byLee Wilburwilbur_lee@bah.com

Robert Smithsmith_robert@bah.com

Platform ModernizationA Cost-Effective Strategy for Evolving Mission Requirements

1

The traditional way to modernize a platform for military, defense, and civilian agencies is to replace the old one with a new and improved version. Under the current fiscal environment, approval of new platforms is so rare that agencies must often make do with existing platforms and coax continued service from these assets—way beyond their original intended lifespans.

Achieving economies across a platform lifecycle is a worthy objective, but it continues to be an elusive goal for planners. For example, maintenance of obsolete platform capabilities or technologies often proves to be too expensive or infeasible to implement because components may be out of production. As a result, agencies must modify and maintain the capabilities of existing platforms in order to meet evolving mission requirements. These agencies typically go back to the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to perform upgrades and modernization because the government does not own the technical data rights for its own platforms. Historically, acquiring from a single source supplier is a near certain path to higher costs due to the glaring lack of competitive incentives.

Platform modernization is a new strategy that is designed to help US federal agencies meet the operational challenges of today’s fiscal environment. It allows them to extend the service life of existing platforms while adding new capabilities for an array of evolving mission requirements. The essence of this strategy is to independently furnish agencies with the necessary technical information for modernizing platforms without

being solely reliant on OEMs. Platform modernization follows a four-step engineering process to: 1) understand what to change and why, 2) develop a design, 3) prototype the design, and 4) provide a Technical Data Package to the government for specifying the acquisition. With this information, an agency can steer engineering requirements, control the acquisition process, and avoid monopoly deals. The agency can do this by executing modernization internally with organic resources, or by leveraging market competition for better results at a lower cost.

How Reliance on Legacy Platforms Poses Challenges for Maintenance and New CapabilitiesThe specter of perpetual large national budget deficits has throttled approval for new platforms across military, intelligence, and civilian agencies. For example, within the Department of Defense, only the US Army has a new platform under development. In this fiscal climate, agencies are expected to manage budgets, often with declining growth rates or direct cuts to appropriations. Given that critical services must continue, agencies are now resorting to the fallback strategy of maintaining legacy platforms and incrementally modifying them to meet their missions. As a result, many mature platforms will continue in service for years to come. The figure below provides examples of vital military platforms serving overextended periods of time.

Platform ModernizationA Cost-Effective Strategy for Evolving Mission Requirements

Platform Year Put In Service Projected Retirement ~ In Service YearsM1 Abrams 1980 2050 70

M113 1960 2017 57HUMVEE 1984 2040 56

B-52 1955 2040 85C-130 1957 2025 68F-16 1974 2025 51

2

There are significant challenges to keeping legacy platforms like these running 20 to 50 years past their original intended lifespans. Despite high hopes that the fallback strategy will aid budgeting, platform lifecycle costs are even harder to control in the new environment. The culprit is high maintenance costs due to obsolescence of equipment requiring service on outdated sub-systems and parts that are no longer in production.

As for meeting evolving mission requirements, the absence of new replacement platforms requires agencies to modify the capabilities of existing platforms. Typically, agencies have OEMs perform upgrades and modernization because the government does not own the technical data rights for its platforms. Not having these data rights makes it significantly riskier for government agencies to modify or redesign aspects of the modernization package that—using aviation as an example—will affect airworthiness or impact critical components for flight safety. Agencies that acquire upgrades and modernization from a single source supplier usually pay more, given the lack of competitive bidding for platform changes. A single source also limits the range of technology that may be considered for integration.

To provide the government with more flexibility and control and minimize risk in meeting these challenges, agencies are turning to use of a new strategy called platform modernization.

Platform Modernization Helps Agencies Meet New Operational ChallengesPlatform modernization is a proactive strategy that allows agencies to cost-effectively extend existing platforms with new capabilities for evolving mission requirements. The essence of this strategy is to independently furnish agencies with the necessary technical information for modernizing platforms without being solely reliant on OEMs.

Platform modernization follows a four-step systemic engineering process culminating in the delivery of a

Technical Data Package, which effectively decouples the historical process of always having to work with designated OEMs to modernize their particular platforms. With platform modernization, agencies will independently discover the best way to update a particular platform with an engineering partner like Booz Allen Hamilton.

By steering engineering requirements and owning the Technical Data Package that governs manufacturing, an agency can control the acquisition process, minimize risk, and avoid monopoly deals.

Methodology for Platform ModernizationThe methodology for platform modernization entails four phases, which are applied according to an agency’s requirements for a program or project.

1. Deciding What to Change Modernization must work with an existing platform’s characteristics such as size, weight, and power requirements. To optimize modernization and avoid unintended consequences, the agency must first decide what to change and why. This is largely accomplished through the conduct of trade studies and analyses to determine the most beneficial trade-offs available. Desired capabilities might include incremental improvements such as faster airspeed, communicating at higher data rates, providing more detailed sensor data, or shooting a weapon with more accuracy. Other capabilities might be entirely new, such as providing line-of-sight communications, engaging satellite links, or adding armament to unarmed platforms.

As changes like these are made over extended lifecycle timeframes, it’s important for agencies to consider top-level system performance when deciding what to change. The new functionality must not adversely impact existing functionality. Improving the architecture to decrease integration burdens will result in smoother modernization efforts—both for meeting the immediate objective and for subsequent changes in the future.

3

Case Study: US Air Force

Problem The US Air Force needed to modernize its missile launch range systems and enable data-driven decisions for

range infrastructure.

Solution Booz Allen Hamilton established a technical baseline for the Launch Test Range System’s aging infrastructure of sensors

and command capabilities. We engineered an integrated architecture with requirements for 11 subsystem specifications.

For the ER Telemetry Subsystem Roadmap, we performed dozens of trade studies weighing requirements against current

capabilities and risks to assess future architectural options.

Result Booz Allen developed project-level architecture, requirements, and CONOPS for multiple projects and acquisition efforts

including separate US$100 million and US$150 million network modernization projects, and a US$40 million Command

Destruct project. We are helping the Air Force achieve a more cost-effective, disciplined battle rhythm for program

management of its launch ranges.

Strategic Impact of a Trade Study—US Army AviationTrade studies for platform modernization can profoundly

affect the government’s strategy and investment policy. For

example, Booz Allen conducted a trade study for the US Army

on factors affecting the age of its rotary wing fleet. A decade

of warfare in severe wind, sand, water, altitude, and hostile

combat environments had dramatically increased maintenance,

structural, and modification work on all rotary aircraft. The goal

was to learn if increased operational tempo (OPTEMPO) had

prematurely aged the fleet and, if so, by how much time.

Methodology and Analysis for the Trade Study. The trade study

addressed activity and structural analysis for Utility (UH-60),

Attack (AH-64), Cargo (CH-47), and Scout (OH-58) rotary wing

fleets. Fleet data covered years 2002-10, during which rotary

aircraft had flown more than 6.7 million hours. The methodology

included a process of: a) secondary and primary data collection,

b) definition of key independent and dependent variables, c)

analysis and modeling, and d) interpretation of results. Trade-

offs accounted for structural wear on maintenance engineer

calls and cumulative OPTEMPO impacts on airframe service life.

The key result was to directly compare three measures of age:

actual age, activity fatigue age, and structural fatigue age.

Trade Study Findings. Results revealed that higher OPTEMPOs

and structural damage had aged the rotary-wing fleet by

an average of 9 additional years. While airframe model

upgrades officially reset the clock to “zero-time” for calculating

maintenance, they retain an irreversible, cumulative aging

of the original structural airframe. As a result, the average

fleet age is over 30 years, not the 21 years used by the Army

and Department of Defense for planning and budgeting. This

accelerated airframe and fleet aging impacts milestone decision

points in the aviation investment strategy. The calculation

for total ownership cost of a platform must consider “aging”

factors for efficient lifecycle and fleet management. Longer

term, the age of the fleet is a greater risk than an aircraft

shortfall. Cumulative effects of increased usage and airframe

fatigue have a direct impact on when the Army must invest in

recapitalization and/or procurement of new aircraft to maintain

aviation capability.

Strategic Impact on the Army

• Avoided about US$1 billion in proposed cuts to its

aviation budget

• Will apply this “aging” methodology to all commodities and

calculate the impacts of war on all Army equipment

• Will apply this methodology to the Army fixed-wing fleet

• Advanced key acquisition milestones and decision points

by 3 to 5 years for next-generation rotary aircraft, and

increased Science and Technology funding for Army aviation

• Initiated better data collection for ongoing aging analysis

• Advanced understanding and use of total ownership cost for

budgeting

4

2. Developing a DesignMaking an adaptable, cost-efficient blueprint to modernize a platform may require additional trade studies. For example, will the modernized platform re-specify old parts that might be obsolete or no longer manufactured, or can it use existing commercial off-the-shelf sub-systems? Understanding these trade-offs often entails reverse engineering, a process used by Booz Allen to generate the technical data used for designing new sub-systems and systems, and integrating those with the platform.

To accomplish reverse engineering, Booz Allen conducts precise measurement and analysis of the existing relevant system components. Use of a portable coordinate measurement system that employs

3D laser scanning provides millions of data points for generating technical drawings, which increases accuracy and decreases the time required to develop usable computer-aided design data for replacement parts. In addition to physical measurement, reverse engineering may entail evaluation of other aspects including mechanical, electrical, software, and interfaces. This phase may also employ physics-based engineering analysis that uses science to validate the potential for platform designs.

Reverse engineering provides several benefits for platform modernization. First, it eliminates a requirement to redesign entire systems to replace a single “obsolete” component. The agency gets continuous use of original systems without an increase

Exhibit 1 | Determining the Real Age of the Rotary Fleet

Source: Army Aviation Service Life Analysis Phase II developed by Booz Allen Hamilton

5

Case Study: US Army

Problem The US Army needed to add protective armor to Heavy Tactical Vehicles to mitigate against new threats, while also allowing for safe and expedient ingress and egress by the driver and co-driver.

Solution The Booz Allen Engineering Services team used reverse engineering to integrate an expedient armor package onto the M915A3 Line Haul Tractor. The integration kit allows the armor package to swing out of the way of cab doors. Analysis was performed to ensure that the additional weight was evenly distributed and the vehicle performance would not be impacted. The hinged armor boxes were manually operated using pneumatic linear actuators with an electronic control system.

Result Supply chain drivers can now safely enter and leave the modernized tractor cab with automated deployment and retraction of protective armor. This solution used commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) components and was successfully completed without having to rely on the OEM for technical data, which allowed for a large cost savings.

Practical Uses of Reverse EngineeringReverse engineering can provide many practical uses for

acceleration of platform modernization, including:

Mechanical Data Generation. When data is unavailable for

mechanical components, reverse engineering produces the data

electronically for 3D solid models, 2D drawings, and electronic

technical documentation. This is valuable when OEMs may

no longer exist for manufacturing replacement parts for

antiquated components.

Integration Modeling. Reverse engineering can model existing

hardware for integration of new components. A common

example is measurement of physical dimensions for developing

component attachment interfaces or pathways for cable routing.

Analysis Modeling. A product improvement program may

require modeling existing hardware as a baseline for analysis.

An example is creating 3D solid models of an armor system in

order to conduct survivability/vulnerability analyses, and then

modify the baseline design to correct observed deficiencies.

Technical Data Generation. An agency may need to remove

software copy protection or circumvent single sources of supply.

Reverse engineering enables development of technical data

packages based on existing prototype equipment. The reverse

engineered package allows the agency to own and use technical

data for obtaining cost-effective suppliers of equipment.

Exploit Foreign Material. Reverse engineering is used to exploit

analysis of a captured enemy vehicle or weapon system.

in complexity or future cost. The only requirement is a small expenditure of labor for measurement and electronic data development. Second, reverse engineering allows an agency to quickly integrate new hardware onto existing systems with a high degree of accuracy, without having to obtain detailed technical data from OEMs. Third, reverse engineering also supports analysis and development of existing systems (see Case Study: US Army), and exploitation and analysis of threat systems. Finally, the most significant benefit is that the government can obtain complete rights to detailed technical data without the additional costs associated with purchasing Technical Data Packages and related documentation from OEMs.

Having the technical data is a fundamental requirement for platform modernization, and reverse engineering may be the only way to obtain these data. For example, an agency may have possessed the data in the past but lost it. For older platforms, it’s possible that an OEM is no longer in business, which is another roadblock for obtaining technical specifications. Reverse engineering is a vital capability for putting an agency in control of modernization efforts.

6

Case Study: US Defense Intelligence Agency

Problem The US Defense Intelligence Agency needed a highly sensitive, special purpose radio frequency (RF) measurement and signal intelligence (MASINT) sensor system.

Solution Booz Allen designed, developed, integrated, and operationally tested a prototype system that reduces space, weight, and power, nearly by a factor of 10, and enables automatic, near real-time processing. The custom RF front-end was designed and built for detecting very low power, low phase-noise signals over wide RF bandwidths. The full system was constructed in our laboratory facilities. It extensively uses COTS components in a modular architecture. Custom software supports real-world operations.

Result All project activities were within time and budget. Lab testing was completed within 4 months, integration onto the aircraft within 5 months, and demonstration of a fully mission-capable system in theater-like environments within 7 months of the start of contract.

3. Prototyping a Design Developing a prototype is mandatory for platform modernization. The prototype provides a model that allows an agency to test and prove that the new design works before proceeding with production. The prototype is used for matching form and fit, and to gauge achievement of desired new functionality for the modernized platform. It can apply to many deliverables such as a physical part or hardware system, an electrical design, or a software application. A prototype may focus on form or design, aim to provide a user experience, or demonstrate working functionality ranging from partial- to full-featured. The ultimate goal of a prototype is to derive working specifications for fulfilling platform modernization.

For example, a project conducted by Booz Allen for the Defense Intelligence Agency produced a working prototype of a radio frequency (RF) measurement and signal intelligence (MASINT) system (see Case Study: US Defense Intelligency Agency). In addition to inventing the new RF sensor, we created a modular COTS-focused architecture to simplify assembly and prevent a single component failure from impacting other components. Prototype testing entailed multiple phases that allowed our system engineers to fine tune custom hardware and software for effective performance at relevant operational altitudes in a theater-like environment. The prototype allowed the client to know exactly what the solution would provide after manufacturing and fielding.

For physical prototypes, Booz Allen often uses a process employing additive manufacturing with a 3D printer, which provides the ability to build models quickly to validate concepts. High resolution printing (also called fused deposition modeling) enables variable layer thicknesses as thin as .007” for highly detailed models. Parts are made of rigid acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) plastic, which in many cases allows pieces to be usable directly

from the printer. A soluble support structure material makes post-processing parts much easier. Software enables advanced editing of the final build envelope and full control of support structure generation for manufacturing the physical part.

4. Providing the Agency with a Technical Data Package With results from the first three steps of platform modernization, we are able to create a Technical Data Package (TDP) for the agency. The TDP is the foundational documentation to support acquisition of the modernized platform. It contains the technical data for engineering and production lifecycle such as

7

modernization approach using independent process for acquiring the necessary technical information to modernize a platform without an overreliance on OEMs. Using an independent partner like Booz Allen to conduct the essential trade studies and analysis, develop a design, prototype the design, and provide a Technical Data Package will provide government agencies more flexibility in the acquisition of needed platform improvements, thereby saving significant time and money while preparing our nation’s vital equipment to meet the demands of an uncertain world.

1 Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy; see www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/dfarspgi/current/index.html

2 See DFARS 252.227-7013 at www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/dfars/pdf/r20120906/252227.pdf

performance requirements; engineering drawings for form, fit, and function; specifications for parts and processes; quality assurance; and packaging.

Booz Allen follows standard data item description guidelines for a TDP that were established by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement and Procedures, Guidance, and Information.1

The information in a TDP is critical for exercising control of the platform modernization acquisition lifecycle. Data in the TDP allow the agency to determine whether it should perform modernization internally with organic assets, acquire the modernized platform directly from an OEM, or conduct a competitive procurement. Note that the government always retains unlimited ownership rights for all technical data related to form, fit, and function and may use that data for purposes of competitive procurement.2

However, for most current platforms, federal agencies do not own the TDP, which is retained by the OEM. In nearly all cases, the agency must pay the OEM to obtain the technical data. This leads to a circular process that limits flexibility by the agency and concentrates risk in one provider. With platform modernization engineered by Booz Allen, the end product is a TDP that provides the agency with the technical data it needs to cost-effectively drive the acquisition process and minimize risk.

Capturing the Benefits of Platform Modernization Extending the service life and capabilities of existing platforms is the de facto strategy for fulfilling mission requirements in today’s budget-conscious environment. In that the traditional execution of this strategy required close reliance on OEMs, the ability of an agency to achieve the necessary flexibility, efficiency, and fiscal economy is a matter of record. Alternatively, an agency can elect to implement a platform

About the Authors

8

Contact Information:

Lee Wilbur Robert Smith Senior Vice President Senior Vice President wilbur_lee@bah.com smith_robert@bah.com

Lee Wilbur is a Booz Allen Hamilton Senior Vice President where he brings more than 25 years of executive management, program management, and systems engineering experience with missile defense, space, aircraft, and ground combat systems. His background includes extensive experience in complex system development and supporting system engineering technologies.

Robert Smith is a Booz Allen Hamilton Senior Vice President who specializes in the delivery of acquisition and sustainment support services to US government clients. He currently leads the firm’s support to the Army Materiel Command (AMC), Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM), Program Executive Office for Aviation, and Aviation and Missile Research, Development, and Engineering Center (AMRDEC) organizations, all based in Huntsville, Alabama.

About Booz Allen

To learn more about the firm and to download digital versions of this article and other Booz Allen Hamilton publications, visit www.boozallen.com.

Booz Allen Hamilton has been at the forefront of strategy and technology consulting for nearly a century. Today, Booz Allen is a leading provider of management and technology consulting services to the US government in defense, intelligence, and civil markets, and to major corporations, institutions, and not-for-profit organizations. In the commercial sector, the firm focuses on leveraging its existing expertise for clients in the financial services, healthcare, and energy markets, and to international clients in the Middle East. Booz Allen offers clients deep functional knowledge spanning strategy and organization, engineering and operations, technology, and analytics—which it combines with specialized expertise in clients’ mission and domain areas to help solve their toughest problems.

The firm’s management consulting heritage is the basis for its unique collaborative culture and operating model, enabling Booz Allen to anticipate needs and opportunities, rapidly deploy talent and

resources, and deliver enduring results. By combining a consultant’s problem-solving orientation with deep technical knowledge and strong execution, Booz Allen helps clients achieve success in their most critical missions—as evidenced by the firm’s many client relationships that span decades. Booz Allen helps shape thinking and prepare for future developments in areas of national importance, including cybersecurity, homeland security, healthcare, and information technology.

Booz Allen is headquartered in McLean, Virginia, employs approximately 25,000 people, and had revenue of $5.86 billion for the 12 months ended March 31, 2012. Fortune has named Booz Allen one of its “100 Best Companies to Work For” for eight consecutive years. Working Mother has ranked the firm among its “100 Best Companies for Working Mothers” annually since 1999. More information is available at www.boozallen.com. (NYSE: BAH)

9

www.boozallen.com

The most complete, recent list of offices and their addresses and telephone numbers can be found on www.boozallen.com

Principal OfficesHuntsville, Alabama

Sierra Vista, Arizona

Los Angeles, California

San Diego, California

San Francisco, California

Colorado Springs, Colorado

Denver, Colorado

District of Columbia

Orlando, Florida

Pensacola, Florida

Sarasota, Florida

Tampa, Florida

Atlanta, Georgia

Honolulu, Hawaii

O’Fallon, Illinois

Indianapolis, Indiana

Leavenworth, Kansas

Aberdeen, Maryland

Annapolis Junction, Maryland

Hanover, Maryland

Lexington Park, Maryland

Linthicum, Maryland

Rockville, Maryland

Troy, Michigan

Kansas City, Missouri

Omaha, Nebraska

Red Bank, New Jersey

New York, New York

Rome, New York

Dayton, Ohio

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Charleston, South Carolina

Houston, Texas

San Antonio, Texas

Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

Alexandria, Virginia

Arlington, Virginia

Chantilly, Virginia

Charlottesville, Virginia

Falls Church, Virginia

Herndon, Virginia

McLean, Virginia

Norfolk, Virginia

Stafford, Virginia

Seattle, Washington

©2012 Booz Allen Hamilton Inc.

BA12-280