Download - The Future of Ground Testing
![Page 1: The Future of Ground Testing](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081514/56816571550346895dd807cb/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Air Force Materiel Command
Developing, Fielding, and Sustaining America’s Aerospace Force
I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e
The Future of Ground Testing
Dr. Ed KraftAEDC/CZ
Presented at the AIAA Ground Test Conference
June 29, 2010
![Page 2: The Future of Ground Testing](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081514/56816571550346895dd807cb/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Key Points
• The Nation’s test infrastructure is under serious distress - time to change the dialogue from reactive to proactive
• Need to quantify, articulate and improve– Effectiveness– Relevance– Value
• People and processes may be more important than facilities for increasing effectiveness and value
![Page 3: The Future of Ground Testing](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081514/56816571550346895dd807cb/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Current State of Affairs
• Cause and effect not understood
• Minor wounds could lead to serious consequences
• Amputation primary form of surgery
• Not a very high survival rate
Analogous to Early Civil War Medicine
We need to better quantify cause and effect of test capabilities on aeronautical system development
outcomes
![Page 4: The Future of Ground Testing](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081514/56816571550346895dd807cb/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Efficiency vs Effectiveness
Contractor System T&E Cost (Average $795.6M in FY 2001 $)*
*Fox et al “Test and Evaluation Costs for Aircraft and Guided Weapons” Rand Project Air Force Report., 2004
+ GAO-05-301, Assessment of Selected Major Weapon Programs, March 2005
RDT&EOverrun
EquivalentAircraft
F/A-22 $10.5B -116
F-35 $10.1B -157.8
GAO Program Reviews+
![Page 5: The Future of Ground Testing](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081514/56816571550346895dd807cb/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Acquisition Cycle Time Key T&E Effectiveness Parameter
• Workload – Process driven, currently ~22,000 of wind tunnel testing and 13,000 of propulsion cell testing
• q (inverse of rework) – Process driven, typically have 10 structural failures found in flight; control surface resizing
• Capacity – Budget driven, availability x staffing x throughput
Cycle Time ~ Workloadq · Capacity
50% reduction in wind tunnel costs equates to just a few tenths of a percent reduction in program costs –Reducing acquisition cycle time by a month could save more than the cost of the entire wind tunnel campaign
Kraft, Edward M. “ Integrating Computational Science and Engineering with Testing to Re-engineer the Aeronautical Development Process,” AIAA Paper 2010-0139 , January, 2010.
Kraft, Edward M. and Huber, Arthur F II “A Vision for the Future of Aeronautical Ground Testing,” The ITEA Journal of Test and Evaluation, Vol 30, No 2, June 2009.
![Page 6: The Future of Ground Testing](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081514/56816571550346895dd807cb/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Identifying ValueMeasures of Effectiveness and Key Leverage Points in the
Acquisition Process
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 20 40 60 80 100
% Design Drawings Completed at CDR
% G
row
th in
Dev
elop
men
t Sc
hedu
le
Technology Maturity @ Milestone B
Design Closure@ CDR
Late DefectsIOT&EPause TestRate
CycleTime
RDT&E$/Total $ AverageFleet Age
SystemsDelivered
Suitability
RDT&E Fraction is revealing metric
![Page 7: The Future of Ground Testing](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081514/56816571550346895dd807cb/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Top Line Economic ModelQuantifying the Fraction of Systems Delivered
Fraction of Systems Delivered
Frac
tion
of B
udge
t
RDT&E“Non-Recurring Cost”
Procurement“Recurring Cost”RDT&E
Overrun
Fraction ofSystemsLost toRDT&EOverrun
0 1
RDT&EBudget
1
Final number of systems actually delivered driven by:
•Overruns in RDT&E•Changes in the average per unit cost (APUC) during production
•Congressional or DoD dictates•Final Budget constraints
Fraction of SystemsActually Delivered
RDT&E Budget fraction amplifies the RDT&E and Procurement overruns plus Budget changes!
ProcOverrun
APUC
Fraction ofSystemsActually
Delivered
= 1-RDT&EOverrun
RDT&EBudget
1 -
ProcOverrun
+ -+ DeltaBudget
Budget +
Budget -
![Page 8: The Future of Ground Testing](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081514/56816571550346895dd807cb/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Comparing RDT&E and Procurement Costs to RDT&E Fraction
DoD Total Outlay for Improvements(FY08 $, Millions)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 20100
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
RDT&E
Procurement0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
RDT&EFraction
Note: Discreet jumps in RDT&E Fraction are triggered by Procurement downturns, but sustained by relative increase in RDT&E for each Period
![Page 9: The Future of Ground Testing](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081514/56816571550346895dd807cb/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Correlating Time History of Decline in Capacity, Capability, and Competence
• Industry consolidation – Reduced capability, investments– Reduced IR&D– Loss of intellectual capital
• RDT&E infrastructure– Reduced investments– Staff reductions
• Loss of intellectual capital– Reduced staffs– Loss of govt expertise through
reductions in hands on experience, staffing,TSPR, etc
• Loss of capacity– Availability of infrastructure– Staffing to perform RDT&E– Throughput/Quality
All correlate with Macro Cycles and have become deeper declines with each cycle
![Page 10: The Future of Ground Testing](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081514/56816571550346895dd807cb/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Reduced Aerospace Capacity
1.0
0.5
0
Frac
tion
of P
eak
Out
put
70 80 90 00 10
IR&D % Industry Cash Flow (22%)
% Aerospace to Total R&D S&E (25%)
US Aircraft Companies (10)
Aircraft Production Lines (30)
MRTFB Workyears (40K)
AEDC Workyears (4K)
Trend Parameter (Peak Output)
Capacity Trend Data from Multiple Elements of the Aerospace Industry Supportive of RDT&E
![Page 11: The Future of Ground Testing](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081514/56816571550346895dd807cb/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Exploring Cause and Effect Simple Dynamic Model
•Simple sinusoidal Proc $ with 20 yr period , $90B±$30B
•Baseline RDT&E $ expended at 0.25 Acq $
•With perfectly balanced, infinitely elastic capacity RDT&E $ would stay at 0.25 Acquisition $
•Reduced capacity consistent with previous chart
•-15% in 70’s, •constant in 80’s @ 85%, •further reduced 25%in 90’s •constant in 00’s @ 60%
•Replicates major trends, Total RDT&E $ and RDT&E Fraction escalate after each cycle
![Page 12: The Future of Ground Testing](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081514/56816571550346895dd807cb/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
• Quantify effectiveness and value– Send me any data / case studies supportive of analysis– Build white papers targeted at key decision makers*
• Optimize total investments in capabilities– Optimum local elements ≠ optimum system – Use policy for Major Range Test Facility Base*
• Build, validate, and apply tools to increase effectiveness– Integrate computational science and engineering*, fly the mission
testing*, DOE response surface methodology to reduce cycle time and late defects
• Invest in technical excellence– Train in DOE, CSE, integrated T&E*– Fund hands-on approaches to learn craft*– Maintain a community with critical mass
• Change the total development process– Target success at leverage points– Reduce cycle time by >50%
SummaryNow What Do We Need to Do?
Challenge
Can the TC Lead This ?
![Page 13: The Future of Ground Testing](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081514/56816571550346895dd807cb/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Additional Information
• Contact [email protected]
• Additional Reading– Kraft, Edward M. “ Integrating Computational Science and Engineering with Testing to
Re-engineer the Aeronautical Development Process,” AIAA Paper 2010-0139 , January, 2010.
– Kraft, Edward M. “After 40 Years Why Hasn’t the Computer Replaced the Wind Tunnel?” The ITEA Journal of Test and Evaluation, September 2010
– Kraft, Edward M. “DOE Application to Ground Testing – Advances and Challenges” Invited Panel Presentation at the AIAA Air Force T&E Days Conference, Nashville, TN, Feb 3, 2010.
– Kraft, Edward M. “Macro-Dynamics of Acquisition,” Draft White Paper available on request
– Kraft, Edward M. and Huber, Arthur F II “A Vision for the Future of Aeronautical Ground Testing,” The ITEA Journal of Test and Evaluation, Vol 30, No 2, June 2009.
– Huber, Arthur F II, Kraft, Edward M,, Best, John T., Stich, Phillip B., Eldridge, David A., Baker, William B., and Montgomery, Peter A. “Growing Technical Excellence in the AEDC Workforce.” AIAA Paper 2009-1762, February 2009.
– Best, John, T., Kraft, Edward M., and Huber, Col Arthur F. “Revitalizing the Technical Excellence at the Arnold Engineering Development Center (AEDC) and Beyond,” AIAA 2008-16115-7, Feb 2008.