Advertisement

The Cost Effectiveness of Integrated Avionics Architectures

Conference paper
  • 91 Downloads

Abstract

The analyses presented in this paper examine the benefits and costs associated with integrated avionics architectures proposed for the next generation of tactical aircraft (as exemplified by the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF)) when compared to more traditional federated architectures. In an integrated avionics suite the system’s processing capability is consolidated in one or two central processors; in a federated suite the processing capability is distributed throughout the system in black boxes associated with each avionics subsystem. We quantify benefits and costs in terms of dollars. This is possible when we compare integrated and federated systems that have similar functionality, i.e., where mission performance is comparable. The benefits and costs of integrated avionics are quantifiable as decreased hardware life-cycle costs and increased software life-cycle costs.

Keywords

Support Software Federate System Avionic Weight Physical Integration Engine Thrust 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Roskam, Jan, Airplane Design Part I: Preliminary Sizing of Airplanes, Roskam Aviation and Engineering Corporation, 1989.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Harmon, Bruce R., J. Richard Nelson, Mitchell S. Robinson, Kathryn L. Wilson, Steven R. Shyman,Military Tactical Aircraft Development Costs, 5 volumes, Institute for Defense Analyses, Report R-339, September 1988.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goree, Paul F., Joseph S. Domin, Philip A. Evans, Michael C. Frieders, Timothy J. Graves, Thomas A. Musson, Terri J. Walsh, Bruce R. Harmon, A User’s Guide for the Force Acquisition Cost System (FACS), Institute for Defense Analyses, Paper P-2550, February 1991.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harmon, Bruce R., Scot A. Arnold, J. Richard Nelson,Unit Cost Implications of New Materials: Preliminary Analyses of Airframe Experience, Institute for Defense Analyses, Document D-908, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Northrop Corporation Aircraft Division, Aircraft Operating and Support Cost Models for Advanced Design, January 1988.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shyman, Steven R., T. Keith Blankenship, Improving Methods for Estimating Software Development Cost, Institute for Defense Analyses, Paper P-2388, April 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Defense AnalysesUSA
  2. 2.Boeing Aerospace and ElectronicsUSA

Personalised recommendations