De-Risking Long-term AeroDefense Programs through an Innovative Approach to Sustainment

For original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of test equipment, the product lifecycle is generally much shorter than that of a typical aerospace or defense program. As a result, OEMs have struggled to support the requirements of multi-decade aero/defense programs. This paper will examine the challenges that OEMs face when implementing long-term service and support programs. It will also introduce a Keysight-developed approach that reduces the costs and risks associated with longterm aero/defense programs. 

INTRODUCTION 

The typical aerospace/defense (A/D) program can last decades, whereas the lifecycle of a commercial project is normally no more than a few years, or even less in the fastevolving wireless industry. This contrast creates a multitude of challenges, amplified by the fact that each stage of the A/D lifecycle can be much longer compared to the equivalent commercial stage. For example, in the time it takes for the latest wireless technology to break into the market, peak, and then ramp back down, a new A/D program may still be in the prototyping stage. In addition, the long phase postdeployment where demand is typically stable or in a slow decline is called sustainment, which contributes up to 90% of the program lifecycle. This program stage can make up 70% of the program’s lifetime cost, but it is also underappreciated and undervalued when key decisions are made during the early stages of the program. These milestone decisions made during the early stages incur upfront costs that are relatively high compared to the rest of the program’s per incident costs. It can be easy to focus on reducing these costs as much as possible to reduce overall program costs. However, these key decisions also define the rest of the program, including the long-term costs during the sustainment phase. It is therefore vital to consider sustainment challenges and costs in the early stages of the program, and the associated requirements and consequences for program suppliers. 

SUSTAINMENT: DEFINITION AND REQUIREMENTS 

How the Aero/Defense Community Defines Sustainment 

The term “sustainment” is used to refer to many different applications, based upon the varying perspectives of roles within the aerospace/defense ecosystem. For example, a government program lead has a different goal for sustaining the program compared to the government contractor’s perspective and goals. Similarly, a test equipment supplier often talks about sustainment in relation to long-term support of test equipment hardware. Though supporting test equipment long-term does influence overall program sustainment costs, it is normally not the end user’s main concern. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the end user’s perspective of sustainment in relation to overall program cost and success. Let’s consider the concept of sustainment according to the government. Reference, for example, lists several key goals for sustainment activities. The first is to maximize the chance of mission success through guaranteed availability to meet mission needs. This is measured through parameters that quantify operational availability and probability of success of the given mission. Second, unit self-sufficiency during the mission is a goal that is measured by the length of time a unit can maintain self-sufficiency. Self-sufficiency must be balanced by the total number of forces required. The goal is to minimize the number of additional forces dedicated to sustainment while maximizing the length of time a unit can be self-sufficient. Of course, all of this must be achieved at the lowest possible lifecycle cost. Total sustainment cost is measured by the total annual operational cost and normalized per hour and per mile traveled. Total annual operation cost includes the cost of investments in spare parts and in improved reliability. Thus, you can see how sustainment is an essential component of mission success. In addition, expenses due to ongoing operational and maintenance activities are becoming an increasingly larger part of total expenditures. This is shown in Fig. 2, which depicts total expenditures by category for A/D programs. In the chart, the operations and maintenance category has increased by 10% from the 1980’s to the 2000’s. It is projected to increase further to 44% of total expenditures by 2029. Personnel expenditures have also increased, likely due in part to increased demand to meet sustainment goals. Unfortunately, although sustainment costs are becoming more significant, it continues to be undervalued and underappreciated during the key decision phases.

Program Sustainment and Consequences for Suppliers 

Now that we have established what the goals are for sustainment and that it is becoming increasingly important to manage sustainment related expenses, let’s consider an example of what the A/D community is doing to model and sustain programs, and the associated consequences for the suppliers of those programs. Fig. 3 depicts the program model of a hardware intensive A/D program such as a major weapons platform. This is taken from the DoDI 5000.02 procedures. Enclosure 6 from the DoDI 5000.02 document highlights the requirements for life-cycle sustainment for such a program. From the first key decision stages, the product support strategy must be developed. This support strategy is the basis for all sustainment efforts to maintain the requirements of the program. Included in the product support strategy are: 

• Sustainment metrics that are continually monitored and managed to minimize cost and risk
• A program to improve reliability based upon failure modes and critical analysis. Data is captured during the engineering development phase and through systems health info that is available through on-board and offboard technologies
• The ability for competition at the prime and subcontract levels for both system and subsystem levels

The sustainment plan is not fixed. Throughout the lifecycle, the plan performance will be assessed and modified as necessary to reduce cost and risk.