PAR Study-1 JSH 3/28/2005 MIT Lincoln Laboratory MPAR Cost-Benefit Discussion Mark Weber Jeff Herd 14 December 2009

MIT Lincoln Laboratory PAR Study-2 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-3 JSH 3/28/2005 Active Phased Array Radar Recurring Cost Distribution 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 Typical Radar Cost Breakout* Active ESA Signal, Data Processor Receiver/Exciter Radar + Proc Active ESA * Loomis, J.M.; ‘Army Radar Requirements for the 21st Century’, 2007 IEEE Radar Conference, April 2007 Page(s):1 - 6

MIT Lincoln Laboratory PAR Study-4 JSH 3/28/2005 MPAR Risk Reduction Panel T/R Modules Aperture Board DC Power + Control Heat Exchanger 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 m 2

MIT Lincoln Laboratory PAR Study-5 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-6 JSH 3/28/2005 MPAR Aperture Board Cost 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 m 2 ) –Close to target cost of ~ $50k per m 2 16” Highest PC Board Estimate Lowest PC Board Estimate

MIT Lincoln Laboratory PAR Study-7 JSH 3/28/2005 Cost Rollups “Terminal” MPAR (4 m diameter, ASR equivalent) –Low: (50 m 2 x $41 K/m 2 ) ÷ 0.6 = $ 3.4 M –High: (50 m 2 x $88 K/m 2 ) ÷ 0.6 = $ 7.3 M Full Scale MPAR (8 m diameter, NEXRAD, TDWR, ARSR equivalent) –Low: (201 m 2 x $41 K/m 2 ) ÷ 0.6 = $ 13.7 M –High: (201 m 2 x $88 K/m 2 ) ÷ 0.6 = $ 29.5 M TDWR Replacement Costs (per Ted Weyrauch, AJT 1210) –Equipment: $7.0 M per site –Installation: $0.5 M per site –Activation/Commissioning$0.5 M per site –Academy Course Development$3.0 M total –Aeronautic Center Facility$100 M total –Logistics Center Stock (25% of equip.) $1.75 M per site –Log. Ctr. test equip./support contracts $80 M total –Program Office Support $40 M total –P 3 I $173 M total Roughly 50% of TDWR replacement costs are non-recurring

MIT Lincoln Laboratory PAR Study-8 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-9 JSH 3/28/2005 Life Cycle Cost Comparison (Presented to NAS Study Panel) 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 $ ($100k per m 2 ) –Must include assembly, testing, radar back-end, software, … 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 $ ($100k per m 2 ) –Must include assembly, testing, radar back-end, software, … Assumptions: –510 $5-10M ea –167 full-size $15M ea –167 terminal-area $5M ea –Legacy O&M = $0.5M per year –MPAR O&M = $0.3M per year $2.4B

MIT Lincoln Laboratory PAR Study-10 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-11 JSH 3/28/2005 Multifunction Phased Array Radar 11 Need methodology for ascribing monetary benefits to potential service improvements

MIT Lincoln Laboratory PAR Study-12 JSH 3/28/2005 Example: Model for Assessing Impact of Reduced Tornado Warning Lead Times

MIT Lincoln Laboratory PAR Study-13 JSH 3/28/2005 Tornado Impact Mitigation: (i) Reduced Lead Time, (ii)Reduced Lead Time plus Improved P D Fatalities Scenario Fractional Threat Reduction (FT) Missed Tornadoes Detected Tornadoes Total Baseline (No Warnings) – Current (Pd = 0.58) Current+LMS (Pd = 0.58) Current+LMS (Pd = 0.8) Injuries Warning Scenario Fractional Threat Reduction (FT) Missed Tornadoes Detected Tornadoes Total Baseline– Current (Pd = 0.58) Current+LMS (Pd = 0.58) Current+LMS (Pd = 0.8)