Transcript MPAR Cost-Benefit Discussion Mark Weber Jeff Herd 14 December 2009

MPAR Cost-Benefit Discussion
Mark Weber
Jeff Herd
14 December 2009
MIT Lincoln Laboratory
PAR Study-1
JSH 3/28/2005
Purpose of Briefing
• Update MPAR acquisition cost data developed from
ongoing Lincoln-MaCom panel demonstration project
• Review methodology used to compare life-cycle costs for
MPAR versus legacy radars
• Discuss strategies for developing monetary benefits
associated with MPAR
MIT Lincoln Laboratory
PAR Study-2
JSH 3/28/2005
Active Phased Array Radar Recurring
Cost Distribution
Typical Radar Cost Breakout*
10%
15%
75%
Active ESA
Signal, Data Processor
Active ESA
Receiver/Exciter
• Major cost of phased array radar is in active electronically scanned
array (AESA) aperture
– Typical AESA is 75% of total radar cost*
– Key AESA cost driver is transmit-receive module
* Loomis, J.M.; ‘Army Radar Requirements for the 21st Century’, 2007 IEEE Radar Conference, 17-20
April 2007 Page(s):1 - 6
MIT Lincoln Laboratory
PAR Study-3
JSH 3/28/2005
MPAR Risk Reduction Panel
DC Power + Control
Heat Exchanger
T/R Modules
Aperture Board
• MPAR risk reduction panel cost estimates based upon
low/high volume pricing from multiple sources
• Domestic and off-shore
• Utilizing commercial high volume manufacturing practices
• Target cost of $50k per m2
MIT Lincoln Laboratory
PAR Study-4
JSH 3/28/2005
MPAR T/R Module Cost
• IC chip cost estimates based upon current commercial
•
•
•
wafer processing costs for >2M parts
All costs based upon actual Bills of Material (BOM)
Current assembly, test, and overhead costs based upon
actual MPAR T/R module fabrication and test
Potential for reduced costs based upon additional IC chip
integration and lower bandpass filter cost
MIT Lincoln Laboratory
PAR Study-5
JSH 3/28/2005
MPAR Aperture Board Cost
Highest PC Board
Estimate
Lowest PC Board
Estimate
16”
• Biggest cost driver for Aperture Board is multilayer PC
board
– Significant spread in PC board manufacturer costs
(~factor of 2)
• Rollup cost estimates for panel range between $7k-15k
($40k-90k per m2)
– Close to target cost of ~ $50k per m2
MIT Lincoln Laboratory
PAR Study-6
JSH 3/28/2005
Cost Rollups
•
“Terminal” MPAR (4 m diameter, ASR equivalent)
–
–
•
Full Scale MPAR (8 m diameter, NEXRAD, TDWR, ARSR equivalent)
–
–
•
Low: (50 m2 x $41 K/m2) ÷ 0.6 = $ 3.4 M
High: (50 m2 x $88 K/m2) ÷ 0.6 = $ 7.3 M
Low: (201 m2 x $41 K/m2) ÷ 0.6 = $ 13.7 M
High: (201 m2 x $88 K/m2) ÷ 0.6 = $ 29.5 M
TDWR Replacement Costs (per Ted Weyrauch, AJT 1210)
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Equipment:
Installation:
Activation/Commissioning
Academy Course Development
Aeronautic Center Facility
Logistics Center Stock (25% of equip.)
Log. Ctr. test equip./support contracts
Program Office Support
P3I
$7.0 M per site
$0.5 M per site
$0.5 M per site
$3.0 M total
$100 M total
$1.75 M per site
$80 M total
$40 M total
$173 M total
Roughly 50% of TDWR replacement costs are non-recurring
MIT Lincoln Laboratory
PAR Study-7
JSH 3/28/2005
Purpose of Briefing
• Update MPAR acquisition cost data developed from
ongoing Lincoln-MaCom panel demonstration project
• Review methodology used to compare life-cycle costs for
MPAR versus legacy radars
• Discuss strategies for developing monetary benefits
associated with MPAR
MIT Lincoln Laboratory
PAR Study-8
JSH 3/28/2005
Life Cycle Cost Comparison
(Presented to NAS Study Panel)
$2.4B
•
Assumptions:
–
510 legacy @ $5-10M ea
–
167 full-size MPAR @ $15M ea
–
–
–
167 terminal-area MPAR @ $5M ea
Legacy O&M = $0.5M per year
MPAR O&M = $0.3M per year
• Replacement of legacy systems with MPAR on as-needed basis
•
•
saves ~ $2.4B over 20-year period
Majority of savings comes from reduced O&M costs
Assumes equivalent cost per element of $188.00 ($100k per m2)
– Must include assembly, testing, radar back-end, software, …
MIT Lincoln Laboratory
PAR Study-9
JSH 3/28/2005
Purpose of Briefing
• Update MPAR acquisition cost data developed from
ongoing Lincoln-MaCom panel demonstration project
• Review methodology used to compare life-cycle costs for
MPAR versus legacy radars
• Discuss strategies for developing monetary benefits
associated with MPAR
MIT Lincoln Laboratory
PAR Study-10
JSH 3/28/2005
Need methodology for ascribing monetary benefits to
potential service improvements
MIT Lincoln Laboratory
11
PAR Study-11
JSH 3/28/2005
Example: Model for Assessing Impact of Reduced
Tornado Warning Lead Times
MIT Lincoln Laboratory
PAR Study-12
JSH 3/28/2005
Tornado Impact Mitigation: (i) Reduced Lead Time,
(ii)Reduced Lead Time plus Improved PD
Fatalities
Scenario
Baseline
(No Warnings)
Current
(Pd = 0.58)
Current+LMS
(Pd = 0.58)
Current+LMS
(Pd = 0.8)
Fractional
Threat
Reduction
(FT)
–
Missed
Tornadoes
Detected
Tornadoes
Total
26
36
62
0.50
26
18
44
0.46
26
17
43
0.46
12
23
35
Injuries
Fractional
Threat
Reduction
(FT)
Missed
Tornadoes
Detected
Tornadoes
Total
–
520
718
1238
Current
(Pd = 0.58)
0.67
520
480
1000
Current+LMS
(Pd = 0.58)
0.63
520
451
971
Current+LMS
(Pd = 0.8)
0.63
248
622
870
Warning
Scenario
Baseline
MIT Lincoln Laboratory
PAR Study-13
JSH 3/28/2005