the design of the raptor l.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
The Design of the “Raptor” PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
The Design of the “Raptor”

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 41

The Design of the “Raptor” - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

The Design of the “Raptor” A Case Study in Teaming Agreements Overview The F-22 Program Teaming Concepts The F-22 Teaming Agreement F-22 Team Initial Actions F-22 Teaming Issues Conclusion Introduction Technological advances of the military Teaming in Defense projects

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'The Design of the “Raptor”' - niveditha

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
the design of the raptor

The Design of the “Raptor”

A Case Study in Teaming Agreements

  • The F-22 Program
  • Teaming Concepts
  • The F-22 Teaming Agreement
  • F-22 Team Initial Actions
  • F-22 Teaming Issues
  • Conclusion
  • Technological advances of the military
  • Teaming in Defense projects
  • The F-22 - Stealth
the f 22 program
The F-22 Program
  • Request for Information (1981-1984)
  • Concept Exploration (1984-1986)
  • Demonstration/Validation (1986-1991)
  • Engineering and Manufacturing Development (1991 – Present)
the advanced tactical fighter concept
The Advanced Tactical Fighter Concept
  • F-15C “Eagle” Air Superiority Fighter
  • The MiG-29 “Fulcrum” and Su-27 “Flanker”
  • Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF)
concept exploration
Concept Exploration
  • Stealth
  • Supercruise
  • Maneuverability
  • Tradeoffs
the concepts
The Concepts
  • Lockheed
    • Faceted vs. curved surface (B-2, F-117)
    • Abandoned original proposal
  • General Dynamics
    • Big debate over tail configuration
  • Boeing
    • Larger and faster
    • Single chin inlet, 2-tailed design
last minute changes
Last Minute Changes
  • Increase the importance of stealth
    • Affected General Dynamics the most
  • Contract modified to include prototypes
    • From $100 to $700 million
    • Only 2 contracts, instead of 4
  • Letter encouraging teaming
    • Boeing/Lockheed/General Dynamics submit proposals separately
    • Winning company is team leader
company advantages
Company Advantages
  • Lockheed
    • Rapidly developed concept
    • Stealth experience
  • Boeing
    • Excellent initial concept
    • Manufacturing and production capability
  • General Dynamics
    • Rapid prototyping experience – YF-16
contract award
Contract Award
  • 31 October 1986
    • Lockheed and Northrop get contracts
  • 2 November 1986
    • 100 manager/engineers meet at the “Skunkworks”
    • Teaming begins
definition of the team
Definition of the Team
  • Joint Venture

- a partnership “created by two or more separate entities who associate, usually to engage in one specific project or transaction” (Sweet)

  • Prime Contractor / Subcontractor

- when “a potential prime contractor agrees with two or more other companies to have them act as subcontractors under a specified Government contract or acquisition program.” (FAR)

Most “teams” are a hybrid

benefits of teaming
Benefits of Teaming
  • Most common in high-tech defense
    • Customer:
      • Best minds / capabilities of industry
        • Lockheed: Stealth
        • General Dynamics: Prototyping
        • Boeing: Production and manufacturing
    • Companies:
      • Shared risk of R&D
      • Pooling of knowledge
      • Shorter project?
legal aspects of teaming
Legal Aspects of Teaming
  • Government encourages teaming
    • Agreement must be fully disclosed
    • Cannot violate antitrust laws
  • Agreement should very thorough
what should it include
Financial contributions

Personnel contributions

Project management

Types of control

Division of work

Profit sharing

Dispute resolution

Liability issues


Trade secrets and proprietary info

What should it include?
f 22 agreement
F-22 Agreement
  • 2 November 1986: first meeting
    • Concepts presented
      • Diversity of design
      • Lockheed’s stealth capability
    • USAF presents evaluations
      • Cost savings / technological promises not as important
      • Emphasis on generalized solutions and risk reduction
division of work
Division of Work
  • Sherm Mullin (Lockheed) = PM
    • Randy Kent (General Dynamics) and Dick Hardy (Boeing) shared responsibility
  • Three different plans
    • Lockheed’s was start for bargaining
lockheed s responsibilities
Lockheed’s Responsibilities
  • Project Management
  • Cockpit, Nose section, forward fuselage
  • Control Surfaces (ailerons, stabilators, etc.)
  • Landing Gear
  • Final Assembly
  • Flight Testing
boeing s responsibilities
Boeing’s Responsibilities
  • Avionics and Mission Software
  • Wings
  • Aft Fuselage
  • Life Support System
  • Training Systems
general dynamics responsibilities
General Dynamics’ Responsibilities
  • Center fuselage
  • Weapons Systems
  • Communications and Navigation
  • Electronic Warfare Suite
yf 22 design process
YF-22 Design Process
  • Started with Lockheed’s Concept
    • However, it would not fly
  • Aircraft Weight – change the requirements
  • July 1987 – initial plan complete
    • 9000 lbs overweight
    • $5 mil more per aircraft
  • USAF refuses to change requirements
starting from scratch
Starting from Scratch…

“One of the most creative periods of conceptual design for any fighter aircraft.”

  • Wing Shape / tail design / fuselage shape
  • Supercruise not possible
    • Thrust reversers eliminated
  • May 1988 – prototype design frozen
  • Assembly begins
the production model
The Production Model
  • Production considered from beginning
  • Structure modified
  • Avionics Package
    • Average price was $16 mil per aircraft
    • Max price set at $9 mil
      • Some avionics eliminated
      • Radar coverage reduced
flight testing
Flight Testing
  • 29 August 1990 – YF-22 unveiled
  • 29 September 1990 – first test flight
    • Aggressive testing phase (lessons from YF-16)
    • Flown to all edges of the envelope, including supercruise
    • Successfully fired weapons (unlike YF-23)
contract award26
Contract Award
  • 31 December 1990 – proposal delivered to USAF
  • 23 April 1991 – YF-22 wins the contract
legal issues
Legal Issues

Type of Team

  • Cross between joint venture and subcontractor relationship
    • Not a separate entity
    • All applied for prime contract
    • Shared responsibility
  • Improved their image to the USAF?
legal issues29
Roles / responsibilities of team leader

Procedures for division of work

Future proposals

Proprietary Info


Cost Sharing

Cost Reporting

Dispute resolution


Legal Issues

The Teaming Document

Specific Areas Addressed:

Freedom to Adapt

legal issues30
Legal Issues

Trade Secrets / Proprietary Info

  • Antitrust Laws
    • Aerospace industry is small
    • Mergers:

Lockheed + Martin Marietta + General Dynamics = Lockheed Martin

    • Teaming Termination
  • Security Issues
    • Stealth was a “Black” program
    • Coordination of Publicity
    • Classification Issues
organizational issues
Organizational Issues

Organizational Structure

  • Sherm Mullin (Lockheed) = PM
    • Randy Kent (General Dynamics)
    • Dick Hardy (Boeing)
  • Traditional Organization for Design
    • Structures, Avionics, Aerodynamics, etc.
    • Specific companies ultimately responsible for specific areas
organizational issues32
Organizational Issues

Personnel Issues

  • Working with the “competition”
    • Initial days very strained
    • Vast differences in initial concepts
    • Technical experts = most difficulty adapting
  • Informal chain-of-command
    • Chief engineer (from company) in a section
    • Mullin / Hardy / Kent level
  • 2-Boss problem?

“I began to sense that we were becoming a more cohesive unit when the aerodynamicists from all three companies began voting against the structural engineers from all three companies.”

organizational issues33
Organizational Issues


  • Seattle / Fort Worth / Burbank
    • Pre-internet
    • YF-22 used CAD from beginning
  • 1987 – Secure data link established
organizational issues34
Organizational Issues


  • Software Compatibility
    • General Dynamics had the best system
    • Lockheed’s concept could not be digitized
  • General Dynamics’ computers sent to Lockheed’s facility
    • Security
    • ACAD (General Dynamics) used for design
    • CATIA (Lockheed) was used for manufacturing
economic issues
Economic Issues

Cost Sharing, Reporting, and Accounting

  • R&D costs
  • Overhead costs
  • Accounting
    • Several generally accepted procedures
    • They all had to use the same methods
economic issues36
Economic Issues

Initial Problems

  • Economics of the Proposals
    • Differing accounting procedures
    • Cost estimation procedures
    • Differing labor rates
project management issues
Project Management Issues

Leadership by Example

  • Mullin, Hardy, and Kent had to set the tone
    • Mullin and Hardy – opposing personalities
    • Kent was the middleman
    • They got along remarkably well
      • Noticed by the rest of the team

“Upper management’s lead established the right tone for success.”

project management issues38
Project Management Issues

Corporate Loyalties

  • People from different functional areas
    • Aerodynamics, structures, etc.
    • This is standard in a project
  • Differing corporate loyalties
    • Mullin had to not only be fair, but appear fair as well
project management issues39
Project Management Issues

Problem Solving / Decision Making

  • Mullin did not have full authority
  • Corporate loyalties exacerbated defensiveness
  • No final authority – decisions by committee
    • Voting based on “party lines” vs. sound tech data
  • Many obstacles, but worth the effort?
  • Model for other defense programs
    • V-22 Osprey (Boeing and Bell)
    • AAWS-M Javelin (Hughes, Ford, and Texas Instrument)