avionicThis process signand will drasticaland training cos

In the near futhe complete “Swithin the VSWstudy to investig

FY95

Warfightersand

technologists

Warfightersand

technologists

JMAA

JIRD-I••••

FY96Trade

studies•Mold-line drivers•Supportability

•Radar cross section•IR signature•Speed•Maneuverability•Payload•Sortie generation rate•Logistics “footprint”•Shipboard compatibility•Interoperability

Define•Target acquisition•Situational awareness•Pass/receive timely info•Accuracy•Identify target

Inter-attributes•RCS vs supportability•RCS vs ECM

Refine•IR signature•Maneuverability•Payload•Sortie generation rate

•Emphasis on avionics•Continued emphasis on supportability•Refine attributes from JIRD-I

JIRD-II••••

Upcomingtrade

studies

J-STARS

Navy

TLAM

UAV

JSF Air Force

JSF Navy

JSF Marines

Figure 4. JIRD II areas of emphasis as defined through a continual cost–performancetrade process (RCS = radar cross section; ECM = electronic countermeasures).

Figure 5. The JSF Program has developed a virtual strike warfare environment.


teractive digital simulation and are onpleting our virtual strike warfare en-E, Fig. 5).

rovides links to advanced tactical crewurable cockpits, anechoic chambers,ology demonstrations, risk reductionAdvanced Capability Technology

and virtual avionics prototypes incor-s hardware and software prototypes.ificantly reduces the development costly reduce future life-cycle, flight tests,ts.ture, detailed trade studies involvingystem-of-Systems” will be addressedE. For example, we have initiated a

ate the benefits of exploiting the vastamount of battlespace informationavailable to current-generation air-craft. The study indicates that thedelivery of ordnance against most ofthe targets that would be allocatedto the JSF requires the use of on-board sensors. However, increasedperformance provided by exploitingand fusing offboard sensors andguided weapons will expand thetarget set the JSF can hold at risk.

Enhancements in situationalawareness will require a paradigmshift in the way we manage infor-mation in the cockpit and a revo-lutionary approach to the distribu-tion of intelligence, surveillance,and reconnaissance data. Twelveonboard/offboard avionics configu-rations were evaluated in ourVSWE. The conclusions of thisstudy were that offboard informa-tion can be used for detections, thedata can be fused with onboardsensor tracks, information manage-ment can effectively regulate thepilot’s situational awareness, andavionics procurement costs couldbe reduced by up to 20% per shipset through the use of offboard in-formation in the cockpit. Pilotsfound that use of offboard sensordata and information managementpolicies yield measurable improve-ments in the ability to prosecutetargets in a survivable manner.These preliminary results need tobe extended by more robust anal-ysis. These activities and insights,conducted in our VSWE, will be

997) 11

C. E. STEIDLE

beneficial in the formulation of key avionics tradestudies and resulting weapon system requirements forJIRD-II.

TECHNOLOGY MATURATIONAs stated earlier, from the outset of this program, the

JSF Program Office has worked closely with industryand other government organizations to identify high-leverage technologies with the potential to benefit thecontractors’ respective Preferred Weapon System Con-cepts. This task has been accomplished by governmentand industry integrated product teams. The ProgramOffice has awarded numerous technology maturationcontracts focused on technologies that will contributeto weapon system affordability and those that can besuccessfully transitioned into engineering and manufac-turing development with low risk. A few of the tech-nology maturation programs currently under way aredescribed in the following paragraphs.

JSF Integrated Subsystems Technology (J/IST)Demonstration

Aircraft subsystems have traditionally been designedusing a federated approach consisting of a number ofindependently designed subsystems. Effectively inte-grating key subsystems can significantly improve air-craft affordability and provide warfighting benefitsthrough increased performance and dramatically re-duced amounts of equipment. The JSF-sponsored J/ISTDemonstration Program is maturing integration tech-nologies for aircraft subsystems to enable transition tothe Engineering and Manufacturing Development Pro-gram by FY 2001. The JSF-sponsored Vehicle Integra-tion Technology Planning Studies projected that a

3–4% life-cycle cost savings could be achieved withthese technologies versus 1995 state-of-the-art federat-ed subsystems.

The integration technologies that are being maturedare the Thermal/Energy Management Module and itsintegration with the engine, 270VDC power manage-ment and distribution, electric flight actuation, andassociated controls to enable effective integration anddemonstration. These technologies were identified byBoeing, Lockheed Martin, and McDonnell Douglas/Northrop Grumman/British Aerospace weapon systemcontractors as providing substantial cost and warfight-ing benefits to JSF weapon system concepts. The tech-nologies encompassed in the J/IST Program allow 13baseline-technology major subsystems to be replacedwith five, as shown in Table 2.

The hardware and software components will be in-tegrated into major subsystems-level ground and flightdemonstrations in FY 97 and 98. The J/IST demonstra-tion will conclude in FY 99–00 with systems-level dem-onstrations of the integrated subsystems suite runningin concert with a representative propulsion system andwith the flight testing of all flight critical componentsof a single integrated flight systems solution.

Virtual ManufacturingIn August 1995, the virtual manufacturing FAST-

TRACK Program demonstrated that virtual manufac-turing can provide dramatic cost benefits in the aircraftdesign process (Fig. 6). During the demonstration,McDonnell Douglas designed a new airframe formerusing off-the-shelf design and manufacturing tools. Ad-justments were also made to the assembly jig duringthe design process to ease production floor assembly.The electronic database design information was then

12 JOHNS HOPKINS APL TECHNICAL DIGEST, VOLUME 18, NUMBER 1 (1997)

Table 2. The JSF Integrated Subsystem Technology demonstration will effectively integrate key subsystems to improveaircraft affordability.

Traditional subsystems (13) Integrated subsystems (5)Airframe Engine Airframe Engine

subsystems subsystems subsystems subsystems

Aircraft-mounted accessory drive Engine power Thermal/energy management Starter/generatorAuxiliary power system Thermal management module Fan duct heatEmergency power system Power takeoff Electrical power distributor exchangerAir cycle environmental Integrated vehicle management

control system (ECS) systemVapor cycle ECSThermal management systemPneumatic engine startHydraulic power distributorElectric power distributorDistributed vehicle management

system


transmitted seamlessly from St. Louis to the vendor(Remmele Engineering, Inc., Minneapolis, Minneso-ta), who machined the part using the McDonnellDouglas Aerospace electronic information and shippedit to St. Louis for fitting and assembly. The new formerfit the first time on the production floor jig without theusual iteration process to adjust the jig and modify thepart design.

Advanced Lightweight Aircraft FuselageStructure (ALAFS)

This program is a multiyear project involving a re-design of the F/A-18E/F center fuselage–wing section.The goals of the program are to reduce the cost of thissection of the aircraft by 30% and reduce the weightby 20%. These goals translate to 6–8% life-cycle costsavings for the JSF Program. Technologies and focusareas encompass materials, structural design concepts,and manufacturing processes for improved fabricationand assembly. This project will identify and developconcepts and methodologies that will allow muchgreater integration of advanced composite structures.Unitized composite design concepts will be explored toenhance structural integrity at reduced weight, employlower cost production concepts, and create volumetricefficiencies that are complementary to more electricconcepts (Fig. 7).

The fabrication of the full-scale test article allowsdirect comparison with the baselinestructure. Because the baseline de-sign requirements for systems inte-gration and interfaces have beenmaintained during the design of theALAFS structure, a real assessmentof the technology benefits can bedetermined. The schedule is de-signed to support an option for pro-duction incorporation of ALAFS(or a variant) in the F/A-18E/F inaccordance with the JSF ProgramOffice assessment.

TRAINING SYSTEMSThe JSF training system

development is revolutionary inthat it approaches training as acontinuum that ranges from initialtraining to advanced deployedtactical fighter wing operations. Acommon, affordable, deployable,individually tailored, on-demandtraining system that is electronic,interactive, and linked directly todesign, operator, and maintainer

F/A-18 E/F baseline

3

3

3

Objecti•Reduced part cou•Affordable applica•Improved metal a

Figure 7. Advanced L

JOHNS HOPKINS APL TECHNICAL DIGEST, VO

databases is our vision. The JSF training system mustsupport specific needs of at least four Services using acommon core, yet function within the joint trainingenvironment.

The JSF training system concepts are developed tosustain or improve effectiveness while reducing life-cyclecost. We reviewed two advanced visual systems in a jointeffort with the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force toevaluate, on a task basis, the ability of advanced visualsystems to train warfighters on strike and air-to-air tasks.

Numerical control programming

in St. Louis

Machining InMinneapolis

MinneapolisRemmele

Engineering, Inc.

St. LouisMcDonnell

Douglas

•Exploits seamless flow of design and manufacturing information•Reduces lead time•Minimizes the impact of distance

Numerical control instructionstransferred

electronically

Figure 6. Virtual manufacturing provides a seamless flow of designand manufacturing information.

vesnttion of compositespplications

Clean sheet redesignof baseline to demonstrate

“unitized” design approaches

ightweight Aircraft Fuselage Structure (ALAFS).

LUME 18, NUMBER 1 (1997) 13

C. E. STEIDLE

The systems evaluated were a Visual Integrated DisplaySystem and a CAE Electronics Advanced Fiber OpticHelmet Mounted Display. Whereas the results of thisstudy show that more maturation is required for ad-vanced strike and multiship tasks, the overall potentialof the visual system technology to increase effectivenesswhile reducing life-cycle costs is tremendous. Its impactwill be seen in pilot and maintainer training as well asmission planning and rehearsal.

The JSF Program Office has also evaluated virtualreality technology in a demonstration by BostonDynamics, Inc., as a potential technology for replacingmaintenance part task trainers. When the advancesbeing made in visual technology are coupled withthe haptic or force-feedback technology, there is thepotential to provide the functionality of many part tasktrainers on a single work station. This technologycould be kept current with software updates, andthe hardware would be little more than a desktopcomputer.

The JSF training system will truly be a breakthroughin the use of technology to increase capability whilesignificantly reducing life-cycle cost.

MISSION SYSTEMSThe avionics integrated product team streamlined

its current program through a continuing filtering

14 JOHN

process that began with the survey of nearly 400 tech-nology candidates in late 1993 (Fig. 8). By the summerof 1994, we categorized the highest affordability-lever-aging candidates into six Integrated Technology Dem-onstration Plans and let contracts to study and demon-strate the critical enabling technologies with thepotential to achieve a low-risk transition to engineeringand manufacturing development.

Further refinement emphasized quality-function-deployment results, the architecture definition, thehealth of the science and technology seed base, andespecially the feedback received from the weapon sys-tem contractors and senior technical experts. The re-sult was a focused set of demonstrations in four areas:core processing, integrated RF sensors, integrated elec-trical optical/infrared sensors, and weapons integrationand precision targeting. The product of this process isa demonstrated avionics concept that ensures bothweapon system effectiveness and affordability.

Figure 9 is an architectural representation showingwhere the ongoing technology maturation efforts em-phasize introducing enabling techologies to create cost-effective mission systems capabilities for the JSF. Tech-nical managers examine software infrastructure issues inprogramming languages; real-time, fault-tolerant oper-ating systems; software engineering environments; andsecure avionics architecture. The reuse of legacy tacticalweapon systems software is also under evaluation.

Demonstratedavionicsconcepts

Technologiesapplicable to JAST Technology

focus areas(~15 areas)

Areas covered

Nov 93May–Jun 94

Jul–Sep 94

FY 96–FY 00 FY 00

Refinedfocus areas

(11 areas)Key demos

(4 areas)

383programsreviewed

•Core processing•Integrated RF systems•Integrated electrical optical/infrared•Weapons integration/ precision targeting

May–Jun 95

•Computer science•Electronic devices•Integrated avionics•Operator integration•Sensors

Filter•Integratedtechnologydemonstrationplanning

•Quality-function- deployment process•Affordability•Architecture definition•Industry participation•Science and technology budget

Filter •Weapons system contractor roadmaps•Sensor gray panel

Filter

Process controls•ATIP process•JAST avionic concepts development and demonstration plan•Weapons system concepts•Strategy-to-task-to-technology process•A-S TPIPT findings•Broad Agency Announcement 94-2/95-1/95-4 efforts•Leveraged S&T efforts•Demonstration results

Figure 8. Avionics integrated product team filtering process of candidate technologies.

S HOPKINS APL TECHNICAL DIGEST, VOLUME 18, NUMBER 1 (1997)


MFA modes demo•SGMTI •PDF•UHRSAR

Software demos•ADA •POSIX•Tools •Reuse

•Software architecture

integrated RF sensingSharedapertures

Pilot–vehicleinterface

Vehiclemanagement

Stores management

Integrated core processing

Integrated EO/IRsensing

Integrated EO sensing

•Focal plane arrays•EO/IR receiver architecture•Aperture/airframe integration

Integrated core avionics

•COTS processors•COTS networks•Advanced packaging

Integrated RF electronics

•Hardware interfaces•Software interfaces

Avionics virtual system engineeringand prototyping

•System design and analysis•Mission effectiveness simulation

Advanced weapons guidance demo

3

3

3

Figure 9. Mission systems integrated technology demonstrations. (EO = electro-optical; COTS = commercial-of-the-shelf;MFA = multifunction nose aperture)

The Avionics Virtual Systems Engineering and Pro-totyping activity provides a modeling, simulation, andanalysis approach to integrate the mission systems (es-pecially avionics) together in a virtual sense. Resultsfrom the other demonstrations can be inserted as ap-propriate to include hardware-in-the-loop and soft-ware-in-the-loop demonstrations. Together, these dem-onstrations provide a measure of affordable system-levelperformance with demonstrations in key areas to ensureadequate risk reduction of the more critical elements.

The Multifunction Integrated RF System technol-ogy maturation demonstration has the primary objec-tive of reducing the risk of developing a low-cost, light-weight multifunction nose aperture—an activeelectronically scanned array—that meets the needs ofthe JSF Preferred Weapon System Concepts (Fig. 10).The cost breakdown of current generation integratedavionics shows that the entire RF system composesabout 59% of the avionics flyaway costs, with themultifunction nose aperture representing about 19% ofthe total.

The Multifunction Integrated RF System conceptsupports the warfighters’ requirements to navigate;maintain either active or passive situation awareness;either actively or passively search, detect, locate, andidentify targets; support weapon delivery to either fixedor mobile ground and maritime targets, and airbornetargets; and assess weapon effectiveness. These require-


ments are traded to ensure a cost-effective multifunc-tion nose aperture.

Another high-leveraging activity is Integrated CoreProcessing, which will demonstrate critical technologiesand software processes necessary to achieve an openarchitecture, information management, and displaysnecessary to support a single-crew aircraft (Fig. 11).

This philosophy allows for cheaper and quicker up-grades and significant growth capability. To ensure bothaffordability and robustness to handle the 2010+ mis-sion, the next step will involve component demonstra-tions of advanced processors, manufacturing, and pack-aging technologies.

INITIAL WEAPONS DEMONSTRATION

Using shaping and materials, the JSF Program dem-onstrated a penetrating 1000-lb package as shown intest in Fig. 12. The JSF analysis process showed that aneffective weapon of this type will permit a smaller air-craft platform with concurrent affordability and surviv-ability benefits. The leveraging projects within thetechnology maturation program were initiated, predi-cated upon the results shown in Table 3.

Concept Definition and Development PhasesWhereas the Technology Maturation Programs con-

tinue, we completed the Concept Definition and

997) 15

ICAL DIGEST, VOLUME 18, NUMBER 1 (1997)

C. E. STEIDLE

16 JOHNS HOPKINS APL TECHN

MIRFS concept supports affordable strike warfare

•Define MFA’s role and develop MFA design and manufacturing plan

Avionics flyaway cost

Central bayelectronics MFA

Processor

Otheravionics

Other RFantennas

Remoteelectronics

Search

SAR

GMTI

Radar functions

CNI functions

Passive targeting

Air-to-air detectiontrack, ID, and engagement

Electronic warfare functions

3

3

3

Objective: Reduce engineering and manufacturing development risk for a low-cost, lightweight, multifunction nose aperture (MFA)

Tasks:•Develop affordable, effective MIRFS concept

•Build MFA and perform stressing ground/flight demonstrations

27%27%

11%12%12% 22%

9%9%

19%19%

Figure 10. Multifunction Integrated RF Systems (MIRFS) Demonstration.

tractors’ preferred ly, each contractormodularity, short hover and transitioof their concepts.contract to providfor the Weapon SyA contract will alstechnical efforts reengine source for pogy maturation de

The Concept strategy has sevfollowing:

Figure 11. Integrated Core Processing demonstrates critical technologies and softwareprocesses necessary to support a single-crew aircraft.

Research and development 0.3%Production 4.0%Operations and support 1.0%Total 5.3%

Lethality : Data fusion, targeting, situational awarenessSurvivability :Threat tracking/avoidance, situational awarenessSupportability :Reliability/fault tolerance via modularity,

resource sharing, redundancy, ease of upgrade

Life-cycle cost saving

Objective:

Demonstrate affordable digital processing utilizing an open system architecture

• Commercially based hardware and software• Information management and aircraft automation for single seat• On/offboard sensor fusion• Software and hardware reuse

Sensors •Radio frequency •Electro-optical infrared •Offboard

A/C system •Stores management system •Vehicle management system •Inertial reference system •Airborne videotape recorder

C&D Buses

Networks

Signal and dataprocessors

Design Research (CDDR) phase of our program in thefall of 1996. Separate aircraft weapons system CDDRcontracts were awarded to Boeing Defense and SpaceGroup, Lockheed Fort Worth Co., McDonnell DouglasAerospace, and Northrop Grumman Corporation inDecember 1994.

The three fundamental objectives for the JSF weap-on system CDDR work were as follows: (1) identifica-tion of joint strike aircraft weapon system design char-acteristics and integrated weapon system conceptsintended to meet warfighter (operator) requirementsand contribute to significantly reduced cost for jointstrike warfare; (2) identification of support and train-ing concepts that contribute to lower life-cycle cost,

enhance supportability, promotecommonality, and enhance deploy-ability; and (3) definition of a com-prehensive plan for an aircraft dem-onstrator and associated grounddemonstrations with maximum po-tential for achieving JSF Programobjectives. Overall emphasis wason definition of innovative com-mon and highly common jointstrike aircraft concepts for theNavy, Air Force, and Marine Corpsthat reduce the cost of joint strikewarfare, while maintaining U.S.combat superiority.

A significant result of this phaseof the program was that a highlevel of airframe commonality ispossible for a family of aircraftfrom a single production line (Fig.13). With 100% commonality indisplays, avionics, seats, software,test equipment, depot repair, com-monality values exceed 70%. Thisis an extremely significant life-cy-cle cost reduction for the DoD.

The November 1996 down-select contract awards to the Boe-ing Company and Lockheed Mar-tin Corporation kicked off theConcept Demonstration Phase.Each contractor will define thosedemonstrations it believes are cru-cial for its concept, vis-à-vis pro-viding concept assessment and en-suring a low-risk technologytransition to engineering and man-ufacturing development. Thisphase features flying concept dem-onstrators, concept-unique groundand flight demonstrations, andcontinued refinement of the con-

weapon system concepts. Specifical- will demonstrate commonality andtake-off vertical landing (STOVL)n, and low-speed handling qualities

Pratt and Whitney will receive ae hardware and engineering supportstem Concept Demonstration efforts.o be awarded to General Electric forlated to development of an alternateroduction. Risk mitigating technol-monstrations will continue as well.Demonstration Phase acquisitioneral advantages, including the

Figure 12. JAST-1000 (J-1000) penetrating a blockhouse.

• Maintains the competitive environment prior toengineering and manufacturing development andprovides for two different STOVL approaches andtwo different aerodynamic configurations.

• Demonstrates the viability of a multi-Service familyof variants; high commonality and modularity amongconventional take-off and landing, carrier aviation,and STOVL variants are expected.

• Provides affordable and low-risk technology transi-tion to the JSF engineering and manufacturing devel-opment in FY 2001.

single F-119 derivaway performancecruise nozzle are clift STOVL nozzlepulsion system en

Boeing’s designonboard diagnosta self-sustaining carate and reduce l

Lockheed MaTactical Aircraft

Table 3. Significant unit- and life-cycle cost savings resulting from the JSFTechnology Maturation Program.

Unit fly-away Life-cycle costsavings ($M) savings ($B)

Supportability

Diagnostics 1.0 3–4

Training and mission planning — 4–5

Support 0.6 2–4

Structures

Advanced lightweight aircraftfuselage structure 1.7 2.2–2.4

Manufacturing 4.6 13–20

Avionics 5.0 15–20

Propulsion/nozzle 1.7 6.0

Weapons 0.5 3.5

Subsystems (more electric aircraft) 2.0 7.0

Percentage savings 30–31% 28–32%



A brief description of each con-tractor’s concept follows:

Boeing Company. The BoeingJSF preferred Weapon SystemConcept addresses the affordabili-ty, survivability, lethality, and sup-portability needs of the Air Force,Navy, Marine Corps, and the Unit-ed Kingdom Royal Navy (Fig 14).Boeing’s concept employs a mod-ular approach that has highlycommon structural modules (fore-body, mid-fuselage, and wing) toreduce assembly cost. The single-piece wing structure (primarilythermoplastic composites) thatacts as a primary load-bearingcomponent is a unique feature oftheir design. It provides high in-ternal volume at low weight,high fuel fractions, and excellentrange and payload capability.The mid-fuselage arrangement isnearly identical for all variantswith local modifications to ac-commodate the STOVL direct-lift system. The Boeing JSFdesigns share a common outermold line. This characteristicallows high commonality instructural arrangements, materi-als, processes, tooling, and parts,and a single assembly line forall variants. Airframe part com-monality, in combination withhighly common avionics, propul-sion, subsystems, and software,reduces development and pro-duction cost, and enables com-mon spares, support, and train-ing. The design significantlyreduces part count by using unit-ized structural components andsubsystem consolidation.

The engine for all variants is aative that provides excellent up-and-. The gas generator, augmentor, andommon among variants. The direct-s are installed within a common pro-velope.ed-in supportability features include

ics, a supportable signature suite, andpability to enhance sortie generation

ogistics footprint.rtin Corporation. Lockheed MartinSystems, Fort Worth, Texas, is the

997) 17

C. E. STEIDLE

high lift additions avariant. Studies areate mission system

$15.0-$17.0

Three stand-alone programs

EMD estimates

05

101520

253035

CTOL STOVL TOTAL JSF

FY

95$B

$33.2

CV

$11.5$11.4$10.3

A common production lineto achieve affordability

USMC

USN

USAF

Avionics

Engine

USAF

USMCUSMCunique

USN

unique

unique

Wing/tailfillets

Lift fanengine

Airfieldtailhook

Shipboardtailhook

Highliftdevices

Signaturereduction

enhancement

Shipboardlanding

gear

Note: F-119 engine commonality assumed for stand-alone programs

Figure 13. A single production line for a family of aircraft significantly reduces cost (EMD =engineering and manufacturing development).

corporate center of a virtual company competing todevelop and build the JSF. Their concept is a highlycommon family of aircraft that meets multi-Service

18 JOH

strike mission needs (Fig. 15). Thethree basic variants include CV,CTOL (conventional take-off andlanding), and STOVL to be used bythe Navy, Air Force, and MarineCorps, respectively. The STOVLvariant will also serve the needs ofthe United Kingdom Royal Navy.The variants share the same fuse-lage with differences allowed forspecific service-life needs such asstructural reinforcement for Navylaunch and recovery operations andMarine Corps vertical landing liftfan structural changes. A diverter-less supersonic inlet reduces theweight and complexity associatedwith conventional inlet conceptswhile enhancing survivability at-tributes to RF signature. The inter-nal weapons bay is a common sizeand configuration across the family.The wing carry-through structure iscommon for all three versions with

long the wing periphery for the Navy ongoing to determine the appropri-s required on the aircraft.

Figure 14. The Boeing JSF Weapon Systems Concept.



Figure 15. The Lockheed Martin JSF Weapon Systems Concept.

Common to the CV and CTOL variants is a deriv-ative of the F119-PW engine, which will be developedas part of the JSF Program. The STOVL variant usesthe same derivative F-119 for up-and-away operationsbut modifies it slightly to allow power extraction todrive a lift fan (Allison/Rolls Royce) for vertical land-ings. This shaft-driven lift fan concept, patented byLockheed Martin, has been successfully demonstratedthrough a large-scale powered model (approximately90% scale) built by Lockheed Martin Skunk WorksDivision in California. The STOVL variant features aunique three-bearing swivel nozzle. All variants will bedesigned to accommodate an alternative F120-GE en-gine derivative that will be available in the productionphase. Lockheed Martin plans to perform unique dem-onstrations to reduce risk on its concept, andis an active participant in JSF Technical Maturationprograms. Lockheed Martin is also engaged in the re-quirements definition process identifying appropriate


cost versus technical performance trades to bring theJSF to fruition affordably.

SUMMARYThe Services remain strongly committed to this

joint program to develop an affordable solution to theirfuture strike warfare needs—the Joint Strike Fighter.The government and industry team is converging on adesign concept for a family of strike aircraft weaponsystems that, coupled with the other technology “build-ing blocks,” will yield continued technological superi-ority for our warfighters but much more affordably. Tomeet the fiscal and threat demands of the next century,the DoD clearly recognizes we must “neck-down” ourtactical air forces with a focus on affordability, joint-ness, and commonality. The Joint Strike Fighter willmake that goal achievable.

997) 19

C. E. STEIDLE

THE AUTHOR

CRAIG E. STEIDLE is a Rear Admiral in the U.S. Navy. He entered navalaviation after graduating with merit as an aerospace engineer from the U.S.Naval Academy in 1968. Additionally, he received M.S. degrees in aeronauticalsystems management from the University of Southern California in 1978 and inaerospace engineering from the Virginia Polytechnic Institute in 1979. Aftergraduating from the Industrial College of the Armed Forces in 1986, he wasDeputy Program Manager of the F/A-18 program, the manager of the Navy’sAerospace Engineers, and a Special Assistant for Air Combat to the AssistantSecretary of the Navy. In 1990, he was appointed Program Manager of the F/A-18 program and during this command established the F/A-18 E/F program.RADM Steidle became Deputy Director of the Joint Advanced Strike Technol-ogy Program (now, the Joint Strike Fighter Program) in 1994 and its Director in1995. He has been decorated with many awards including the Legion of Merit,the Distinguished Flying Cross, and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross.The Secretary of Defense has presented him with the Navy’s OutstandingProgram Manager Award.

20 JOHNS HOPKINS APL TECHNICAL DIGEST, VOLUME 18, NUMBER 1 (1997)