Multifunction Phased Array Radar

PAR Work Group

Magda Batista-Carver

September 11, 2007

Legacy Radar Lifecycle Cost Data Analysis Update

Magda Batista-Carver, William J. Hughes Tech Center, FAA

Tim Crum, NEXRAD Radar Operation Center, NOAA

Radar Lifecycle Cost Data Collection

• Analysis being developed in response to MPAR Working Group Action Item # 2007-1.2, “Complete life cycle cost analysis for legacy [primary] radar systems”

• Radar systems under analysis in this study - NEXRAD - TDWR - ASR-8 - ASR-9 - ASR-11 - Long-Range/Enroute Radars*

* Includes ARSR-1, -2, -3, -4

Life Cycle Cost StudyTeam Composition

• National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration– Tim Crum– Marty Williams– Russ Cook

• Department of Defense– Mike Spaulding

• Office of Federal Coordinator for Meteorology– Mark P. Weadon

• Federal Aviation Administration– Magda Batista-Carver– Dennis Roofe

Methodology

• Apply Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) to each system to ensure all life cycle costs are included and that no costs are counted twice.

WBS for NEXRAD WBS for FAA Radars

1.0 Maintenance Personnel 5.1 Preventative Maintenance

(FAA, AF, NWS) (personnel)

2.0 Materials (reparables, 5.6 Watch Standing Coverage

consumables, mod kits) 5.7 Program Support

3.0 Tech Transfer 5.8 Logistics

4.0 Facilities 5.9 In-service Training

5.0 Sustainment (ROC) 5.10 Second-level Engineering

6.0 Communications

7.0 Maintenance Training

8.0 Test Equipment

• WBSs do not align exactly, but all equivalent costs are captured

Assumptions

• All costs that contribute to system’s lifecycle cost should be included

- Include SLEP and Tech Transfer as well as basic

O&M costs in the total • Inflationary factors should be industry standard applied to

baseline Then-Year (TY) dollars• System-unique costs (such data archival for NEXRAD) were

included as legitimate costs for operating the particular system

• Communications costs should only be included if integral to the radar system (i.e. maintenance hotlines, antenna-to-RDA comm lines, etc); all other ancillary comm costs were excluded

Challenges

• FAA Cost data from Quantech Inc. reports do not go out to target date (2025)—some extrapolation was required

• Effects of completed Service Life Extension Programs (SLEPs) on life-cycle O&M costs has not yet been quantified

• No equivalent studies have been accomplished for NEXRAD—analysis had to be done from scratch

• NEXRAD portion of O&M report will have to be reviewed by ROC Director before release

• Lack of dedicated resources to apply to the analysis project have slowed process

WSR-88D/NEXRAD O&M Costing

• Information from the NEXRAD triagencies going into database

• Identifying source of data and major assumptions:

– ~7 - year technology “refreshment” of CPUs included– Continuous modification/retrofit/obsolescence avoidance actions projected

to continue

– More WSR-88D technology transfer and science evolution work/funding than other radars in study

WSR-88D/NEXRAD O&M Costing

• Plan to “roll up” the data from the agencies and more detailed cost lines into 8 cost categories

– Maintenance Personnel– Materials– Technology Transfer – Facilities– Sustainment– Communications– Maintenance Training– Test Equipment

• Using “then year” dollars and known programmatic trends for cost projections

• Now primarily in a “tuning” mode to ensure no duplication of costs in database and clarifying issues

• Need final review and approvals• Target March completion

Preliminary Conclusions and Next Steps

• No firm retirement decisions have been reached on any of the systems under review

- Notional end-of-life dates in Table 3-1 of JAG PAR report cannot be substantiated, and are probably too conservative

- All system retirement decisions are conditional• Team will continue to refine WSR-88D lifecycle data• Seeking further information on FAA SLEPs, both total

cost and implications for system retirement decisions• Barring any major setbacks, team will have a first

draft for WG review by March 2008

BACKGROUND

Radar Lifecycle Cost Data Collection

• Among its tasks, the MPAR WG will perform:

“A detailed analysis of the life expectancy of existing legacy radars (i.e., WSR-88D; TDWR; ARSR-1, 2, 3, and 4; ASR-9; ASR-11—Table 3-1 of report) and the critical programmatic replacement decision timeframes for each type of legacy radar. This analysis should be compared to the timelines of the MPAR risk-reduction R&D program schedule (Figure 6-2 and Appendix D of report), with the goal of optimizing the MPAR risk-reduction strategies with the critical programmatic replacement decision timeframes.” (MPAR WG TOR)

Radar Lifecycle Cost Data CollectionTable 3-1 JAG PAR Report (2006)

Radar System

Design Date Install. Date Estimated

End-of-LifeWSR-88D 1988 1990-1997 2020

TDWR 1986-1990 1992-1995 2020

ARSR-1/-2 1960-1970 1965-1975 2015

ARSR-3 1960-1970 1965-1975 2015

ARSR-4 1985-1990 1990-1995 2020

ASR-9 1983 1987-1993 2020

ASR-11 1998-2002 2003-2010 2030

Summary of FAA Programmatic Radar Decision Points ( )

• 2008 - SLEP decision on ASR-9 through 2025 (97)• 2008 - SLEP decision on ASR-8 through 2025 (98)• 2008 - Tech Refresh decision for ASR-11 through 2025 (99)• 2011 Decision to implement NextGen primary radar

systems, which include wx surveillance (77)• 2012 - TDWR SLEP segment #2 decision (60)• 2014 - Replacement decision for legacy primary radars

(ASR-8/-9) (104)• 2018 – Investment decision to SLEP NEXRAD or

replace with NextGen wx surveillance capability (91)