B-2 Systems Engineering Case Study John M. Griffin, SES (Ret.) James E. Kinnu, Northrop-Grumman (Ret.) Edited by John M. Colombi Air Force Center for Systems Engineering at the Air Force Institute of Technology 2950 Hobson Way, Wright-Patterson AFB OH 45433-7765 Report Documentation Page Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 1. REPORT DATE 3. DATES COVERED 2007 2. REPORT TYPE 00-00-2007 to 00-00-2007 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER B-2 Systems Engineering Case Study 5b. GRANT NUMBER 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER 5e. TASK NUMBER 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION Air Force Center for Systems Engineering,Air Force Institute of REPORT NUMBER Technology,2950 Hobson Way,Wright Patterson AFB,OH,45433-7765 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S) 12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution unlimited 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The original document contains color images. 14. ABSTRACT 15. SUBJECT TERMS 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF ABSTRACT OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE 117 unclassified unclassified unclassified Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18 PREFACE In response to Air Force Secretary James G. Roche’s charge to reinvigorate the systems engineering profession, the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) undertook a broad spectrum of initiatives that included creating new instructional material. The Institute envisioned case studies on past programs as one of these new tools for teaching the principles of systems engineering. Four case studies, the first set in a planned series, were developed with the oversight of the Subcommittee on Systems Engineering to the Air University Board of Visitors. The Subcommittee included the following distinguished individuals: Chairman Dr. Alex Levis, AF/ST Members Brigadier General Tom Sheridan, AFSPC/DR Dr. Daniel Stewart, AFMC/CD Dr. George Friedman, University of Southern California Dr. Andrew Sage, George Mason University Dr. Elliot Axelband, University of Southern California Dr. Dennis Buede, Innovative Decisions Inc. Dr. Dave Evans, Aerospace Institute Dr. Levis and the Subcommittee on Systems Engineering crafted the idea of publishing these case studies, reviewed several proposals, selected four systems as the initial cases for study, and continued to provide guidance throughout their development. The Subcommittee’s leading minds in systems engineering have been a guiding force to charter, review, and approve the work of the authors. The four case studies produced in that series were the C-5 Galaxy, the F-111, the Hubble Space Telescope, and the Theater Battle Management Core System. This second series includes the B-2 Spirit Stealth bomber. Additional case studies are under consideration for future publication in a third series. Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited The views expressed in this Case Study are those of the author(s) and do not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or the United States Government. ii FOREWORD At the direction of the Secretary of the Air Force, Dr. James G. Roche, the Air Force established a Center for Systems Engineering (CSE) at the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) campus on Wright-Patterson AFB, OH in 2002. With academic oversight by a Subcommittee on Systems Engineering, chaired by Air Force Chief Scientist Dr. Alex Levis, the CSE was tasked to develop case studies focusing on the application of systems engineering principles within various aerospace programs. The committee drafted an initial case outline and learning objectives, and suggested the use of the Friedman-Sage Framework to guide overall analysis. The CSE contracted for management support with Universal Technology Corporation (UTC) in July 2003. Principal investigators for the four case studies published in the initial series included Mr. John Griffin for the C-5A, Dr. G. Keith Richey for the F-111, Mr. James Mattice for the Hubble Space Telescope, and Mr. Josh Collens from The MITRE Corporation for the Theater Battle Management Core System effort. These cases were published in 2004 and are available on the CSE website. The Department of Defense continues to develop and acquire joint complex systems that deliver needed capabilities demanded by our warfighters. Systems engineering is the technical and technical management process that focuses explicitly on delivering and sustaining robust, high-quality, affordable products. The Air Force leadership, from the Secretary of the Air Force, to our Service Acquisition Executive, through the Commander of Air Force Materiel Command, has collectively stated the need to mature a sound systems engineering process throughout the Air Force. Plans exist for future case studies focusing on other areas. Suggestions have included other Joint service programs, logistics-led programs, science and technology/laboratory efforts, additional aircraft programs, and successful commercial systems. As we uncovered historical facts and conducted key interviews with program managers and chief engineers, both within the government and those working for the various prime and subcontractors, we concluded that systems programs face similar challenges today. Applicable systems engineering principles and the effects of communication and the environment continue to challenge our ability to provide a balanced technical solution. We look forward to your comments on this B-2 case, our other AF CSE published studies, and others that will follow. MARK K. WILSON, SES Director, AF Center for Systems Engineering Air Force Institute of Technology http://cse.afit.edu/ iii PROLOGUE The B-2 is a phenomenal weapon system… born out of the cold war as a strategic nuclear penetrator... now proving it’s worth with a wide range of tactical precision weapon delivery capabilities. This case study deals with the early Full Scale Development (FSD) and Engineering Manufacturing Development (EMD) phases of the program, known today as System Design and Development (SDD)…there is a subtle but important difference…did you catch it? Hopefully, as you work through this case study, you see that the System Engineering process applied on the B- 2 program from 1979 (as the Advanced Technology Bomber requirements definition phase) through completion of the first airplane build played a significant role in bringing about the superior capability the system has today; not just in the design of the airplane, but also the in the development of new manufacturing processes as well. I was privileged to serve as the Program Director from June 1983 (just as the decision to redesign the airplane was being made) to June 1991. There were a number of programmatic issues that faced the program throughout this time period; and without the Systems Engineering process described in the case study, we would not have had the necessary quantitative data to be able to adequately address these programmatic issues in an authoritative way. The task of totally redesigning the aircraft two years into the program, having completed Preliminary Deign Review #1, while striving to maintain, or minimize, program impacts was a Herculean task. Because of the System Engineering process discussed in this case study, with the discipline and integrity that existed in the process, the B-2 Program was able to maintain the technical baseline across the entire government/contractor team and by so doing minimized the eventual impacts. The key factor in accomplishing this, after the professionalism and dedication of all the people involved, was the fact that the program had only ONE (near real time) design data base; which all of the program participants utilized…engineering, manufacturing, test, sub-contractors, and the government. As System Engineers, and particularly as Chief System Engineers, maintaining the technical baseline will be the most important part of your job… without it, the programmatic impacts will begin to accumulate to the point where the program will eventually become at risk. I want to emphasize at this point that there is a difference between System Engineering roles and responsibilities and Program Management roles and responsibilities… both are important to the success of a program… but Program Directors can not succeed without a sound technical baseline and a solid System Engineering process. The most important responsibility for the System Engineer is to maintain the integrity of the technical baseline, regardless of programmatic issues; because it is absolutely fundamental to the integrity of the program management baseline. Richard M. Scofield, Lt Gen, USAF, Ret iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to acknowledge the special contributions of people who dedicated their time and energy to make this report accurate and complete. We offer our sincere appreciation to all the people listed in Appendix 3, who volunteered their time and insight during the interviews. Very special thanks go to Lauren Proffit, Universal Technology Corporation, without whom we could ever have finished the editing and formatting of the report. Heartfelt congratulations to all the people involved in the program and particularly the systems engineers and design engineers at Northrop, Boeing, Vought, the vendors, WPAFB, Strategic Air Command, and EAFB for their tireless efforts in delivering this truly outstanding capability that has served our nation so well. Additional special thanks to those no longer with us; Leonard Rose, Northrop B-2 Chief Engineer; Dave England, Col, USAF, ASD/XRJ program manager; John Paterno, Northrop vice president, B-2 Division. Great leaders, great men, they are missed. We also provide a special thank you and note of appreciation to our AFIT Project Leader, Lt Col John M. Colombi, who provided editorial guidance to the authors, along with continuous motivation. John M. Griffin James E. Kinnu v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The B-2 Systems Engineering Case Study describes the application of systems engineering during the concept exploration, design, and development of the USAF B-2 Spirit stealth bomber. The case examines and explores the systems engineering process as applied by the Air Force B-2 System Program Office, the prime contractor, Northrop, and the two major subcontractors, Boeing and Vought, from the program’s genesis in the late 1970s to the first flight of the first aircraft on 17 July 1989. The systems engineering process is traced from a vision of a few planners in 1978 to the production of 21 operational aircraft that are currently serving our nation. Numerous interviews were conducted with the principals who managed and directed the program and a story of the systems engineering process emerged. The B-2 was conceived to profit from the advances in stealth technology that grew from a series of laboratory experiments and design studies during 1970 to 1976. The early work by both the government and industry during this timeframe resulted in feasible and practical stealth vehicles that exist throughout our military. The current operational fleets of fighters, bombers, UAVs, ships, and other stealth vehicles trace their heritage to the early technology maturation and engineering development programs. Stealth (or low observables, as it was called by the original practitioners) offered a new and revolutionary approach for penetrating the burgeoning growth of the Soviet defensive system of an integrated radar network. The fighter was the first type of weapon system to be studied for the benefits of stealth and the pay-off was assessed as substantial. The bomber was the next obvious candidate, and it too, showed great promise. Lockheed was in the lead for the technology application for fighters and was awarded the development contract for the F-117 stealth fighter. Northrop and Lockheed were competitors for the contract to develop the stealth bomber from late 1979; Northrop won the contract in November 1981. The first flight of the B-2 was 17 July 1989 with the first operational sortie of the aircraft occurring during the Balkan conflict in December 1995. The Spirit is a long-range heavy bomber incorporating the key technologies of the time. First, as evident in Figure 1, it is a highly efficient flying-wing (tailless) aeronautical design. Secondly, the aircraft makes extensive use of composite materials. And third, it is designed for stealth. Figure 1 shows four views of the aircraft with each view showing the details of the control surfaces, doors, access panels, and other external features. Note the center of the aircraft from the bottom view, showing the large cut out of the structure to accommodate the weapons bay doors (4), engine access doors (4), and the main landing gear doors (2). The ability to achieve an efficient structural design in the presence of the large cutouts on the bottom skin of the vehicle is one of the significant achievements of the structures team. The B-2 has significant range performance and payload capability. Table 1 shows the design weights and the range and payloads for the nuclear mission as well as the conventional missions. The bomber was primarily designed as a long-range strategic nuclear delivery system, but a significant conventional capability was designed in from the beginning. The table shows an abbreviated list of weapons currently certified for carriage. The list of weapons carriage capability continues to expand through ongoing B-2 modernization programs. vi Figure 1. External View Drawings of the B-2 Aircraft [1] Systems engineering was applied to the B-2 consistent with the maturity of the discipline circa 1978-1990 (the time frame of interest for this case study). The technical field of systems engineering was systemic with the design process throughout many aerospace companies. However, this was also the timeframe for continued recognition by the Air Force for the need for more formal documentation, tools, procedures, and organizational structure, initiated in the mid 1960s with the publication of both the Air Force Systems Command AFSC-375 series of Manuals and the issuance of the systems engineering military standard, MIL-STD-490A. It was also a time that concurrent engineering was in vogue in commercial ventures. This movement was an attempt to capture the Air Force and defense industry’s recognition of the needs of logistics, manufacturing, supportability, and reliability in the early design effort. The degree to which programs followed the emerging formality of systems engineering was a function of the maturity of the systems engineering process in the companies involved in the project, the effort demanded by the procuring agency through emphasis in the Statement of Work, and the degree to which the design and subsystems specialists within the project were schooled and committed to systems engineering. vii Table 1. B-2 Weight and Performance Capabilities [1] Features Length 69 feet Height 17 feet Wingspan 172 feet Power plant 4 GE F-118 engines (17,300 lbs thrust each) Crew Two pilots Weight Capability Max takeoff Weight 336,500 pounds Max in-flight Weight 357,500 pounds Max Landing Weight 311,500 Pounds Max payload 44,000 pounds Max fuel 166,900 pounds Min Flying Weight 161,385 pounds Weight Empty 149,900 pounds Performance Capability Cruise performance 6,000 NM, unrefueled at high altitude Airport performance Takeoff, Std day, Sea Level 8,000 feet at maximum takeoff weight Landing, 240,000 Pounds 5,000 feet Weapons Payload Nuclear payload 16 B-83 16 B-61-7 8 B-61-11 Conventional payload 16 GBU-31 (JDAM-84) 80 GBU-38 (JDAM-82) 16 AGM-154A (JSOW-97) The application of the systems engineering process on the B-2 program benefited profoundly by an important early decision to integrate the customer’s requirements development process into the company teams’ design and development process. This resulted in a culture of continual systems engineering trade studies from the very top-level systems requirements down to the simplest design details that affected all aspects of the aircraft design, maintenance, supportability, and training. Specialists from the technical and management disciplines worked as a team to assess the need for a specific performance level of a requirement to enhance operational effectiveness or trade for a lower level of performance to reduce cost or risk. The team could balance the benefit of achieving a performance level against its impact on cost, schedule, and risk and present the results to the proper decision tier for action. The advantages of the systems engineering being systemic to the operation of the development program through the 1980s were: Multiple systems-level trade studies. Systems engineering trade studies occurred for • all technical disciplines, subsystems and at all levels of the work breakdown structure (WBS) viii Balanced performance, cost, schedule, and risk • Agreement on the tasks to be performed and their priority • Well understood and documented customer/supplier agreements. • In order to take advantage of the benefits that accrued from the integration of the requirements and the design/development processes, other program initiatives and decisions making process were crucial, including: Rapid decision process with the ability to get the proper information to the proper • level, followed by timely action An organizational structure that utilized a system view to assess impacts • Skilled professionals at all levels and in all technical and management disciplines • Processes to accurately assess, assign, track, integrate, and close risks. • The organizational structures at the contractors (Northrop, Boeing, Vought, Hughes, General Electric, etc.) and government agencies (Aeronautical Systems Division, the B-2 Program Office, and the Strategic Air Command) were critical to the success of the program. The Air Force Systems Program Office (SPO) organization was a “classic” functional structure with a strong integration process that utilized the top two levels of the organization as the primary programmatic decision-making body. The contractors used a combination of strong project offices, along wit functional organizations to provide the decision base and the leadership for the program. There were several different systems engineering organizations in each major functional organization. The workforce was arranged in WBS task teams, similar in construct to the Integrated Product Teams (IPT) to follow in the future, but with some fundamental differences. These WBS task teams were the critical functioning structure and were the primary process by which business was conducted throughout the development program. Risk Closure Plans were a key management process and were instrumental in providing focus to risk identification, tracking, and closure. Thus, the organizational structure, the WBS task team construct, the decision making process, the risk closure planning process, the systems engineering tools, and the dedicated, talented, experienced people in engineering, all the functional areas, and program management were essential features of the systems engineering process during the development process of the B-2. The Five B-2 Learning Principles The learning principles are those key factors that the authors considered as the most influential to the successful outcomes and to the failures of the program. They are developed in further detail, by following the chronological evolution of the program. In Section 4, the learning principles are then summarized and further emphasized as to why they were chosen as the major points. LP 1, Integration of the Requirements and Design Processes: A key aspect of the implementation of the systems engineering process was the integration of the SPO requirement’s team with the contractors’ work breakdown structure (WBS) Task ix