Mr. Juan M. CarbonellMr. Juan M. CarbonellAFRL/AAS, Project ManagerAFRL/AAS, Project Manager

Mr. Mikel J. HarrisMr. Mikel J. HarrisLockheed Martin, Engineering Spec. Sr.Lockheed Martin, Engineering Spec. Sr.

Open Systems Architecture forLegacy Aircraft (OSALA)

Open Systems Project Engineering Conference (OSPEC)FY 98 Status Review

29 April - 1 May 1998

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No.0704-0188

Public reporting burder for this collection of information is estibated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completingand reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burder to Department of Defense, WashingtonHeadquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision oflaw, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)29-04-1998

2. REPORT TYPEBriefing

3. DATES COVERED (FROM - TO)29-04-1998 to 01-05-1998

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLEOpen Systems Architecture for Legacy Aircraft (OSALA)Open Systems Project Engineering Conference (OSPEC) FY 98 Status ReviewUnclassified

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER5b. GRANT NUMBER5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)Carbonell, Juan M. ;Harris, Mikel J. ;

5d. PROJECT NUMBER5e. TASK NUMBER5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESSAFRL/AASxxxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxx

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORTNUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESSOpen Systems Joint Task Force (OSJTF)1931 Jefferson Davis HighwayCrystal Mall 3, Suite 104Arlington, VA22202

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORTNUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENTAPUBLIC RELEASE,13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES14. ABSTRACTSee Report.15. SUBJECT TERMS16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION

OF ABSTRACTPublic Release

18.NUMBEROF PAGES43

19. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSONhttp://www.acq.osd.mil/osjtf/library/library_alpha.html,(blank)lfenster@dtic.mil

a. REPORTUnclassified

b. ABSTRACTUnclassified

c. THIS PAGEUnclassified

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBERInternational Area CodeArea Code Telephone Number703767-9007DSN427-9007

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39.18

OSALA Program Overview

Studies• CRAD• Legacy Aircraft• IR&D LMTAS

Industry• Standards

• Open System Standards(Networks & Wireless)

Spec

FinalReport

OS/JTF

ArchBuildingCodes

OpenSystemStudy

NetworkPerformance

Wright Labs

Studies

SystemPerformance

User• Fighter Plans• Needs• Systems

Studies• Joint Strike Fighter• Fiber Optics• Integ. Sensors• JTA v2.0

Definition Task

Proof-of-ConceptEvaluation Task

Point DesignBenchmark• Benefits• Cost Benefits• Commercial Mix• Common

Hardware

Studies and Analysis• Strategies• Open System Candidates• Cost Effectiveness

Assessment• OSA Approach• Metrics• Software Reuse• Hardware• Networks Metrics

Cost Goals

Commonality• Survey

Transport Support• Legacy Systems

A B C

A D

Based on Available Funding

F-16 Baseline

Program Schedule

TASKS

OSALA Program Schedule

CY

Definition • OSA Studies and Analysis • OSA Assessment • OSA Legacy Weapon System Commonality • OSA Point Design BenchmarkProof-of-Concept Evaluation

Reviews and MeetingsAligned to LCICTILA Program ScheduleStatus Reports and Deliverables • Project Planning Chart Revision • Funds & Man-Hour Expenditure Report • CFSR • Status Report • Contractor's Billing Voucher • Final Technical Report

98

TIMPMR

Kickoff Review

17 18 195 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 161 2 3 4

PMR

Final Review

TIM Final Review

97 99Months

Project Organization

Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems

Project TeamProject Team Lead

Mr. Mikel J. Harris

Lockheed Martin TeamJon Preston (Software Systems)Tony Schiavone (Architecture and Hardware)Michael DelPrincipe (Embedded Systems)

USAF Program ManagerAFRL

Mr. Juan M. CarbonellOS/JTF Program

Ltc. Glen T. Logan

DirectorSoftware

R. K. Moore

Vice PresidentProduct Engineering

W.B. Anderson

OSALA Progress Summary

• Completed Assessment of Open System Standards

• Completed Analysis of F-16 Avionics Open SystemInsertion Opportunities

• Initiated Wireless Ethernet Studies and Analysis

• OSALA Demonstration: Enhanced DiagnosticsSoftware Integration Started Under Internal IR&D

• Benefits Analysis Task for Open System Standardsto be Concurrent with F-16 RMS/LCC Analysis

Technical Progress Summary

• Roadmaps - Complete• Technology Plans & Roadmaps - Complete• System Baseline Planning Document - Complete• Network Testing - Complete• Wiring Study - Complete• System Requirements Review - Sep. 11,‘97• F-16 HSDB Insertion Team - Review, 13 Nov. 1997• Packaging/Enclosure Studies - Complete• Program Management Review No. 2 - 7 Jan. 1998• Technical Interchange Meeting - 24 February 1998• F-16 Production Planning and Transition - Complete

Technical Activity Forecast

• Program Technical Report Documentation• Briefing to F-16 SPO - May 1998

Coordination With F-16 Production Planning...• Insertion of Open System COTS-based Solutions Into

Aircraft Avionics• ATM Modeling Tasks• RMS/LCC Benefits Analysis

Program Meetings and Reviews

LocationProgram Reviews DateOct 96 - Dec 99

Kickoff Meeting October 96 Dayton, OHProgram Management Review (PMR) February 97 VTCTechnical Interchange Meeting (TIM) April 97 Ft. Worth, TXSystem Requirements Review (SRR) September 97 Ft. Worth, TXOSALA Kickoff October 97 Ft. Worth, TXPMR No. 2 January 98 VTCTIM No. 2 February 98 WashingtonSystem Design Review (SDR) May 98 Ft. Worth, TXand Lab DemonstrationPMR No. 3 June 98 VTCTIM No. 3 September 98 VTCOSALA Final Review & Demo. December 98 Ft. Worth, TX* VTC - Video Teleconference

F-16 Network Study Completed

l Purpose4 Determine What Is the “Best” High Speed

Bus/Network for the F-16

lWorking Constraint4 High Speed Network Is to Go On a “36 Month”

Airplane With January 1998 Go-Ahead

4 Production Incorporation, Retrofit a Consideration( Harnesses Will Be Modified

4 Commercial Build and Procurement

l Generated List of Evaluation Criteria– 29 Criteria Identified

– 9 used for Down Select

l Developed Reference and Achievable Near-TermArchitectures

l Estimated Throughput Required of High SpeedNetwork by Each Architecture

l Down Selected to 2 Candidates– Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM)

– Fibre Channel

F-16 Study Summary

Virtually-Integrated Avionics Architecture

Dynamic Real-Time Scheduling

Commercial Packaging

Open Architecture

1995 20001995 2000

First Generation

IntegratedAvionics

• COTS Multiple LRUReplacement

• POSIX CompliantMultitasking RTOS

• MultiprocessingExtensions

• High-BandwidthConnection Bus(PCI)

• COTS, Fully Virtual, AvionicsPlatform

• POSIX Compliant, MultitaskingRTOS

• Distributed Parallel ProcessingExtensions

• High-Bandwidth ConnectionNetwork

• Multiple Language Support (Ada,C, C++)

• Single LRUReplacement

• POSIX CompliantMultitasking RTOS

• Low-BandwidthConnection Bus (VME)

VHDL

OSA

Algorithmsand

Methodology

SecondGeneration

HW/SW Co-Design

MultiprocessingOS ExtensionsBased on RTMTechnology- Ada- POSIX- Commercial RTOS

DistributedParallelProcessingOSExtensions

ThirdGeneration

High-LevelDesign

Language(HDL)

Typical Drawing of the F-16 Architecture

AirData

OtherSystems

Weapons Interface

Mil-Std-1553/B

Heads-UpDisplay

MultifunctionDisplays

Fire ControlComputer

StoresManagement

Mil-Std-1553/B

Radar

InertialUnit

COTS Technologies Can BeUsed To Produce A Low-Cost

Open System Architecture

Integrated Maintenance, Manufacturing, and Support

Weapon Interface

1760A

ISS

Commercial Network

CommercialCore Processing

CommercialBulk

Memory

Commercial DisplaysUART

Advanced Cockpit (HOTAS)

IEO

COTS Technologies Currently Apply

Near-Term Candidates

Digital Signal

Processing

Digital VMS and Flight Control

Processing

Weapons

F-16 Bandwidth Requirements

CategoryRequired Bit Rate

Mbits/Sec

Quantity in Reference

Arch

Total Bit Rate

Required

Quantity in Near Term

System

Total Bit Rate

Required

Basic F-16 5 1 5 0.2 1Download Picture to JASSM 7.4 1 7.4Change Map Scale 7.4 1 7.4 1 7.4Real-Time Video to Displays 45.3 6 271.8Air-to-Air Radar Improvements 0.09 1 0.09 1 0.09

ESM Sensor 0.5 1 0.5Imaging Sensor (FLIR/SAR/GM) 45.3 3 135.9 3 135.9Air Vehicle Systems 1 1 1Data Link 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5Helmet Mounted Display 0.2 2 0.4 1 0.2

Cockpit I/O 0.25 1 0.25Video Recording (n R/T Videos) 45.3 7 317.1

747 Mb/sec

F-16 Bandwidth Requirements…CY2000

145 Mb/sec

Mission Requirements IndicateA Need for Increased Network Bandwidth

Future Off-Board Bandwidth Requirements for a Typical Fighter Mission

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

(Minutes)Mission Duration (Defensive Counter Air)

Eff

ecti

ve B

it R

ate

(Bit

s/S

ec, L

og

Sca

le)

0 154

Network Topology

q Point-to-point or Mesh q BusTTT

TTT

q Loop

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

q SwitchedT T

T T

T

T

SwitchT T

T T

T

Increasing Network BandwidthIs A Key Enabling Technology

A MUX Problem:• Bandwidth Limited• Linear Growth in Buses• Exponential Growth in Memory and

Throughput• Limited by Physical Wiring• Software Cost Prohibitive• Multiple Unique Networks

Alternative:• Mine Existing Wiring Bandwidth• Insert Commercial Network• Migrate Modified LRUs from 1553B

to COTS Network Open Systems Architecture

• Define Process for COTS Insertioninto Legacy LRUs

• Incrementally Upgrade SW/HW• Single Common High Speed Net.

B MUXC MUX

N MUX

One 1553B

CommercialSwitch Digital Video,

Voice, Data

Digital Data

SubsystemA

SubsystemA

SubsystemB

Existing

Future

A ”Cray-in-the-Box” Is No Good Unless The Data Can Be Moved Out

SubsystemBAnalog

Video

LRU Line Replaceable UnitCOTS Commercial Off-the-ShelfSW/HW Software/Hardware

Technology Comparison

WDM

ATM

FC

FW

GbEth

1553B

Cos

t Ris

k(L

ow, M

ed, H

igh)

Protocol / Benchmark Metrics

RTO

S S

oftw

are

(Yes

/No)

Eff

ectiv

e B

andw

idth

(bits

/sec

)P

redi

ctab

ility

(Yes

/No)

Topo

logy

Typ

e

Pro

duci

ble

(Yes

/No)

Med

ia T

ype

(Fib

er, C

oax,

STP

)

Mat

urity

of

Sta

ndar

d(U

sed

1, N

ot U

sed

3)

Ava

ilabi

lity

(Yes

/No)

Most Likely ProtocolWave Division Multiplex

(IRAD)

Mai

ntai

nabl

e(Y

es/N

o)

F-16Aircraft

Mea

sure

s

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

3

1

1

2

2

1

FO

ALL

ALL

STP+2

All

Coax,STP

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Bus+

SW

Loop

Chain

SW

Bus

High

Med

Med

Med

High

Low

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

FO>10 G

FO >10GCu 60M

FO 800MCu 30M

Cu 200M4.5m limit

4+2pwr

FO 300MCu 20M

Cu800M

Asynchronous Transfer ModeOC-3c, 155Mbps (STS-3c)

Fibre Channel1G FO Loop, STP CDDI

Gigabit EthernetFO 1G or STP Fast Ethernet

Firewire (IEEE 1394-200MB/s)

Mil-Std-1553/B

Assessment

l Fibre Channel Is a Fairly New Standard and Its PersistenceIs Unknown– Currently, Switches Are Not Available for Fibre Channel

– Software Extensions Required for Real-Time Operations

l ATM Is Firmly Entrenched in the TelecommunicationsIndustry– Provides Support and a Growth Path

l ATM Demonstrated on Existing 1553 Cable– Provides Retrofit Opportunities to Existing F-16s

– Only Minimum Group A & B Changes Needed

A Switched ATM Network Is the Baseline for Near-Term F-16 Programs

Production F-16

B2584223

R Fwd Mux Matrix

L Fwd Mux Matrix

R Console Mux Matrix

~

L Console Mux Matrix

MissionComputer

ATMSW 2

ATMSW 1

Radar

Displays

DATACartridge

Proposed F-16 Weapons Interface

ATMSwitch

SubsystemA

SubsystemB

ATMSwitch

StoreStation

SubsystemC

Integ.ECM

Subsystem

• Optical Fiber Added to All Store Stations• Termination at Switch Location• Network Terminals Added to Subsystems in Future Modifications

…Switch to be Located in Mux Matrix Assemblies

StoreStation

StoreStation

StoreStation

StoreStation

StoreStation

StoreStation

StoreStation

StoreStation

StoreStation

Typical Block 30 MUX MatrixAssembly With MIL-STD-1553 Termination

Existing Multiplex Assembly Enclosure

Chassis: 8.2" x 8.1" x 3.0"

Equipment DescriptionDiscrete Signal and Power Interface Switching Network

Functions/Features• Mother Boards – 8 and 14 Layer • 2 Relay Daughter Cards – 6 Relays Per Card • 2 MUX Daughter Cards MIL-STD-1553 Studs for 4 Buses, 8 RTs • Components – 16 Transformers – 33 Resistors – 4 Tranzorbs • Interconnections (J-Box) • Through Hole Technology PCBs

Existing Coupler ModulesAre In Use In Legacy Aircraft

Chassis: 2.5" x 0.8" x 3.0"

Enclosure Provides ImpedanceMatching and Fault Isolation forthe MIL-STD-1553 Data Bus, CanBe Housing for Network Switch

Equipment Description

• High Voltage Protection for Media • Thermoplastic Chassis • Through-Hole Technology

Printed Circuit Board

Functions/Features

Existing Mil-Std-1553/B Wiring Can Be Used to Increase Network Bandwidth

Existing 1553 Network

LegacyLRU 1

LegacyLRU 2

Dual - RedundantMIL-STD-1553/B

over STP at 1Mb/s

Commercial Network

Existing Wiring

Shielded TwistedPairs (STPs)

MUX MatrixAssembly No. 1

Existing 1553/B

Network Card

System 1Upgrade

1553B Cards

Network Card

System 2ProcessorUpgrade

1553B Cards

PowerPower

(STS-3c, 155 Mb/s)

MUX MatrixAssembly No. 2

ATMSwitch

ATMSwitch

Display-MUX

Radar

StoresManagement

MultifunctionDisplays

Head-UpDisplay

Forward DisplayMUX Matrix

2 PAIRS OF 1553/BOR

4 WIRES

Aft DisplayMUX Matrix

Display-MUX AFT Assembly

Aft DisplayMUX Matrix

FireControl

Computer

EWProvisions

ForwardDisplay

MUXMatrix

Benchmark Configuration

1553B STP 1553B STP

1553 MUX Matrix Assembly(Cross Over Cable Optional)

VoiceVideoData

ATM 155 M b/sFore Systems PCA-200E

orFast Ethernet 100 Mb/s

3COM 10/100BT

NIC

RJ-45 to 1553Connection

NIC

Pentium Pro 200MHz

NIC Network Interface CardATM Asynchronous Transfer ModeMUX MultiplexSTP Shielded Twisted Pair

Benchmark 100 BaseTX EthernetOver 1553 Cable

• Measurement Method√ Standard UTP Category 5 Cable Compared to 1553 Cable√ Differing Cable Lengths

−UTP5 (12 and 62 Feet)−1553 (5,10,100, and 200 Feet)

√ No Impedance Matching for 1553 Cable

√ Average of 5 Runs√ Large Directory and Small File Transfers Under Windows NT

− MS Office Directory (68 MB / 32 MB)− MS Excel Single File (5 MB)

√ TTCP Program, Standard Network Test

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

MS Office Excel TTCPTest Methods

Ban

dw

idth

(M

b/s

)

UTP5, 12 FeetUTP5, 62 FeetUTP5, 62 Feet, RAM1553, 5 Feet1553, 10 Feet1553, 10 Feet, RAM1553, 100 Feet

UTP Unshielded Twisted PairTTCP Test Transmission Control Protocol

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

MS Office (68 MB) Zipped File (60 MB) TTCP

Ban

dw

idth

(M

b/s

)

UTP5, 13 FeetUTP5, 63 Feet1553, 5+4 Feet1553, 10+4 Feet1553, 50+Coupler+41553, 100+10+4 Feet1553, 50+Coupler+100+4

Benchmark 155 Mbps ATMOver 1553 Cable

• Measurement Method√ Standard UTP Cat. 5 Cable Compared to 1553 Cable√ Differing Cable Lengths

−UTP5 (13 and 63 Feet)−1553 (5,10,50,110,150 + 4’ for Converters) & Couplers where Applicable

√ No Impedance Matching for 1553 Cable

√ Average of 5 Runs√ Large Directory and Single File Transfers Under Windows NT

− MS Office Directory (68 MB)− Zipped Single File (60 MB)

√ TTCP Program, Standard Network Test

• 1553 Cable Works for Both ATM and Fast Ethernet– UTP5 and 1553 Cable Results Nearly Identical

• Limiting Factor for File Transfers is OperatingSystem Overhead and Hard Disk Speed

• Impedance Matching is not a Factor Except for LongCable Runs (Ethernet > 100 feet, ATM > 150 feet)

Benchmark Conclusions

Existing Cable is Not an Issue inthe Design of a Faster Network

ATM Test Configuration

1553/BB-Side

1553/BA-Side

ATM (STS-3c)

Actual A/C LRUsand BladeAntenna (Block 50with ARC-182Radio)

Blade Antenna

ControlSignals

MUX Assemblies RedundantMUX Assembly

Bi-directionalATM Traffic(Benchmark102-107 Mb/s)

ARC -182UHF/VHF

Radio

Adjacent Wires Inside Connector

DisconnectedX

0.5 voltspeak-to-peak

STS Synchronous Transfer Signaling

ATM Test Setup

• Conduct Experiments Using Actual Hardware andOperational Equipment4 F-16 ITS Block 50 Station with ARC-182 UHF/VHF Radio4 Actual Blade Antenna Configurations4 Actual RFI/EMI Noise Environment (All other F-16 LRUs

and MIL-STD-1553/B Traffic, Power, Controls, etc.)

• Perform Functional Tests Using UHF/VHF Radio4 Receive / Transmit on Authorized Channels

á UHF 284.1, 292.5 MHz, VHF 123.575, 123.4 MHz4 Subjective Evaluation of Changes in Signal Quality4 Monitor Multiple UHF/VHF Channels for Degradation

• Load ATM Network with Maximum Traffic• Measure Cross-Talk on Adjacent Wires

ATM Test Results

• Subjective Evaluations4 No Change in Signal Quality in VHF or UHF4 No Change at Cockpit or at Remote Site4 No Interference on Monitored Channels

• Objective Evaluations4 No Cell-Drops or Loss of Data on ATM Network4 Crosstalk Measurement - Peak-to-Peak Voltage

Average Signal Noise Increase: 18-20 mvMeasured Noise (Before ATM Applied): 39-42 mv

RFI and EMI Can Be Managed

ATM Test: Post Analysis

l Cable Noise On the Aircraft is Expected to Be LessThan the System Integration Lab (SIL) Test Station4 Shields of the 1553B Cables Inside the Test Station Were

Ungrounded for Ease of Connection to the Station4 In the F-16, Both Ends of MUX Cable Shields Are Grounded4 In the F-16, MUX Cable is Grounded at the Backshell of

Every Disconnect

l Actual F-16 vs the SIL Test Station:4 The Average Noise Measured on the F-16 Aircraft Could Be

1/3 Lower Than That Measured on STS4 The Resulting Average Crosstalk Noise is Expected to be 1/2

that Measured on the STS

Summary

• Legacy Aircraft Are Implementing OpenSystem Standards4 Transition to Open System Standards for Legacy Aircraft

Avionics has Started and Will Accelerate (LRUs, Networks)4 DoD Acquisition Processes and Strategies Are Working on

Legacy Aircraft Product Lines

• Evolving Fielded Weapon Systems to OpenSystem Approaches Is the Challenge4 Need Champions in the Logistics Support Communities4 Need Sustained Development Funding for Aircraft

Infrastructure Evolution (Flight Test, Tech Demos)

Executive SummaryMikel J. Harris

Open System Architecturefor Legacy Aircraft

Open System Architecturefor Legacy Aircraft

‘92 ‘94 ‘96 ‘98 ‘00 ‘02 ‘04 ‘06 ‘08 ‘10 ‘12 ‘14 ‘16 ‘18 ‘20

1000

0

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Air

craf

t In

ven

tory

A/V-8B

A-7E

F-111

F-117

F-14

A-6E

F/A-18A/B F/A-18C/D

F/A-18E/F

JSF-N

JSF-AFF-22F-16C/DF-16A/B

F-15EF-15A/B/C/D

F-4G A-10

F-4

The Majority of Our TacticalForce Through 2020 Will Be Legacy Aircraft

Nu

mb

er O

f A

ircr

aft

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Ave

rag

e A

ge

(Yea

rs)

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

FY 95 FY 00 FY 05 FY 10 FY 15

C-130

C-130J

KC-135

KC-10C-17C-141

C-5

Strategic & Tactical AirliftInventory Projections

F-16 Dominates the USAFForce Structure Until JSF Introduction

25

20

15

10

5

01995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Years

ANG/AFR Forces Total Forces

Active Forces

25

20

15

10

5

01995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Years

Total Forces

F-16 Forces

Legacy Aircraft Modernization Window

• The User Must Accomplish More With His Fleet of Existing Aircraft– Limited Funds and Aging Fleet (Average Age of All Fighters 18yrs @ 2010)

• Modifications Must be Incremental, Modular, and Rapid– Available Funding Profiles Will Not Allow Major Physical Upgrades– Politics are the Enemy of Long Programs

• We Must Work Within the Aircraft Physical Architecture (Wiring, Cooling, etc.)– Physical Changes Drive Mod Cost Exponential (Kills Program)

• No Software Modification is Minor– Test and Validation are the Cost Drivers (Not Design and Coding)

• Logistics Tail Plays Key Role in Upgrade/Mod Decisions (Have Final Vote)– The Cost Here Continues Throughout the Life Cycle (Key Words - 1 Level Maintenance)

• Commercial Market Drives the Electronics Industry (Not DoD)– We Must Work Within This Environment for Affordability– Key Element is Rapid Commercial Parts Obsolescence (Not Environmental)

• We Must Work Within the Avionics Vendor Chain of Capability– Vendors Must Protect Their Ownership of Functionality (i.e. CNI, EW, Radar, etc.)– DoD and Primes Must Prevent “Vendor Vanish”

Avionics Upgrade Environment

Open System Studies

Studies Were Directed Towards Legacy Avionics Architecture…

…to Evolve Aircraft Weapons Systems to Open Systems Standards.

Studies and Analyses Summary of Preliminary Results

Global Reach Open Network Aircraft Weapon Systems and SupportSystems Should Be Directly to the MilitaryNetworks for Ground Operations Repair,Maintenance, and Support

Common Real Time Operating SystemInterface for Software

Commercial Real-Time OperatingSystems Have Been and Can Be Adapted

Open Network Architecture Protocols Asynchronous Transfer Mode and FibreChannel Are Interim Network Solutions(Integrated Sensor System Program toDetermine Radar Protocols)

Open Standards and Interface Commercial Open Standards AreAvailable to Replace Existing LRUs

• The Big Pay-off Is in Opening the Federated Architecture

• DoD Investments Are Required– Open Standard for Mil-Std-1553 Emulation on COTS Network

– Open Interface Standard for Peer-to-Peer Military Protocols

– Validation and Flight Test

• The Driving Cost Factors Are Group A Aircraft Changesand the Software Impacts to Existing Avionics– Must Address How to Minimize These Costs for Each Aircraft

– Configuration

– Develop an Upgrade Plan for Modernization

Conclusions and Recommendations