Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 46 views

    Concept Definition: A Historical Perspective: (Based On A-10 Systems Engineering Case Study)

    Uploaded by

    puhumight
    The document discusses the concept definition process for the A-X Close Air Support aircraft developed in the 1960s. It describes how the key mission tasks of Close Support Fire, Armed Escort, and Armed Reconnaissance were defined. Attributes like responsiveness, simplicity, lethality, and survivability were identified and measures were developed. Existing systems like the F-4, F-111, F-5, and A-7D were evaluated against requirements. Several concept designs were developed and analyzed. The process aligned with modern JCIDS principles of defining needs, evaluating alternatives, and selecting a preferred concept, showing the historical roots of today's capability development framework.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Concept Definition: A Historical Perspective: (Based On A-10 Systems Engineering Case Study)

    Uploaded by

    puhumight
    46 views22 pages
    The document discusses the concept definition process for the A-X Close Air Support aircraft developed in the 1960s. It describes how the key mission tasks of Close Support Fire, Armed Escort, and Armed Reconnaissance were defined. Attributes like responsiveness, simplicity, lethality, and survivability were identified and measures were developed. Existing systems like the F-4, F-111, F-5, and A-7D were evaluated against requirements. Several concept designs were developed and analyzed. The process aligned with modern JCIDS principles of defining needs, evaluating alternatives, and selecting a preferred concept, showing the historical roots of today's capability development framework.

    Original Title

    7130jacques.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses the concept definition process for the A-X Close Air Support aircraft developed in the 1960s. It describes how the key mission tasks of Close Support Fire, Armed Escort, and Armed Reconnaissance were defined. Attributes like responsiveness, simplicity, lethality, and survivability were identified and measures were developed. Existing systems like the F-4, F-111, F-5, and A-7D were evaluated against requirements. Several concept designs were developed and analyzed. The process aligned with modern JCIDS principles of defining needs, evaluating alternatives, and selecting a preferred concept, showing the historical roots of today's capability development framework.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    46 views22 pages

    Concept Definition: A Historical Perspective: (Based On A-10 Systems Engineering Case Study)

    Uploaded by

    puhumight
    The document discusses the concept definition process for the A-X Close Air Support aircraft developed in the 1960s. It describes how the key mission tasks of Close Support Fire, Armed Escort, and Armed Reconnaissance were defined. Attributes like responsiveness, simplicity, lethality, and survivability were identified and measures were developed. Existing systems like the F-4, F-111, F-5, and A-7D were evaluated against requirements. Several concept designs were developed and analyzed. The process aligned with modern JCIDS principles of defining needs, evaluating alternatives, and selecting a preferred concept, showing the historical roots of today's capability development framework.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 22

    Concept Definition:

    A Historical Perspective
    (Based on A-10 Systems
    Engineering Case Study)
    23 Oct 08

    David Jacques
    Air Force Institute of Technology
    (david.jacques@afit.edu)
    Overview

    • Mission Area Analysis Today - JCIDS


    • Mission Area Analysis circa 1960’s
    • The A-X Example
    • A-X Concept Formulation
    • Comparison and Contrast
    • Air Force Center for Systems Engineering
    Case Studies
    Decisions and
    Decision Making*

    Decision – A Definition:
    1. A choice from among a set of alternatives
    2. An irrevocable allocation of resources

    Steps in the Decision Making Process:


    1. Formulation of preferences that, for the situation at hand, define
    good and bad and differentiate levels of goodness
    2. Generation of a set of alternatives for consideration of choice
    3. Evaluation of alternatives against the decision maker’s preference
    4. Selection of the preferred alternative in accordance with the
    decision maker’s preference

    * Drawn from several papers by G. Hazelrigg, appearing in


    the ASME Journal of Mechanical Design
    Decision Making in
    Conceptual Design

    • What are the operational capabilities that are needed?


    • Should a conceptual design effort be undertaken?
    • What mix of systems (legacy and new) are likely to
    achieve the desired operational capabilities?
    • For materiel approaches (new systems), which system
    concept (usually a mixture of technologies) should be
    the basis of the design?
    • Which technology for a given subsystem should be
    chosen?
    • What existing hardware and software can be used?
    • Is the envisioned concept technically feasible, based
    on cost, schedule and performance requirements?
    • Should additional research be conducted before a
    decision is made?
    JCIDS* Analysis
    DOD Strategic
    Guidance

    Family of Joint Future


    CPD
    Functional Area Analysis Concepts
    CONOPS
    Joint Tasks
    CDD
    Integrated
    Architectures
    Functional
    Needs
    Analysis
    ICD
    Ideas for Analysis
    Ideas for Approach N Post
    JCD non-Materiel of Materiel/
    Materiel Approach 2 Independent
    Approaches non-Materiel
    Approaches Analysis
    (DOTMLPF Approaches Approach 1 DCR
    Analysis)

    Functional Solution Analysis


    (supportability, TRL, schedule, affordability)

    * Joint Capability Integration and Development System


    What is an Architecture?

    “The structure of components,


    their relationships, and the
    principles and guidelines
    governing their design and
    evolution over time.”
    (IEEE STD 610.12 as stated in
    the DoD Architecture
    Framework (DoDAF)

    ΑΡΧΙΤΕΚΤΩΝ (Greek) = Master Builder


    Is JCIDS sound policy?
    Recall our decision making process….
    1. Formulation of preferences that, for the situation at hand,
    define good and bad and differentiate levels of goodness
    FAA – Establish Tasks, Conditions, Attributes and Measures
    2. Generation of a set of alternatives for consideration of
    choice
    FNA considers current alternatives
    Early FSA identifies future alternatives
    3. Evaluation of alternatives against the decision maker’s
    preference
    FSA – Evaluates alternative approaches against FAA criteria
    4. Selection of the preferred alternative in accordance with
    the decision maker’s preference
    Concept Decision based on FSA priorities and recommendations
    This actually makes sense when you consider what is supposed to be done!
    Is JCIDS Really New?

    • The initial instruction (and manual) came out in 2003,


    but is it really new?

    • Let’s take a trip back in time – approximately 40 years


    – to the Close Air Support challenges of the 1960’s
    Lessons from Vietnam
    • Air Force largely unprepared for Close Air Support (CAS)
    mission
    • A-1, A-37 had insufficient payload, loiter
    • Incompatible comm with ground units

    • Army doctrine evolving towards air mobile tactics


    • Increased reliance on armed helicopters
    • Initiated development of AH-56 Cheyenne

    • Johnson-McConnell Agreement
    • AF retained CAS mission, but recognized role of Army
    helicopters for fire support
    • Army gave up large fixed-wing transports
    Task Definition

    Three Mission Tasks


    • Close Support Fire (CSF)
    • Armed Escort (AE)
    • Armed Reconnaissance (AR)

    • CSF and AE were considered complementary


    • AR involved different weapons and acquisition
    systems, considered a secondary A-X mission due
    to parallel development of AC-130 gunship
    The System of Systems
    Perspective

    Coordination for Pre-Planned CAS Requests

    But aren’t these simply


    elements of a mission
    The Tactical Air Control System (circa 1968)
    architecture?
    Attributes and Measures

    Only four key mission characteristics specified !

    • Responsiveness considered not just speed, but basing


    locations, availability, loiter time over target, and ability to
    communicate with ground elements
    • Simplicity emphasized ease of production, maintenance,
    and low cost
    • Lethality made it clear that it was not an aircraft
    development effort, it was a weapon system development
    • Survivability concerns would drive redundancy,
    component placement, protection systems,
    maneuverability, targeting systems, et.al.
    • Mission characteristics drove performance parameters,
    which resulted in concept aircraft configurations
    • Alternatives evaluated against mission and cost effectiveness
    measures
    Attributes and Measures (ctd.)

    Impact of Loiter Time and Sortie Rate on Force Requirements Relative Aircraft Attrition Versus Velocity and Maneuver

    Maintenance Man Hours/Flight Hour


    for Vietnam era Aircraft
    Capability of Existing Systems
    • F-4, F-111 were the Air Force’s primary tactical aircraft
    of the time
    • Both were expensive, and ill suited to CAS mission
    • F-5
    • Initially the Air Force choice for a low-cost tactical fighter
    • Better air-to-air capability than A-7
    • A-7D
    • Derivative of existing Navy aircraft
    • Favored by many in OSD, Congress
    • Could not carry a big gun, significantly lower loiter time
    • Would eventually be involved in a flyoff with A-10 prior to
    production decision
    • Army Helicopters?
    • Roles and missions agreements prevented serious consideration
    Aircraft Comparison
    A-X Concepts
    Performance Parameter Desired Required

    Gross Weight (lbs) 22,500 30,000


    Requirements from Dec 1966 Payload - Mixed Ordnance (lbs) 8,000 6,000
    Requirements Action Directive Combat Radius (nautical miles) --- 200
    Loiter Time @ Combat Radius (hrs) --- 2
    Min Maneuvering Speed @ 5000 ft (knots) 120 150
    Turn Radius @ Combat Weight (ft) 1,000 2,000
    Max Speed @ Sea Level w/ Ext. Ordnance (knots) 550 450

    • Concept design studies conducted in 1967


    • Resulted in two government configurations, and four contractor
    configurations
    • Concept determined to be feasible within existing
    technology
    • Most configurations used turbo-prop designs
    • Identified risk elements included gun/ammunition development
    and integration, and early IOC
    • Lean avionics packages defined to keep costs down
    • Concept Formulation Package (predecessor to Initial
    Capability Document) completed in 1968
    A-X Concepts

    Notes: Significant design changes occurred during Concept Definition


    (now referred to as Concept Refinement)
    • Single or twin turboprop propulsion gave way to twin turbofan
    (leveraged Navy S-37 aircraft development)
    • Payload essentially doubled to 16,000 lbs – led to aircraft size/cost growth
    JCIDS 40 Years Early?

    Did the A-X concept formulation adhere to (in retrospect)


    JCIDS principles?
    Yes … , kind of …
    • Clear definition of tasks, conditions and measures (FAA)
    • Consideration of a range of existing Air Force systems to
    provide the needed capability (FNA)
    • Concept formulation traceable to previously defined tasks,
    conditions and measures (FSA)

    Shortcomings
    • No serious consideration of the full range of joint warfighting
    concepts to meet the capability needs
    Summary

    • The A-X concept formulation was rigorous and traceable


    to user needs
    • While full consideration of joint concepts may not have
    been done, the emphasis was not on joint capabilities
    • Aircraft has performed well, and is still in service today
    Air Force Center for Systems Engineering
    Case Studies

    Hubble Space Telescope GPS (Global


    Positioning System) F-111 Aardvark

    B-2
    C-5 Galaxy TBMCS (Theater Battle
    Management Core Systems)

    Website:
    http://www.afit.edu/cse/
    Peacekeeper Intercontinental
    A-10 Ballistic Missile
    Ongoing & Future Case Studies
    International Space Station
    MH-53J/M Helicopter E-10

    Underway FY09 Option FY10 Option

    Global Hawk KC-135 Simulators T-6A Texan II

    Underway FY09 Start FY10 Start


    Questions?

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy