Technology Today 2006 Issue 3 - Raytheon

raytheon

Technology Today 2006 Issue 3 - Raytheon

Technology

Today

HIGHLIGHTING RAYTHEON’S TECHNOLOGY

2006 Issue 3

RAYTHEON ENTERPRISE

MODELING AND SIMULATION

A one architecture/modeling and simulation strategy


A Message From Dr. Taylor W. Lawrence

Have a question?

Ask Taylor

at: http://www.ray.com/rayeng/

Editors’ Supplement:

Correction: Technology Today,

2006 Issue 2, Eye on Technology,

Processing article, page 26 had an

incorrect title: “Aerothermal

Capability Enhancement Initiative.”

The correct title should have been

“MONARCH Processor Enables

Next-Generation Integrated

Sensors.”

Eye on Technology, EO/Lasers article,

page 24, had two additional

authors who were inadvertently

omitted: Kenneth Gyure and Satish

Krishnan.

Correction: Technology Today,

2006 Issue 2, U.S. Patents, page

36, did not include all patent

awardees for each patent. Patents

issued for March through May

2006 have been reprinted in this

issue on page 38.

2 2006 ISSUE 3 RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGY TODAY

Vice President of Engineering, Technology and Mission Assurance

Since joining Raytheon a few months ago, I have had the opportunity to visit many

of our sites and learn more about our core competencies in each business, and they

are many. The challenge we all face is to find opportunities to integrate all of our

core competencies together to become a true Mission Systems Integrator for our

customers.

This brings us to Enterprise Modeling and Simulation (EMS). Modeling and

Simulation certainly is one of our core competencies, but bringing it together

across the enterprise will demonstrate to our customers the enhanced operational

utility of our technologies, products and systems — from sensors to communications

to information systems to weapons.

As we look to the future, EMS serves to tie together all of our capabilities across the

enterprise so each business can showcase their individual products while integrating

them into the big “One Raytheon” picture. Being able to demonstrate enhanced

capabilities across various architectures and communications networks will show

our customers that we are the Mission Systems Integrator to meet their mission

requirements, and that’s really what it’s all about.

This issue of Technology Today digs deep into Enterprise Modeling and Simulation

to give you a bird’s eye view of this capability. Start with the overview on EMS, and

then read more about architecture, Ray DX and how EMS addresses the global war

on terror.

Also in this issue, you will read about the Mission Assurance Forum and the

Quality Excellence and Excellence in Operations awards held this past June in

Washington, D.C. These awards reflect employee achievements that give us the confidence

to promote Raytheon’s NoDoubt approach to Mission Assurance. Be sure

to read the Customer Focused Marketing profile about one of our winning teams.

You’ve heard it before, people are the foundation of our technology, but did you

know that you also serve as the foundation for our industry’s future? As employees,

you have a unique opportunity to influence the engineers of tomorrow. Read about

MathMovesU, the push for Back to School and how VolunteerMatch will put you in

touch with math and science organizations and other worthwhile causes for which

you can volunteer. It’s a great cause, and I urge you to get involved.

Until next time…

.

Dr. Taylor W. Lawrence


Technology Today is published

quarterly by the Office of Engineering,

Technology and Mission Assurance

Vice President

Dr. Taylor W. Lawrence

Managing Editors

Mardi Balgochian

Lee Ann Sousa

Editorial Assistant

John Cacciatore

Art Director

Debra Graham

Photography

Don Bernstein

Alain Ekmalian

Mike McGravey

Dan Plumpton

Charles Riniker

Expert Reviewer

Kevin Marler

Publication Coordinator

Carol Danner

Contributors

Enoch Arya

Kathryn Borrud

David Breuer

Steve Clark

Aaron Clouse

Hank Embleton

Madelin Santana

Jason Shelton

Tom Shields

Jared Stallings

Sharon Stein

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

Enterprise Modeling and Simulation Feature

Raytheon’s Virtual Backbone for System Engineering

and Architecture 4

One Architecture/EMS Strategy 5

Engineering Perspective 5

Raytheon Distributed Experiments (Ray DX s) 8

System Effectiveness Testbed for Global War on Terror 12

EMS Distributed Collaboration Infrastructure 14

A Control Architecture for Simulation Exercises (ExCon © ) 16

An Architecture for Supportability Modeling

and Simulation Infrastructure 18

Eye on Technology

Architecture and Systems Integration 20

EO/Lasers 22

RF Systems 23

Materials and Structures 25

Technology Insight, Dr. Peter Pao: Disruptive Technologies 26

Technology Integration Week 27

Mission Assurance Forum 28

Excellence in Operations and Quality Excellence Awards 29

INCOSE Symposium 30

Farnborough Air Show 31

SEtdp Graduation and Team Projects 32

New Technical Area Directors Announced 34

CFM Profile: Supplier Rating System Team 35

IPDS V3.1 36

MathMovesU 37

Patent Recognition 38

Future Events 40

EDITORS’ NOTE

Many of us have played simulation games like Sim City ® , Roller Coaster Tycoon ® , etc.;

and don’t we just love our portable devices like laptops, PDAs and MP3 players? Well

what if modeling and simulation technology were taken to a whole new level of complexity

— and made portable, too? What if that technology was standardized so it

could be used to help design any type of system — simple to complex — and then was

made portable so you could run that simulation anytime, anywhere, on any platform for

any system? What you’d have is Raytheon’s Enterprise Modeling and Simulation (EMS).

In this issue you’ll learn just how Raytheon is working to standardize its modeling and

simulation capabilities so they can be utilized to help design, develop, test and maintain

any system that Raytheon builds for its customers. Specifically, you’ll see Raytheon’s

unique approach to virtual realization that draws upon EMS, throughout the program

life cycle, to reduce risk and guarantee mission assurance for C3ISR and weapon system

integrated product development.

As always, we hope you enjoy this issue, whether in hardcopy or online at

http://wwwxt.raytheon.com/technology_today/current/index.html. If you have

any comments or suggestions for articles you’d like to see in the future, drop us a line at

techtodayeditor@raytheon.com. Enjoy!

Mardi Balgochian Lee Ann Sousa

RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGY TODAY 2006 ISSUE 3 3


Feature

Enterprise Modeling and Simulation (EMS):

Raytheon’s Virtual Backbone for System Engineering and Architecture

Guaranteeing Mission Assurance

through Desktop access to highspeed

computing and seamless networking

portends an era of virtual engineering

insight that will provide unprecedented

reduction in the cost and risk of

development. The Raytheon Engineering

Architecture Process (REAP) asserts modeling

and simulation (M&S) to be a key element

of object-oriented system engineering.

It has become evident that analysis of

alternative trades and virtual prototyping

preceding development are critical to

Mission Assurance. Recognizing this, the

Raytheon Leadership Team (LT) directed

Enterprise Modeling and Simulation (EMS)

to proceed in December 2003.

The LT’s primary EMS directive was to

counter the perception that extensive

investment in centralized IMAX ® -quality

visualization facilities was critical to Joint

Battlespace and Mission/System Integration.

Recognizing that the data used in several of

these facilities was provided by Raytheon,

their specific directive was to integrate

Raytheon M&S with intent to achieve

innovation rather than “infotainment.”

EMS has achieved this through developing

an open standards integration framework

that enables distributed execution and visualization

of Raytheon M&S from any desktop

computer with access to the Raytheon

intranet, ORION (see figure).

During 2006 and 2007, EMS reuse across

Raytheon’s defense related businesses, is

estimated to save at least $55M of investment

in M&S and demonstration. Customer

buy-in has been demonstrated across multiple

programs. In fact, EMS was listed

among the three M&S successes found by

the Department of Defense Modeling,

Simulation and Gaming Senior Advisory

Group in their detailed survey of 20 OSD,

military and industry M&S approaches.

4 2006 ISSUE 3 RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGY TODAY

Hierarchy of Simulations

Theater/Battle

Force/Mission

Platform

System

Engineering/Physics

This edition of Technology Today highlights

EMS with this and six additional articles:

1. Raytheon One Architecture/EMS Strategy

2. Raytheon Distributed Experiments

(RayDXs): Applications to Persistent Surface

and Missile Defense

3. A System Effectiveness Test Bed for

Global War on Terror: An EMS RayDX Application

4. EMS Distributed Collaboration

Infrastructure

5. EMS Exercise Control (ExCon): A Control

Architecture for Simulation Exercises

6. An Architecture for Supportability

Modeling and Simulation Infrastructure:

An EMS RayDX Application

EMS Integration of Lower Level

Models & Simulations Enables

Higher Level Evaluations

High Fidelity Simulations

Developed by Individual

Programs and Businesses

EMS completes the hierarchy of simulations required for Raytheon recognition and success as

a Mission System Integrator.

During 2006 and 2007,

EMS reuse across Raytheon’s

defense related businesses,

is estimated to save at

least $55M of investment in

M&S and demonstration.

Summary

EMS has leveraged lessons learned from

enterprise-level distributed simulation initiatives

beginning in 1998 with the Integrated

System Test Bed (ISTB). ISTB found that the

challenges to networking and legacy M&S

architectures posed by high-throughput,

distributed, desktop-accessible, reusable,

composible simulation were formidable.

From 2000 to 2003 the Raytheon

Integrated Synthetic Environment initiative

provided extensive cross-corporate M&S

insight, collaboration and groundbreaking

architectural studies in standards and networking

methodologies.

Kenneth L. Moore

klmoore@raytheon.com


Raytheon’s

One

Architecture/

EMS Strategy

Mission Systems Integration (MSI)

and Mission Assurance are key

components of Raytheon’s growth

strategy. Previous editions of Technology

Today have addressed Raytheon systems

and software technology in support of

Mission Systems Integration 1 . Highlighted

in that issue was the following statement

from Peter Pao 2 , Raytheon’s vice president

of Technology:

“The key to MSI business is systems engineering

capability, especially architecture

and modeling and simulation (M&S). To

this end, I am pleased to announce a fourcolumn

MSI Initiative which focuses on

architecture and modeling and simulation.”

A later edition of Technology Today

focused on, “Achieving Mission Assurance

Through Integrated Systems and Software

Development.” This issue highlighted the

need for world-class architecture development,

modeling and simulation, and

systems engineering in the pursuit of

NoDoubt Mission Assurance 3 .

For this reason, Raytheon has undertaken

an extraordinarily successful effort to integrate

its world-class M&S capabilities under

the banner of Enterprise Modeling and

Simulation (EMS). As shown in Figure 1,

EMS provides foundational support for:

Mission Systems Integration

Mission Assurance

Reference Enterprise Architecture Process

Systems Engineering

Continued on page 6

Growth

MSI MA

REAP

SE

Enterprise

Modeling & Simulation

Figure 1. EMS is a key enabler for

Raytheon’s growth strategy.

Engineering Perspective

EMS: Leading the revolution in virtual

realization

Since the dawn of human reasoning, abstraction has

been used to model fact. The refinement of geometric

modeling accomplished by the Pythagoreans in Sicily,

circa 300 B.C., provided a detailed explanation of nature

and a precise foundation for classical art, architecture

and masonry. A traceable evolution of abstract modeling

parallels the history of physics and engineering.

With the advent of high-speed computing, abstract

modeling evolved into simulation at ever-increasing levels

of fidelity. Finally, the Internet has caused a revolution

in virtual realization — so much so that modeling

and simulation (M&S) has become a cornerstone of integrated

product development and object-oriented system

engineering.

Kenneth L. Moore, Ph.D.

Director, Enterprise

Modeling and Simulation

Dramatic reduction in cost and risk can be realized by maintaining an M&S baseline

throughout a program’s life. Concept exploration, initiated with process modeling, culminates

with a virtual prototype used for design and development of the actual prototype.

Ultimately, the virtual prototype becomes a system model used for test and evaluation and

is, oftentimes, validated as a requirement for system sell-off. Unfortunately, the system

model can be lost when the program is retired or cancelled due to software complexity and

difficulty of use. Raytheon Enterprise Modeling and Simulation (EMS) is developing the

architecture and open standards to retain and reuse our M&S heritage, assure enterprisewide

desktop access for analysis and demonstration and, ultimately, lead the revolution in

virtual realization.

Raytheon’s ID or fingerprint is represented by M&S. In the natural course of engineering

rigor, Raytheon develops and maintains high fidelity validated C3ISR and weapon system

M&S. In fact, Raytheon regularly contributes high fidelity M&S to prime contractors’ IMAX

quality visualization facilities. However, EMS is taking a different approach to large-scale

mission-level virtual realization. Rather than focus on infotainment, EMS focuses on innovation:

solutions derived from exhaustive assessment of alternatives, high-quality 3-D visualization

of joint battlespace interoperability, mission/systems integration and acquisition confidence.

Exercise Controller (ExCon), a control architecture that was developed for the NASA Space

Station Training Facility, was extended to provide EMS with a framework for simulation

integration and operation. The framework accommodates any middleware architecture and

ensures essential data sharing, spatial/temporal synchronization, and faster-than-real-time

advancement and pause for metric data collection and analysis. Extensive M&S reuse is

realized because minimal recode and minimum adherence to legacy development standards

are required for simulation integration.

This issue features articles associated with the intent, infrastructure, application and operation

of EMS. We are also pleased to introduce a few of the people behind EMS by profiling

some of the engineers who have made key contributions.

We hope you enjoy the material and encourage all engineers, as well as capture, campaign

and program leaders who seek more information and access to the diverse features of

EMS, to visit the website at http://home.ray.com/ems.

RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGY TODAY 2006 ISSUE 3 5


Feature

Continued from page 5

Reference Architectures, complimented

with flexible and responsive M&S

capabilities, are critical components to the

Raytheon Enterprise Architecture Process

(REAP). REAP was created to address both

the needs of our customer and of Raytheon

as a Mission System Integrator. The primary

industry and government standards unified

within REAP include the Department of

Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF),

the Open Group Architecture Framework

(TOGAF), the Zachman Framework for

Enterprise Architecture, the Federal

Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF),

and the Software Engineering Institute’s

Architecture Tradeoff Analysis

Method (ATAM ® ).

REAP is a systems architecting process

extended with concepts and techniques to

support enterprise architecting. Enterprise

architecting is the interrelation and integration

of business architectures and technical

architectures. The business architecture

models the enterprise’s mission, needs,

strategies, goals, business rules, business

processes, information flows and supporting

organizational structure. The Technical

Architecture models the technically focused

architectural aspects of the system (e.g.

data, applications, enabling technologies).

Clearly, EMS is an integral need for both the

business and technical architecture 4 .

In addition, EMS is supporting commercial

efforts to develop model-driven architectures

(MDA) using Unified Modeling

Language (UML) and System Modeling

Language (SysML) through process/workflow

modeling and logical model

development support 5,6 .

Systems Engineering, System Architecture

Development, and Modeling and

Simulation are tightly intertwined, as illustrated

in Figure 2. The development of

“executable models” is a key enabler for

system design and implementation success

using the iterative process depicted in the

figure. EMS supports major contributions to:

Operational, process and workflow

modeling

Logical architecture modeling

Physical modeling

System prototyping

6 2006 ISSUE 3 RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGY TODAY

Raytheon

Enterprise

Architecture

Process (REAP)

Capabilities

Database

Integration

and Test

System

Build

Platform-

Specific

Model (PSM)

DODAF

Operational

View

Operational View

(Use Cases, Threads)

System

Prototype, MS&A,

Trades, CAIV

Physical

(Components, Integration

Platform)

DODAF

Technical

View

In fact, as the acquisition process progresses,

the system prototype evolves from high

level M&S system model abstractions to an

operationally representative prototype that

includes hardware and human in-the-loop

capabilities that significantly reduce program

risk. An additional benefit is that

components of the design prototype can

be reused as part of an operational engineering

testbed. The engineering testbed

becomes a key operational component for:

Operational performance/capacity analysis

Operational planning and scheduling

Support for operational anomaly resolution

Realistic hands-on operator training

New HW/SW verification and validation

Proof of concept technology insertion

Since this operational engineering testbed

is an evolutionary extension of the system

prototype, significant cost savings, schedule

compression and risk reduction benefits are

realized through the extensive reuse of verified,

validated and accredited components (VV&A).

EMS Process

EMS is not simply an integration of

Raytheon’s world-class M&S components.

More importantly, EMS encompasses a

process that ensures responsive, low-cost

solutions. This process is shown in Figure 3.

Platform-Independent

Model (PIM)

Objective Architecture

Logical View

(Class/Sequence/

Diagrams, SOA)

DODAF

System

View

One Architecture/EMS Strategy

Enterprise Modeling

and Simulation (EMS)

Operational, Process and

Workflow Modeling

Logical Architecture Modeling

Physical Modeling

Figure 2. EMS is an integral component of the systems engineering/architecture process.

The left-hand side of Figure 3 shows the

Systems of Elements TM where Raytheon possesses

full spectrum high-fidelity M&S components.

The gray box encompasses the

process for integrating and deploying those

capabilities in a responsive cost-efficient

fashion to solve customer problems.

The implementation of these broad-based

legacy and contemporary M&S capabilities

requires a simulation architecture that facilitates

the interoperability between legacy

infrastructures using distributed interactive

simulation and high-level architecture backbones

with commercial solutions, such as

Java TM messaging services and other web

service implementations, such as serviceoriented

architectures and high transaction

rate protocols. EMS has demonstrated this

full-scale integration capability through the

deployment of a number of modeling and

simulation experiments, referred to as

Raytheon Distributed Experiments (Ray DX ).

With a variety of components, or federates

composing a simulation or a simulation

federation, Simulation Control is a critical

component to successful execution. The

ability to add or delete components or federates

on the fly, display simulation status,

provide time management, and control

data acquisition with a single control con-


Sensors and their

platforms

C 2 data

processing

Communications

BMC 3 planning

and control

Weapons and

their platforms

EMS

Simulation

architecture

• Companywide

standard

interface

Uses tactical

message

formats

Operates over

ORION

Figure 3. Comprehensive EMS deployment process

sole is vital to successful M&S experimentation.

Effective Simulation Control is also

necessary when distributed simulations are

executed from multiple geographically separated

sites. A single seat simulation control

integrates multiple simulations into an

effective end-to-end simulation, analysis

and visualization capability that allows

experiments to be run from any Raytheon

site with access to ORION or over the

Internet via virtual private networks.

To be effective, a simulation must provide

problem understanding and decision quality

information to end users. To this end, EMS

has developed a design of experiments

approach that clearly codifies and documents

scenarios, available system resources

and relevant MOE/MOP/KPPs for each

experiment. The resulting experiments provide

decision quality information that allows

key leadership personnel to make architectural

and system decisions based on data,

facts and figures. In addition, extensive

visualization displays are generated to facilitate

an increased understanding of the executed

experiments. The visualizations are

critical to enhancing communications and

understanding between decision makers,

designers and end users.

Visualization

Simulation

control

Design

of

experiments

Simulation

repository

Single and multiple

display operation

Remote viewing

anywhere in Raytheon

using ORION

External viewing at

customer site

Single person

semi-automatic control

Supportive live

demonstrations

Facilities integration

and test

Scenario

Tailorable ConOps

Flexible architecture

compositions

MOE/MOP/KPP

Change Control Board

Architecture process

Standards

Reusable simulations

and data

EMS maintains a simulation repository that

archives existing models, scenarios, experiments,

measures of effectiveness/performance

(MOE/Ps), and key performance

parameters. This repository facilitates reuse

and leads to shorter development times

with lower costs.

EMS Value Proposition

Raytheon’s future growth lies with developing

NoDoubt solutions and implementations

to customer challenges. Raytheon is migrating

from being a system provider (radars,

missiles, EW, radios) to a system-of-systems

provider. This requires a companywide synergistic

approach with Mission Systems

Integration (MSI) and Mission Assurance

strategy leading the way.

Successful MSI and Mission Assurance are

built upon the successful deployment of

proven system architectures and time-tested

systems engineering methodologies.

Underpinning this successful deployment is

a comprehensive approach to M&S. An evolutionary

development of system M&S

across the system-of-systems life cycle

ensures the following benefits.

Enhanced Communication/

Understanding – The development of system

models enforces collaboration among

end users, acquisition professionals and system

designer/developers. While architectural

artifacts (DoDAF or otherwise) provide documentation

and a communication vehicle,

executable models exercise these artifacts

and drive model verification, validation and

accreditation. Invariably, models and their

execution lead to new questions addressing

system requirements and deployments.

Executable models provide visualizations

and data to support concepts of operations,

requirements validation, data content and

flow (routing/distribution) identification,

and interface requirements. All of these are

critical to facilitating the understanding

achieved across all communities of interest.

Risk Reduction – Early and comprehensive

VV&A of executable models is key to

achieving overall system success. A VV&A

integrated product team consisting of all

discipline functionalities and representing all

communities of interest is vital to ensuring

that executable models address appropriate

concerns and appropriately represent the

desired system. Early executable models are

extended and enhanced with additional

functionalities and details. Continuous VV&A

leads to results that are dependable and

accurately represent system performance.

Continuous executable model enhancement

combined with continuous VV&A reduces

risk throughout the life-cycle development.

Cost/Schedule Savings – The reuse of

executable models that have undergone

continuous VV&A leads to high-fidelity system

prototypes. Operationally representative

system prototypes reduce cost and support

schedule compression with reduced test and

evaluation efforts, rapid training development,

faster HW/SW validation and accelerated

operational testbed deployment.

Daniel Gleason

dgleason@raytheon.com

1 Technology Today, Volume 3, Issue 2.

2 Leadership Perspective, Technology Today,

Volume 3, Issue 2, pg. 24.

3 Technology Today, 2006, Issue 1.

4 Raytheon Enterprise Architecture Process,

Revision F, Document No. 416-15683, May 2005.

5 “Mission Assurance and the UML Profile for

DoDAF/MoDAF (UPDM),” Technology Today,

2006, Issue 1, pgs. 18-19.

6 “System Modeling Languages (SysML) and

Mission Assurance,” Technology Today, 2006,

Issue 1, pgs. 6-7.

RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGY TODAY 2006 ISSUE 3 7


Feature

Raytheon Distributed Experiments (Ray DX s):

Applications to Persistent Surveillance and Missile Defense

Enterprise Modeling and Simulation

(EMS) is a desktop-accessible distributed

analysis, architecture, and engineering

modeling and simulation (M&S)

capability that can be tailored for application

to the broad spectrum of Raytheon programs

and business pursuits.

EMS applications currently span all business

segments and facilitate the collaboration of

Raytheon centers of analysis, architecture

and design excellence. Extensive reuse of

high-fidelity M&S capabilities is being realized

through this collaboration. The EMS

“One Architecture/M&S Approach” is based

on the Raytheon Enterprise Architecture

Process (REAP) — which is aligned with the

DoD Architecture Framework (DoDAF) — to

support risk reduction, Mission Assurance

and mission solutions integration by producing

virtual prototypes. In order to provide

empirical rationale for distributed M&S

architecture development and open standards

selection, EMS conducts Raytheon

Distributed Experiments (Ray DX s). Thus, the

design and implementation of enterprisewide

accessible, high-fidelity, faster-thanreal-time,

Monte Carlo-capable distributed

M&S is being experimentally validated.

Raytheon Distributed Experiments (RayDXs) The EMS RayDXs are integrated sets of M&S

complete with infrastructure relevant to a

particular scenario. M&S of the constituent

elements of the scenario are combined to

virtually render the battlespace. The M&S

can be of varying fidelity as prescribed by

the REAP/Object Oriented System

Engineering modeling levels: Operational,

Architectural and Physical. The RayDX components

communicate via Distributed

Interactive Simulation (DIS) bridges, High

Level Architecture (HLA) protocols and

Service Oriented Architecture (SOA)

Java/XML messaging. They are federated for

synchronous operation (start-up, timed execution,

pause, etc.) with the Exercise

Controller (ExCon).

8 2006 ISSUE 3 RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGY TODAY

Figure 1. The Ray DX s are distributed over M&S centers of excellence, located at several

Raytheon sites.

ExCon standardizes interfaces among disparate

simulations using software “wrappers.”

The components of a RayDX are those

required to analyze predetermined metric

data developed by varying a finite set of

parameters. Thus, three RayDXs have

emerged to support the spectrum of mission

solutions required for Raytheon’s

addressable market:

1. C3ISR RayDX (CX): High-fidelity models

of ISR sensors (space-based radars,

Global Hawks, Predators, other air

platforms, as well as undersea networked

sensors) tracking in dense traffic conditions,

operated under network-centric

C3 affected through DCGS, OPNET validated

Communication Effects Module

(CEM) respecting Tactical Data Link

message formats.

2. Networked Fires RayDX (FX): Exercises

all elements of the kill chain, from sensor

detection through target identification and

tracking to attack and effectiveness assessment.

Through the use of the same technology

used in network-centric warfare, FX

links together entity generator simulations

for air, sea and ground-based platforms

and targets with real-world, deployed,

C2 systems such as AFATDS with munition

flyouts from the Raytheon Integrated

Missile Server (RIMS), or in some cases

actual program 6-DoFs. FX allows for

either automatic network-centric engagements

or man (warfighter)-in-loop exercises.

The most recent application of FX

was in support of the Joint Undersea

Superiority program, a multi-business unit

capture pursuit involving a new suite of

underwater sensors (IDS) with stand-off

anti-submarine weapons (RMS).

3. Missile Defense RayDX (MX):

Demonstrates, visualizes and analyzes

basic missile defense scenarios in a classified

environment using constructive simulations

and hardware/software in the

loop assets. These assets include the

Space Tracking and Surveillance System

(STSS) simulation, the Forward Based X-

Band Transportable Radar digital processor

in the loop (DIGISIM), and the

Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle Launch to

Impact Simulation (LISIM).


Over 44 models and simulations from each

of Raytheon’s defense-related business units

have been federated independently within

CX, FX and MX (Figure 1). Key customerrecognized

simulators are:

IDS: TPS-X, FBX-T, TDF

IIS: ISR Warrior, DCGS, EADTB/AMSE,

EQUINOX

NCS: Communications Effects Module,

Tactical Messaging System, Air Warfare

Simulation, SImulator STIMulator/

LiveLink-HLA, Sensor Terrain Analysis Tool

(STAT), AFADS, Command View, MSCT

RMS: Launch to Impact Sim for EKV

RTSC: Exercise Control (ExCon)

SAS: Multiple Hypothesis Tracker, Global

Hawk SAR/EO/IR/GMTI, Space Based

Radar SAR/GMTI, STSS

Government/Commercial: One SAF,

Performer, Vega

Once integrated and tested as a geographically

distributed simulation, the software

applications associated with a Ray DX are

consolidated and deployed in a rackmounted

computing system called Rackmounted

EMS, or RMEMS (Figure 2).

This rack-mounted system can be used in a

classified or unclassified environment to

comply with requirements. It can also be

deployed in the field in conjunction with a

training exercise. A single operator can

operate the simulations configured on the

system. Several of these RMEMS systems

can also be networked together. See the

“Enterprise Modeling & Simulation

Distributed Collaboration Infrastructure”

article for more information about how two

or more of these systems can be networked

to provide an even greater and more flexible

simulation solution.

EMS infrastructure capabilities used to

enable Ray DX integration and operations are:

EMS collaboration environment

ExCon integration framework

Rack-mounted EMS (RMEMS)

EMS grid network within Global ORION

Middleware integration capability

Data analysis and instrumentation

Executive and operational visualization

Ray DX s are being used to provide and

demonstrate solutions for a variety of

Figure 2. A rack-mounted EMS

computing system.

strategic mission/system integration pursuits

and enterprise campaigns:

Persistent Surveillance (GMTI, Subsurface

Maritime)

Missile Defense (Concurrent Test and

Evaluation)

Joint Undersea Superiority (ASW-Stand

Off Weapon)

Loitering Tomahawk (C3I ConOps)

Horizontally Integration (Closed-Loop

Resource Management/Tracking)

GWOT (Persistent Surveillance, Insurgent ID)

This article surveys two mission areas:

Persistent Surveillance and Missile Defense.

CX and FX are applied to assess alternative

concepts for Ground and Subsurface

Maritime Persistent Surveillance. MX is

applied in support of the Ballistic Missile

Defense Initial Operational Concept

Concurrent Test and Evaluation. The latter

application is an example of EMS benefiting

a program significantly later in its life cycle

than concept development. An application

of MX to boost phase and midcourse

detection, tracking and discrimination is

also discussed.

Persistent Surveillance

Intelligence, Surveillance and

Reconnaissance (ISR) is an activity that synchronizes

and integrates the planning and

operation of sensors, assets, and processing,

exploitation, and dissemination systems

in direct support of current and future

operations1 . Briefly, Reconnaissance detects

targets; Surveillance keeps track of targets;

and Intelligence is the process of determining

the intent of these targets.

Persistent surveillance describes a capability

of maintaining knowledge of a target to

support a particular purpose — from warning,

through deterrence to the extreme case

of destruction. Persistent surveillance

includes surface, maritime and undersea

domain awareness provided by sensors

extending space-based, airborne and undersea.

The definition of persistence (particularly

the rate at which an update to the target

needs to be made) depends ultimately

on usage. For instance, a warning about

when a ship leaves port may be accomplished

with an update rate measured in

hours or days, whereas a decision to attack

a moving target may require an update rate

measured in seconds.

The EMS Persistent Surface Surveillance

experiment investigates techniques to provide

persistent surveillance simultaneously

for both ground and maritime targets by

managing the operation of a constellation

of assets including space, airborne, surface

and sub-surface sensors.

The ground scenario simulates four columns

of military vehicles transiting from their

bases (California interior) to marshalling

areas in four ports on the coast. From there

these convoys will load onto amphibious

vehicles to sail across Santa Monica Bay to

invade the nearby island of San Clemente.

Persistent Surface Surveillance will initially

provide indications and warning of unusual

activity at the military bases and the

debarkation ports — that is, evidence of

convoy activity at more than one base coupled

with preparatory activity at one or

more ports. When these conditions are met,

more frequent surveillance will be initiated

to track the convoys. The type of surveillance

will change from initially focusing on

a comparison of images of the bases and

ports looking for changes indicating suspicious

activity to subsequently focusing on

tracking the now-moving targets.

The ISR process involves performing many

steps. The process starts with a setting of

priorities ranking the importance of intelligence

activities, called prioritized intelligence

requests (PIRs). These PIRs are input

to the ISR sensor planning activity, where

sensors are matched to requests in an effort

to optimize the amount and quality of all

intelligence collected by the limited set of

Continued on page 10

RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGY TODAY 2006 ISSUE 3 9


Feature

Continued from page 9

ISR assets that are available. In general,

there are never enough sensors to satisfy all

of the PIRs. Traditionally, collection plans for

separate sensors are developed independently.

However EMS is supporting the

Horizontal Integration Enterprise Campaign

in the development of algorithms for collaborating

across sensors to develop a more

optimized collection plan.

The individual sensor schedules are sent to

each collection asset for action. In the EMS

scenario, a number of diverse sensor assets

are available for consideration in the analysis,

including EO/IR satellites, Global Hawk,

Predator, JSTARS and conceptual assets like

Space Based Radar and E-10A.

Intelligence is collected and “fused” into a

common operational picture (COP). The

COP includes imagery with targets identified

by automatic target recognition, as

well as tracks of moving targets.

The COP is analyzed manually by an operator-in-the-loop,

or semi-automatically by

Stanley Allen

Principal Software

Engineer, RTSC

Stanley Allen has

supported Raytheon’s

Enterprise Modeling

and Simulation (EMS)

program since 2003.

During these three years, he has been

afforded tremendous opportunities for

professional growth. For example, he led

the technical team for the ExCon and

RHIND (Run-Time HLA Interactive Network

Display) tools that discovered innovative

solutions to the control and monitoring

of large-scale simulations composed of

disparate elements.

In a program like EMS, Stanley sees cooperation

as the key to success, no matter what

the size of the organization. As such, he

encourages everyone to share their solutions

whenever possible.

10 2006 ISSUE 3 RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGY TODAY

experimental algorithms under development.

One of the outputs of this analysis is revised

priorities for the PIRs, reflecting, for example,

changes in strategy as a result of the warnings

generated by the convoy activity.

These priorities are re-input to the sensor

planning activity … and the process continues.

The purpose of the EMS experiment is

to measure the effectiveness of various sets

of sensors and their planning policies in

providing persistent surveillance.

As the amphibious vehicles depart the coast

for the island, it becomes imperative to

determine the intentions of the approaching

force, whether they be hostile or otherwise

(conducting a training exercise, for

example). A key piece of information is

subsurface surveillance.

In our experiment, contributing to maritime

persistent surveillance are notional sonar

models provided by a modified version of

High Level Architecture (HLA)-compliant

Fleet Command Naval Warfare Simulation

(developed by Sonalysts, Inc., and modified

Prior to EMS, Stanley spent 12 years working

on the software infrastructure for the

International Space Station Training Facility

(SSTF). In his work with the International

SSTF, Stanley had the opportunity to teach

Russian software engineers about the SSTF

architecture, integrate their code into the

trainer, and travel to Moscow to deploy the

SSTF software and hardware infrastructure

and its development tools.

Stanley’s work on the International SSTF

gave him valuable experience integrating a

variety of elements (simulation software and

tools from many U.S. companies and

numerous international partners) under a

central architecture. Integration has proven

to be crucial to the success of EMS as well.

***

Raytheon Distributed Experiments

by Raytheon). These sensor models provide

detection information to modified tracking

models used in ground surveillance described

above. In the scenario, these sonar models

show a mainland submarine underway.

The presence of the submarine indicates a

more provocative activity than a mere training

exercise. Should the submarine alter

course toward the island, the task force

commander, incorporating what is known

from the other ISR assets of the convoys

and military buildup, can take the appropriate

course of action.

Several measures of effectiveness have been

instrumented for run-time data collection to

support analysis and solution development:

Persistent Surveillance (geographic/temporal)

– Detection time

– Identification time

– Number of TCT tracked

– Track lock time

Sensor/Platform Performance

– Air/space/ground/subsurface

– SAR

– EO/IR

PROFILES: Meet some of the engineers who contribute to EMS

Enoch Arya

Program

Controller, SAS

Enoch Arya draws

on both his attention

to detail and

his penchant for

the big picture. His

ability to look at

projects from all

perspectives helps

him ensure that

EMS continues to deliver industry-leading

solutions.

Another of his strengths is his passion for

improving collaboration and managing

knowledge. “The team has done much to

bring the various expertise together to

achieve our current capability,” he said.

“However, we have a ways to go to achieve

true One Company status.”

Enoch has been involved with Raytheon’s

Enterprise Modeling and Simulation initiative

since January 2004. “As someone who


– A/GMTI

Communications

– Link availability

– Data latency

– Data integrity

– Tadil-J/Link 16 message throughput

Command, Control, Battle Management

and Communications (C2BMC)

– Decision timing

– Informational throughput

Missile Defense

The mission of the Missile Defense Agency

(MDA) is to develop an integrated, layered

ballistic missile defense system to defend

the United States, its deployed forces, allies

and friends from ballistic missiles of all

ranges and in all phases of flight. MDA is

now working to expand the breadth and

depth of this initial capability by adding and

networking forward-deployed sensors and

interceptors at sea and on land.

MDA objectives include:

1. Complete development, initial fielding

and verification of the initial capability

is relatively new to the modeling and simulation

arena, the knowledge I have gathered

from the experts has been priceless.”

Enoch has been with Raytheon for eight

years. Prior to joining the EMS team, his

contributions focused on designing ASICs,

FPGAs, modules and other hardware for

SAS Engineering.

Enoch has a degree in Electrical Engineering

from the University of California at San Diego.

Kathryn Borrud

Multi-Disciplined

Engineer, SAS

Kathryn Borrud

joined Raytheon in

2003 as a multi-disciplined

engineer,

soon after finishing

her bachelor’s degree

in computer engineering

at Cal Poly,

San Luis Obispo.

***

2. Execute an increasingly complex test program

3. Provide U.S. combatant commanders

with support and sustainment for the

ballistic missile defense system

4. Develop a totally integrated capability

during 2006 and beyond based on a

strong core research and spiral development

program 2

In support of these objectives, missile defense

organizations across Raytheon collaborated to

create the Missile Defense Ray DX (MX) capability.

It provides an initial capability to

demonstrate, visualize and analyze basic

missile defense scenarios in a classified environment

using constructive simulations and

hardware/software in-the-loop assets.

These assets include the Space Tracking and

Surveillance System (STSS) simulation, the

Forward Based X-Band Transportable Radar

digital processor in the loop (DIGISIM), and

the Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle Launch to

Impact Simulation (LISIM). The initial focus

of MX was concurrent test and evaluation

of the deploying ballistic missile defense

IOC through combining Pacific test range

Before Raytheon, Kathryn worked in the

digital design arena for a surgical robotics

company and served as a teaching assistant

for a networks class at Cal Poly. These jobs

gave her the multifaceted expertise she

needed to successfully support Raytheon’s

EMS (Enterprise Modeling and Simulation)

initiative. Her main role in EMS has been to

support tracking functions and the integration

of tracking components into the

overall EMS architecture. “We present our

simulations in a very dynamic, highly

maneuvarable, and visually appealing

way — like a video game.”

Kathryn also sees her work with modeling

and simulation as a way to get kids

interested in science, math and engineering.

As a devoted mentor for Raytheon’s

MathMovesU initiative, Kathryn motivates

kids by revealing connections between science

and the things they find exciting.

***

data with hardware and software-in-theloop

simulation to estimate and predict

system performance.

The next application of MX will be to the

Airborne Infrared System, a proposed augment

to theatre-level ballistic missile defense

that is currently in concept development with

intent on subsystem and component prototyping.

MX will provide a system-of-systems

simulation, within which can be embedded

virtual prototypes of ABIR sensor concepts

for exhaustive assessment of alternative

analyses of overall system performance and

mission effectiveness analysis.

Daniel Gleason

dgleason@raytheon.com

Robert Vitali

revitali@raytheon.com

Edward Degregorio

edward_a_degregorio@raytheon.com

Janice Zika

janice_zika@raytheon.com

1 Joint Publication 1-02, Department of Defense

Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms,

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf

2 A Day in the Life of the BMDS, BMDS Booklet,

Third Edition, page 4.

Hank Embleton

Principal Systems

Engineer, RMS

As the EMS Solutions

IPT lead, Hank Embleton

is focused on the distributed

simulation aspects

of EMS. He has been

leading these types of projects for RMS for

the past eight years.

Hank has gained a unique insight regarding

the broad technical capabilities Raytheon has

in the area of modeling and simulation. “I’m

very excited about the potential we have to

leverage these capabilities, providing a measure

of standardization across the company.”

Hank is also a staunch proponent of breaking

through the barriers that hinder interbusiness

cooperation. “We must overcome

the ‘not-invented-here’ syndrome. So much

time and money is wasted in recreating a

capability locally from scratch when a similar

capability usually already exists somewhere

in the company that can be modified

to meet a specific need.”

RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGY TODAY 2006 ISSUE 3 11


Feature

A System Effectiveness Testbed

for the Global War on Terror:

An EMS Ray DX Application

The global war on terror has opened

up a whole new world of military

challenges — challenges that require

fundamentally new solutions. In this new

world of asymmetrical warfare, the enemy

does not exhibit organized military behavior;

they can be anyone, anywhere. And the

weapons they use are often adapted from

common objects such as garage door openers

or cell phones. These everyday items,

combined with war surplus, or locally created

explosives, have given rise to deadly and

difficult to detect improvised explosive

devices (IEDs). A major challenge presented

by IEDs is how to detect them early on so

they can be safely disarmed or neutralized.

The war on terror therefore requires new

technical solutions and new ways of con-

Dan Gleason

Senior Principal

Systems Engineer,

IIS

A nine-year

Raytheon employee,

Dan Gleason has

been supporting the

Enterprise Modeling

and Simulation (EMS) program for the

past four years. He serves as the IIS

business liaison and supports symposium

demonstrations and customer-focused

C4ISR experiments.

According to Dan, a senior principal systems

engineer, EMS is a classic One Company

success story. Not only does EMS provide

a vehicle that facilitates collaboration

between Raytheon and its customers, but

it also advances the understanding of

systems-of-systems requirements, design

and integration internally.

12 2006 ISSUE 3 RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGY TODAY

The EMS network will be fully integrated into the Distributed Common Ground System.

ducting military operations. This evolved

form of war opens up new business opportunities

for Raytheon. The company-wide

Enterprise Modeling and Simulation (EMS)

“EMS has allowed me to interact with all

business segments and all levels of engineering,

business development and management,”

said Dan. “The junior engineering

talent in this company is extraordinary.

As engineering mentors, we need to give

them direction, resource support and feedback

and then get out of their way. The

results will invariably be impressive.”

***

Dr. Thomas Shields

Engineering

Director, NCS

Dr. Thomas E. Shields

is an engineering

director for modeling

and simulation engineering

in the NCS

North Texas engineering region. A 10-year

veteran of Raytheon, Tom is the program

engineer for the NCS Enterprise Net-Centric

Integration Capability (ENIC). He’s also chief

engineer on Raytheon’s EMS initiative.

effort introduces unique capabilities which

Raytheon can use to become the leader in

supplying qualitatively new tools that the

military needs to win the war on terror.

PROFILES: Meet some of the engineers who contribute to EMS

Tom earned his doctorate in applied mathematics

from Rice University in 1978, when

he was a first lieutenant in the U.S Army

Reserve. He spent his last four years of

active duty in what was then known as the

U.S. Army Computer Systems Command at

Fort Belvoir in Virginia.

He spent the next 24 years working in

advanced software systems technology R&D

with both commercial and defense companies.

That path eventually led him to modeling

and simulation engineering, which he

found an excellent fit with his early passion

for applied mathematics.

Tom is especially proud of the EMS team,

calling it the defining example of a

self-organizing collaborative distributed

engineering team.

***


Networked Sensing Devices Part of

the Solution

In this new environment, it is evident that all

types of sensors on all types of platforms

must be knitted together to provide an

instant flow of appropriate information to

the operational commanders and ground

troops. Radars, optical sensors and other

sensing devices on various types of ground,

airborne and space platforms have the ability

to provide detailed imagery, signal detection

and moving target locations over large areas.

With a multitude of platforms operating in a

combat area there exists a real possibility of

developing completely persistent observation

of critical locations and regions. Our military

is making great strides in this network-centric

warfare. But more is needed.

EMS Provides a Netting Framework

How does EMS help with this challenge?

EMS provides a framework for netting

together both simulations and real-time

sensor data, regardless of their physical

points of origin. The simulation software

can be of any level of fidelity, provided it

communicates using EMS standard proto-

Janice Zika

Senior Manager –

Systems Engineering,

SADID Staff, IDS

What Janice finds particularly

rewarding is providing

systems engineering

support to new business

initiatives. A Raytheon employee for 22

years, Janice has been participating in

new business pursuits within the Missile

Defense business area at the MDC in

Woburn, Mass., since 2003.

In that time, she has been involved with

the Missile Defense Enterprise Campaign,

Concurrent Test and Operations, Sensor

Netting, and the Missile Defense capability

(MX) within the EMS program.

Her work on efforts like EMS and the

Enterprise Campaigns has provided her

with access to people and capabilities

across the entire company. “All of these

opportunities allowed me to directly

impact results, while gaining valuable

technical experience and strategic insight.”

cols. Thus, very high fidelity sensor simulations,

or real sensor inputs, can be mixed in

with architecture-level simulations. EMS

even has a bridging capability so that it can

work in real time with the Department of

Defense’s high-level architecture (HLA) simulation

environment.

Operational control of all the simulations

and sensor inputs (both EMS and HLA) can

be exercised from any node in the internal

Raytheon network. This provides great flexibility

for system users.

EMS provides powerful tools for visualizing

what is currently taking place and what has

happened in the past; this is one of its principal

features. Through its modeling and

visualization capabilities, EMS allows planners

and engineers of all levels, from predevelopment

to combat operations, to ask

“What if” questions and see what might

happen. This is particularly useful for validating

concepts. It also can help expose

problems and deficiencies in time for them

to be corrected.

Visualization Tools Put Battlefields

in Perspective

The visualization tools are particularly interesting.

Full worldwide digital terrain elevation

data is available to provide the user

with three-dimensional representations of

the battlefield from any point of view. Highfidelity

urban models are being integrated

into EMS so that detailed simulations of

specific urban engagements will be possible.

These high-fidelity terrain and urban

models, when combined with fast data

exchanges, open up substantial new possibilities

for mission planning, rehearsal of

upcoming battles, and even tactical replanning

during actual combat. In the near

future, for example, we envision that troop

leaders will be able to call up a visualization

of the urban area in which they are operating.

This would enable the fighter to roam

about and see the precise relationships

among the various structures, enemy forces

and his own force distribution.

Particularly important in this visualization

are the sightlines between blue and red

forces. The visualization tools also allow

the troop leader and his team to look at the

world from the perspective of their enemy.

Specifically, they provide the viewpoints and

viewing limitations constraining potential

enemy snipers. Under this scenario, the

troop leader could get these answers almost

instantly.

Not to be forgotten, the latest sensor inputs

(from patrolling aircraft, for example) could

be part of this virtual world picture, too.

Thus, what is sensed and what is known

about enemy force deployments would

become instantly available to the soldier on

the ground. And EMS provides the framework

for tying all these elements together.

Persistent Surveillance Integration

Enterprise Campaign Demonstration

EMS is currently inserting these nascent

capabilities into the Persistent Surveillance

Integration Enterprise Campaign (PSIEC)

demonstration. This is a field demonstration

of airborne sensors which will provide persistent

observation of critical urban areas.

Its objective is to search for signatures of

incipient terrorist activity. EMS provides the

framework for remote control of the sensors;

for extracting the imagery and other

data from these sensors; and for displaying

the information using a unique and highly

innovative visualization technique.

The EMS network will be fully integrated

into the U.S. Army’s Distributed Common

Ground System (DCGS-A), which was developed

by Raytheon. This will significantly

enhance the utility of the DCGS that is currently

deployed in Iraq.

As part of the ongoing PSIEC development

effort, EMS provides component simulations

that temporarily replace the hardware

devices that later will be added to the system.

This use of EMS should significantly

reduce program risk.

Better Prepared for Future War on Terror

Missions

As Raytheon looks to the future, EMS will

increasingly provide the framework for system

engineering development. It will also

provide a robust networking capability for

operational systems, detailed mission planning

and combat rehearsal. We can even

anticipate that EMS will ultimately give the

combat soldier a major new tool to help

him in his fight against terrorists.

Chet Richards

crichards@raytheon.com

RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGY TODAY 2006 ISSUE 3 13


Feature

EMS Distributed Collaboration Infrastructure

The Raytheon Enterprise Modeling

and Simulation (EMS) initiative has

established a distributed collaboration

infrastructure across the Global One

Raytheon Integrated On-Demand Network

(ORION), which allows various business

units to work closely together to solve

complex system problems (Figure 1). This

infrastructure consists of various technologies

to help the analyst perform the desired

trade studies, while limiting the amount of

overhead required to maintain the system.

The basic goal is to provide an environment

that allows analysts to focus on what they

want to solve, instead of how networks

and simulations must work together to

make it happen.

EMS established the distributed computing

environment leveraging ORION’s fullyencrypted,

secure wide-area and metropolitan-area

network as the backbone.

Corporate IT also developed and constructed

mobile platforms based on the

Generation 3 (G3) architecture of the EMS

rack mounted system, which can be physically

located anywhere in the ORION network.

To access the Rack Mounted

Enterprise Modeling and Simulation

(RMEMS), a Raytheon developer or analyst

merely establishes a virtual private network

(VPN) connection from their desktop, using

either the OS built-in PPTP or the CiscoVPN

client. Knowledge of IP addresses of specific

processors isn’t necessary.

To meet the various requirements, ranging

from trade show support to detailed

engineering trade studies, RMEMS is built

upon transportable racks (Figure 2). The

RMEMS rack platforms themselves consist

of 902 pounds of equipment per set,

loaded into wheeled, molded half-height

server-depth rack cases. The cases are fitted

with pressure relief valves and thus meant to

be air transportable.

These racks are currently transported

overnight for EMS by UPS Supply Chain

Solutions to any UPS terminus serving

DC10 airframes for less than $1 per pound.

This means EMS can locate equipment in

virtually any major venue where a customer

14 2006 ISSUE 3 RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGY TODAY

Figure 1. Global ORION – Technology Direction: WAN

demonstration is desired. All that’s necessary

to begin the process of obtaining

equipment is to initiate a service request at

http://metabase.it.ray.com/registration.asp.

For more information on the RMEMS

order/deploy/recovery process, visit

http://home.ray.com/ems/.

While these racks may, from time to time,

be located at various locations around the

country, the analyst sees only a consistent

single LAN view of the cluster/grid. This is

accomplished because EMS has located a

central RMEMS Dynamic Multipoint VPN

(DMVPN) router in Tucson, Ariz., to serve as

a defined termination and status monitor

point for all of the mobile racks. Each

rack’s router automatically exchanges IP

Figure 2. EMS computation racks

addresses, security protocol and key information

with the Tucson router, and therefore

subsequently discovers the other

online RMEMS racks. This, in turn, establishes

the requisite VPN tunnels in the network.

From the developer’s viewpoint,

access is available to blade servers and storage

without regard to those assets’ physical

location across Raytheon, or the location of

the computational unit inside a rack.

While Enterprise Network Services

(Corporate IT/Global ORION) provides the

ability to transport equipment to the customer,

oftentimes this is not a practical

solution. By extending the desktop access,

Raytheon employees can log into the EMS

Distributed LAN using the standard


CiscoVPN client from anywhere in the

world. This reach-back capability allows for

detailed simulation results to be accessed

inside a customer office from any laptop, in

support of the wide range of business

requirements across the globe.

This distributed capability across Raytheon

provides a testbed environment that can be

used to investigate new ideas, and to provide

a location to test and mature existing

research. By establishing a virtual LAN

along with using the distributed ORION

network space, research is ongoing into

how to transition from legacy middleware

(DIS, HLA, etc.) that requires the collocation

of all simulations on a single LAN, to realworld

efforts that require interoperability

across multiple networks seamlessly.

Raytheon’s government customers have

established a common set of 24 critical

technology requirements that need to be

solved to assist with Distributed Network

Centric Warfare and NetCentric Operations.

EMS is investigating 13 of these 24 technologies

to address the same issues in

Distributed Simulations that the customer

has in NetCentric Operations.

They include:

1. Heterogeneity-Aware P2P

2. Object Access Protocol

3. Universal Discovery

4. Internet Protocol Version 6

5. Internet Protocol Security Policy Protocol

6. Tag Switching for IP Routing

7. Mobile Networking

8. Inter-Domain Routing

9. Multicast Networking

10. Service Level Agreements

11. Quality of Service

12. Class of Service

13. Scalability

These technologies will greatly simplify

much of our middleware and provide a

greater flexibility. However, the legacy

applications across Raytheon still require a

significant effort by developers and analysts

working together to set up a distributed

simulation. Currently, the ability to set up

an experiment requires an in-depth knowledge

of which simulations to use that provide

the appropriate elements at the correct

Figure 3. Monitoring EMS distributed

environment

level of detail. Many times, in order to have

two disparate simulations communicate,

code level changes must be made. This

results in the need to typically have 10–20

engineers working together for weeks to

bring these models together. EMS is exploring

SOA architectures, tools and techniques

to alleviate the requirement for this intimate

knowledge of each simulation (or

even that these simulations exist). Work is

ongoing to transition our thinking (and

tools) from “what simulation do I choose to

run,” to “what element (at what level of

detail) do I need to perform my trade

study.” Capitalizing on this SOA architecture,

each model and tool will provide a

true service to the analyst while hiding the

complexity of tracking this information in

the knowledge database.

While continuing the research into these critical

technologies, EMS maintains a current set

of tools that allows Raytheon to support our

customers’ modeling and simulation (M&S)

contracts. This is accomplished by maintaining

the capability of using bridges/gateways

to allow integration of EMS models and tools

into legacy DIS and high-level architecture

(HLA) exercises. Also, EMS is exploring ways

to connect with the next-generation DoD

lead training and testing enabling architecture

(TENA), the Raytheon DIB, DDS and

other emerging technologies.

To support this distributed environment,

the need to monitor the health and status

of all machines and networks is critical. The

design of the monitoring tools allows for

each rack to “phone home” when a

connection is established anywhere across

ORION. The monitoring that is used captures

the data locally on each rack (for

those times when network connectivity is

not possible) along with a central monitoring

capability. This single monitoring location

provides a quick stoplight snapshot of

the EMS distributed environment, and also

the ability to drill down to an individual

machine’s performance loading (CPU,

memory, disk, I/O, network, etc.). This

ability to view the performance across

Raytheon can be accessed from any

browser, as shown in Figure 3.

While machine and network monitoring is

critical, it is by no means sufficient to provide

a fault-tolerant solution. EMS has

established and continues to research the

use of grid and cluster computing tools to

assist the analyst in performing their trades.

By leveraging these tools, distributed and

Monte Carlo simulations can take advantage

of all the hardware across the EMS virtual

LAN. The analyst only has to focus on

what simulations need to be run, rather

than where they need to be executed. By

using Meta Data about each simulation,

the cluster and grid software determines if

enough computational resources are available

(including OS limitations) and which

resources to use — and then performs the

execution and basic control of the simulations.

By taking advantage of the grid and cluster

software, the analyst may use various frontend

tools to build, submit and monitor simulation

runs. For the standalone, highfidelity

simulation (that just needs to run as

fast as possible without any dependency on

other simulations), a host of GUI and Webbased

tools exist to control these jobs and

can be used across the distributed computational

environment. For the distributed

testbed that requires the interdependency

of multiple simulations working together,

EMS is working on expanding the Exercise

Control (ExCon) Manager to provide the

interface to the grid back end.

Continued on page 16

RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGY TODAY 2006 ISSUE 3 15


Feature

Continued from page 15

Common grid tools

While having the flexibility to sit in a customer’s

office or at your desk to perform

trade studies, there is always a possibility

that a rack will need to be taken offline

into a closed area, or taken to a conference

where connection to ORION is not

practical. This requires the ability to maintain

a well-known state of all tools as they

are upgraded to reflect new capability and

bug fixes across all racks of equipment.

While connected to ORION, periodic

updates occur to synchronize the models,

tools and configurations across all racks

throughout Raytheon. Each model and

configuration file is version-controlled

along with known dependencies. These

version-controlled files further require

checksum tagging as an added level of

verification of each file. The files are managed

to maintain all supported versions

and operating systems in a central location

on each rack. This versioning and

recall capability is being integrated with

our tools to provide the added protection

that the simulation runs performed on any

given day will produce the same results

and further allow the analyst to focus on

the task at hand — without having to

track the day-to-day evolution of the

various tools.

16 2006 ISSUE 3 RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGY TODAY

Distributed Collaboration Infrastructure

Initial EMS integration activities required

25–30 engineers to co-locate for several

days. The goal for a more collaborative

integration approach that required fewer

engineers and allowed them to remain at

their home sites and effectively and

cooperatively work together to resolve

interfaces, integrate and test the EMS

application suite was achieved by the

development of distributed networking

capabilities.

Now, five to 10 engineers at their home

sites can perform the same integration

task. As we move into the next generation

of middleware and tools, EMS has a

goal to significantly reduce this number

further. Additionally, these capabilities

allow for users to sit at their desk and use

a Web browser to access and view simulation

progress and results, or to simply

watch a detailed visualization of the

experiment being performed.

Michael L. Walker

mlwalker@raytheon.com

Michael Steffes

mike_steffes@raytheon.com

EMS Exercise

Control (ExCon © ):

A Control

Architecture for

Simulation

Exercises

Large-scale Simulation Control

A simulation exercise can be large,

complex, distributed and consequently

unwieldy. It may be composed of heterogeneous

elements including legacy software

and hardware, a variety of operating systems

and languages, and a mix of application

types. Great strides have been made

toward the goal of interoperability through

the use of common middleware architectures,

such as Distributed Interactive

Simulation (DIS) and the High Level

Architecture (HLA).

But a well-defined control architecture is

needed as well, so the assets in an exercise

can be coherently and sufficiently configured,

started, commanded, and terminated,

and so they can provide common file, data,

timing and mode control services. While

middleware architectures and bridges allow

the simulation elements to communicate,

a control architecture allows them to be

coordinated.

Based on a status and control capability

created for the NASA Space Station

Training Facility, exercise control (ExCon)

was developed to provide a control architecture

for Raytheon Enterprise Modeling

and Simulation (EMS). ExCon is a Web

application that consists of three major

components: a server, a Web page and an

asset interface (Figure 1). Each simulation

element in EMS is termed an “asset,” and

for each asset an interface is created that

allows the ExCon server to control it

remotely using Web service function calls.

The server maintains the state of an exercise

and its collection of assets. The Web

page provides a user’s view of the exercises

and assets, and incorporates a dynamic

Web application (or applet) to view asset

status and invoke asset commands.


ExCon Server

ExCon Web Page

Figure 1. ExCon Web application

Web Service Interfaces

ORION

The asset interface is provided as a Web

service template. A standard Web Service

Definition Language (WSDL) document is

provided in template form; each asset interface

implements the template, tailoring the

implementation to the specific asset behavior

and requirements. The ExCon server is

able to invoke each asset’s interface in a

standard way because all of the assets

implement the same set of functions. The

interface includes functions for state control

(e.g., “start execution”), time and

mode control, HLA control (e.g., “join federation”),

data retrieval (for data logging),

file management (retrieving and uploading

files), and asset-specific configuration and

commanding.

The basic set of functions supports state

and mode transitions as defined in a common

asset state diagram. But through the

use of file management and asset-specific

commands and configuration options,

extensive control can be achieved over

unique aspects of an asset, such as command-line

options, initial configuration file

selection, version selection and run-time

commanding.

The time and mode functions permit basic

mode transition (e.g., from pause to run

mode) and simulation time control. Mode

transitions and time values are coordinated

by the ExCon server for all assets in an

exercise. The interface supports real-time

execution as well as faster- and slower-than

real-time execution through the use of a

user-settable time factor.

Asset

Asset

Asset

Asset

Web Service Application/Federate

A separate WSDL interface allows the

assets to communicate back to the ExCon

server. The assets can send command status,

health status and log lines. The controller

maintains asset state information

(e.g., executing vs. idle, or joined vs. not

joined to an HLA federation).

Browser-Based User Interface

The user interface of ExCon is a Web application

that presents a window with two

panes. One pane contains icons that represent

assets incorporated into an exercise.

The user can click on icons to issue commands

to the assets. The icon-accessible

commands generally correspond directly to

the WSDL-based asset interface functions.

The other pane contains a scroll list of log

lines — status received from the assets. The

Figure 2

HW I/F

HWIL

CEM (e.g.)

AMSE (e.g.)

Web application also provides a menu of

commands for exercise-wide control and

asset management. Asset icons change

color based on the asset’s state (e.g., an

executing asset’s icon is green; see Figure 2).

A stated goal of EMS is the ability to start

an exercise with “one button.” To support

this, ExCon provides a scripting capability. A

simple language was invented so that one

can write a script that incorporates any

exercise or asset control command. The

user can upload, select and execute scripts

using the Web application. Using this capability,

it’s possible to execute a very complex

exercise in a single step.

Reduced Integration Effort

ExCon has streamlined the EMS integration

effort. The Web application interface is easy

to use, requiring minimal training. ExCon

allows 24/7 remote access to the applications

it controls, and reduces the need to

have extra personnel available to monitor

and control assets in an exercise. It provides

asset and exercise status information to

remote users, allowing them to make

quicker decisions about exercise progress.

The standardized asset control interface

simplifies the coordination of disparate simulation

elements, and reduces the need to

learn asset-specific tools and procedures.

Senior Systems Engineer Jason Shelton

says, “ExCon has proved a valuable tool

here at IDS. From a single laptop, I am able

to command the modeling and simulation

capabilities of EMS on demand. What used

to take weeks of prep time and the coordination

of over a dozen engineers, now

takes a few minutes and a Web browser.”

SAS Systems Engineer Katie Borrud reports,

“ExCon allows us to execute our experiments

in less than half the time with

less than half the resources that we

previously required.”

ExCon has also been used for control functions

in the RTSC Integrated Solution Sets

architecture, in which logistics functions are

prototyped and modeled. Database update

and reversion for a condition-based maintenance

system are controlled using ExCon’s

asset-specific commanding feature.

Stanley Allen

stanley_r_allen@raytheon.com

RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGY TODAY 2006 ISSUE 3 17


Feature

An Architecture for Supportability Modeling and Simulation

Infrastructure: An EMS Ray DX Application

Enterprise Modeling and Simulation

(EMS) usually concentrates on performance

modeling, composing high fidelity

performance models into a variety of system-of-systems

(SOS) simulation exercises.

Equally important in the design process is

the modeling of Supportability, Availability

and Life Cycle Cost (LCC).

“Availability” is defined as the ratio of

operating time to total time; it’s measured

in terms of reliability (how often does it

break) and maintainability (how long does it

take to repair). “Life Cycle Cost” is the sum

of the development costs, acquisition costs

and operating costs. The “Supportability”

portion of LCC is usually dominated by

operating costs — cost to repair, cost to

maintain a spare parts inventory, shipping

of spares, repair of spares, tiered-depot

structures, etc. In general, the optimal supportability

solution is one that maximizes

availability while minimizing LCC.

EMS will develop a modeling and simulation

architecture for supportability that can

be used both for the design of supportability

concepts for new systems and for the

analysis of supportability for fielded systems.

This activity will begin by focusing on

the latter usage, the fielded systems. We

will develop the software infrastructure to

access and analyze existing supportability

data on fielded systems and then use that

data to model the reliability and maintainability

characteristics of the system. The

analysis of new systems — or new maintenance

concepts for fielded systems — can

be performed by extending or modifying

the existing models while being driven by

the existing data.

Evolution in Web Services

The Internet has dramatically changed the

way information processing is performed in

modern organizations. It is not uncommon

for information to be stored in a number of

different physical locations. Many Internet

applications have been developed that

aggregate distributed data into a single unified

presentation to a user. Typical examples

are Web travel sites that allow a user to

access airline flight schedules for any number

of airlines, each of which maintains its

18 2006 ISSUE 3 RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGY TODAY

own schedule and rate structure. It is

unlikely that any two airline databases are

identical; however they all contain similar

data: departure time, arrival time, airplane

type, seat layout, fee structure, etc. Web

services are used to access and transform

the data (euros to dollars, for example) into

a common format for the user.

Web services are self-contained, modular,

distributed, dynamic applications that can

be described, published, located or invoked

over the network to create products,

processes and supply chains. They can be

local, distributed or Web-based. Web services

are built on top of open standards such

as TCP/IP, HTTP, Java TM , HTML and XML.

EMS is developing an open-architecture for

supportability using Web services to make

available and translate existing data from

whatever source, location and configuration

into common formats for analysis. Exploiting

Web services will go a considerable way

toward minimizing the work spent formatting

the data and maximizing the time spent

in analysis. An open architecture will enable

asynchronous development so that additional

data sources can be brought online with

no impact to existing applications and at a

pace consistent with an individual program‘s

schedule, funding stream or priority.

Client Tier

Business

Logic Tier

Create

Entity

Database

Tier

Environment

Aggregator

Update

Entity

Delete

Entity

Network Centric Enterprise Services

The Defense Information Systems Agency

has developed the Net-Centric Enterprise

Services (NCES) to provide enterprise-wide

IT infrastructure for the global information

grid. The plan is for NCES to be populated

with Web services like those described earlier.

One use for NCES would be for accessing

supportability data; it would also contain

the analytical tools for manipulating

the data and the user interfaces for displaying

and inspecting the data and the analytical

results. The modeling and simulation

architecture for supportability that we

develop will be fully compatible with NCES.

Application of Web Services to

Modeling and Simulation

The typical Web services architecture divides

the processing activities into isolated tiers,

each with a different function. A typical

example from our performance modeling

activity is the environment functions (see

figure below). Here we are depicting the

two sides of the environment services.

Environment

Database

On the left side of the figure is the

Environment Aggregator function that compiles

a common truth picture from any

number of entity simulators: OneSAF for

ground forces, AWSIM for blue air force,

Nova for satellites, Fleet Command for

Line of Sight &

Background

Tiered architecture for Simulated Environment Services

Simulations

Detection

Opportunity

Generator

Signature Atmosphere

Field of

View Query

Run-Time

Database

Services


naval surface and sub-surface traffic, etc.

The Aggregator subscribes to the output of

these entity generators and maintains the

database by using three different Web services

to create, update or delete an entity.

On the right is the Detection Opportunity

function that collates environment data on

entities that are potentially detectable by a

sensor. The sensor publishes a sensor

request describing the sensor field of view,

its operating frequency/wavelength and its

location. The database is queried with the

field of view to determine which targets are

potentially detectable. This service then

computes the line of sight and obscuration

of these targets and determines their signature,

background and intervening atmospheric

conditions.

Dividing the processing into tiers enables a

simulation that is easier to develop and

maintain while having the ability to scale to

larger scenario sizes.

Functionality is isolated to small software

units that do only one function and are

easy to change. In a well-designed application

stack, changes do not propagate

through to other software modules.

Interfaces are open, so anyone can develop

a Web service to provide additional

functionality while using the existing infrastructure.

We prefer to define our interfaces

in XML to ensure operating system and

computer hardware neutrality.

Integration is a matter of determining

which services to invoke for each situation.

Software Versioning Control offers the

additional advantage of enabling the testing

of a new component and being able to

quickly roll-back to a previous known-good

configuration.

Operation is often distributed across multiple

computers through the use of standard

Web communications channels like HTTP,

SOAP, REST and JMS. We have successfully

incorporated a number of legacy communication

standards like CORBA, HLA, DIS and

UNIX sockets through the development of

bridges that span communication protocols.

Intellectual property is protected because

only the interface is exposed. No source

needs to be provided. In extreme cases, an

application or service can be run on a

remote protected computer. In fact, access

control security is easier to deploy with

Web services.

The system is scalable, meaning any

number of data sources, models, analytical

tools or viewers can be used. Advances in

grid and cluster computing are making scalability

an easy-to-manage process. The

most notable and successful case is in database

servers (like Oracle) that can automatically

level the processing load across a number

of processors in real time.

Finally, this approach exploits advances from

the commercial world. Web services are

used by every eCommerce site and serve

as the backbone of Google TM , Yahoo TM ,

Amazon TM , and most stock brokerages.

Web services are essentially COTS.

Application to Supportability M&S

A similar tiered architecture can be developed

for supportability. The main services

provided would be as follows:

At the lowest level – accessing the

historical supportability data;

At the middle level – modeling the systems

and evaluating “what-if” analyses

At the highest level – viewing the data

and controlling the analysis

We do not expect every data source to be a

properly formatted relational database. We

would expect a full spectrum of formats

and qualities. The tiered architecture allows

for services to be written to access each

source. Additional services could be written

for data reformatting (missing data, corrupted

data, unit conversions, etc.).

A reference architecture for supportability is

developed first. The reference architecture is

a template representing a generic form of

system supportability. We start by building

component availability models of operation

[including mean time between failure

(MTBF)], process models for repair [mean

time to repair (MTTR)] and their associated

costs. A model of a system can be composed

from these component models by

using the traditional series or parallel connections,

and/or fault tree representations.

Then a system-of-systems model can be

constructed that incorporates the system

model along with its facilities for maintenance,

depots, manufacturing/remanufacturing,

and other logistics functions that

may affect supportability.

In the second step, system specifics are

added to this reference architecture to create

an actual simulation. This realized (or

instantiated) simulation would incorporate

actual MTTB, MTTR and cost data — for

components or systems as a whole. The simulation

would also represent the actual (or

proposed) supportability architecture, including

the number and location of maintenance

facilities, number of layers of maintenance

depots, personnel levels, inventory policies,

time to resupply repair parts, costs, etc.

The development of a reference architecture

enables reuse through standard representations

of the elements that compose

any supportability analysis. The level of

analysis detail can vary across component,

system or policy, but a consistent means of

comparison is afforded through a reference

architecture. Many components, systems or

policies can be reused from analysis to

analysis, and new simulations can be composed

more rapidly by exploiting the capabilities

of a reference architecture.

Payoff

The supportability model incorporates

actual data — mined from existing reliability

and maintenance records — and maintenance

policies into a model that can be

analyzed for a number of purposes:

1. Finding ways of improving reliability

through the detailed analysis of the

system and component statistics

2. Finding lower cost ways of maintaining

the system through policy changes

3. Using reliability models to predict future

maintenance activities (prognostic health

maintenance)

4. Using health prognostics to determine

optimal maintenance policy (particularly

inventory levels)

The development and usage of this type of

modeling can facilitate better supportability

at the system and SOS levels through higher

availability and lower cost. In addition,

the derivation of these supportability models

from a reference architecture enables

the reuse at the system or component

model levels. In turn, this leads to

decreased analysis cycle time and enables

the consideration of supportability earlier

in the development cycle.

Robert Vitali

revitali@raytheon.com

RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGY TODAY 2006 ISSUE 3 19


onTechnology

Simulation Based Acquisition

as Part of

Enterprise Modeling and Simulation

Simulation Based Acquisition (SBA) is a

strategic development method based on

sound systems architecting principles that

applies modeling and simulation to all the

phases of a weapon system’s life cycle:

requirements generation, concept development,

design, build, test, operation and

adaptation.

The method uses modeling and simulation

to provide an early, virtual prototyping

environment and a common frame of

reference for developers, analysts, end-users

and managers. Requirements and performance

are addressed as early as possible in

development.

The parallels between Simulation Based

Acquisition and systems architecting can

be shown with some definitions from

literature.

Note: Italicized words and numbers within

the following boxed paragraphs concerning

working definitions of systems architecture

and Simulation Based Acquisition, are used

in conjunction with Figure 1 to illustrate the

parallels between the two.

A good working definition of systems

architecture is as follows 1 :

“An architecture is the set of

information (1) that defines a

systems value (2), cost (3), and

risk (4) sufficiently for the purposes

of the systems sponsor (5).”

Conversely, a good working definition of

Simulation Based Acquisition (SBA) can be

found in the Defense Systems Management

College publication, Simulation Based

Acquisition: A New Approach 2 :

20 2006 ISSUE 3 RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGY TODAY

ARCHITECTURE & SYSTEMS INTEGRATION

“SBA is about using simulation (1) to

explore the design space, to validate

(4) designs, and to verify (4) that the

proposed design will meet (2) the

end-user’s (5) expectations (2) and is

manufacturable, supportable, and

affordable (3).”

The parallels between these two definitions

help to show how Simulation Based

Acquisition is related to systems architecting.

These parallels are depicted in Figure 1.

Systems Architecture

1) information

2) value

3) cost

4) risk

5) systems sponsor

The Benefits of Simulation Based

Acquisition

The benefits of Simulation Based

Acquisition are to facilitate early reduction

of cost, risk and uncertainty, while at the

same time increasing confidence. It follows

from adoption of an iterative development

process that fosters an environment of

using incremental building and testing. Risks

are addressed early, exposed consistently

and visited regularly.

In addition, customers and end users can

develop a good feel for the product’s endstate

by getting previews of the end-state in

a piecemeal fashion. This is done through

smart application of modeling and simulation

to provide an early, virtual prototyping

environment of the system and a common

communication tool for developers, analysts,

end users and managers.

Figure 2 compares development “With

SBA” versus development “Without SBA,”

showing how progress, risk, confidence and

cost are affected.

Figure 2 shows how Simulation Based

Acquisition facilitates early and regular mitigation

of cost, risk and uncertainty, while at

the same time it steadily increases confidence

throughout development. Note that

at the integration point of development,

progress and confidence actually decrease

without Simulation Based Acquisition. This

is because many of the risks and issues that

Simulation Based Acquisition as a Systems Architecture

Simulation Based Acquisition

1) simulation

2) meet ... expectations

3) affordable

4) validate and verify

5) end-user

Figure 1. The parallels between Simulation Based Acquisition and systems architecting. The

numbered words correspond to the italicized numbered words in the definitions given in the

previous paragraphs for systems architecture and Simulation Based Acquisition.

would have been discovered early by the

incremental development aspect of

Simulation Based Acquisition lie dormant

until the software and hardware pieces join

together in the integration phase.

The Spiral Development Aspect of

Simulation Based Acquisition

In an ideal application of Simulation Based

Acquisition, simulations extend from lowfidelity

aggregate models to detailed engineering

prototypes. United Defense Limited

Partnership calls this Simulate, Emulate,

Stimulate4 . This fits well with the concept

of spiral development. This spiral nature is

shown in Figure 3.

YESTERDAY…TODAY…TOMORROW


Figure 2. When adopted at the start of development, Simulation Based Acquisition reduces

cost, risk and uncertainty, while at the same time it increases confidence. Without Simulation

Based Acquisition, risk is carried longer, progress falters at integration, and the slope of the

cost curve increases late in the development cycle 3 .

Figure 3 shows how simulation fidelity

keeps pace with system design maturity.

Through the development cycle — design,

test, analyze and revise — the spiral

ascends as design maturity increases. Along

the spiral, the simulation’s fidelity increases

as it tightens along the vertical axis. When

the spiral is low and wide, design maturity

and simulation fidelity are both low. When

the spiral is high and tight, design maturity

and simulation fidelity have both increased.

Simulation models are developed in parallel

with the hardware and software to allow

developers, analysts and end users to regularly

refine system requirements and analyze

performance. Involvement of the end

users allows them to be an integral part of

Figure 3. United Defense Limited

Partnership’s Simulate, Emulate, Stimulate

concept illustrates how simulation fidelity

keeps pace with the system’s maturity.

the design process. The common framework

allows the program’s technical lead to establish

a level playing field for consistent comparisons

among alternative concepts and designs.

The Elements of Simulation Based

Acquisition

From a verification and validation perspective,

Simulation Based Acquisition makes

use of three elements that interplay to produce

natural validation points. In the missile

business, the three elements are: i) integrated

flight simulation (IFS), ii) processor-inthe-loop

(PIL) and iii) hardware-in-the-loop

(HIL or HWIL).

IFS, sometimes called a 6-DOF simulation (six

degrees of freedom), is typically the first step

along a program’s simulation path. At this

first step, digital models are run with early

versions of embedded code at low fidelity

on a computer platform. PIL, sometimes

called a CIL (computer-in-the-loop), involves

emulating or prototyping the processors that

eventually end up in the final product. Real

embedded code is run in real time on representative

hardware. And finally, HIL brings as

much real hardware into the simulation as

possible. For some programs, such as a tactical

missile, this might involve the missile airframe

and seeker interfaced with rotary

tables and scene projectors.

The pieces and the interrelation are shown

by the Venn Diagram 5 in Figure 4. It is

YESTERDAY…TODAY…TOMORROW

Hardware

in the Loop

Processor

in the Loop

Integrated

Flight Sim

Figure 4. The Venn Diagram shows the

interrelation of three important elements to

Simulation Based Acquisition. The overlapping

areas are key to simulation validation.

important to note that the overlapping sections

of the circles are natural validation

points for one simulation against another.

Flight tests provide yet another validation

anchor point, and are particularly efficient

in the area where all three circles overlap.

Conclusion

By adopting the concepts of Simulation

Based Acquisition — making use of modeling

and simulation, and following an

iterative development process of incremental

build and test — programs can reduce

cost, risk and uncertainty early on, thereby

increasing confidence. End users and developers

can use the models and simulations

of Simulation Based Acquisition as communication

tools to provide early course correction.

Saving cost, managing risk, reducing

uncertainty and increasing confidence

in the system are all key aspects of a successful

systems architecture, something that

is certainly relevant in today’s competitive

business environment.

Jeff Wolske

jswolske@raytheon.com

1 Maier and Rechtin (2002). The Art of Systems

Architecting. Florida: CRC Press.

2 Lt. Col. M. V. R. Johnson, Sr.; Lt. Col. M. F.

McKeon; Lt. Col. T. R. Szanto (1998). Simulation

Based Acquisition: A New Approach. Defense

Systems Management College Press, Virginia.

3 Adapted from: Booch, Jacobson and

Rumbaugh (1999). The Unified Software

Development Process. Boston: Addison-Wesley.

4 Adapted from: Lt. Col. M. V. R. Johnson, Sr.,

Lt. Col. M. F. McKeon, Lt. Col. T. R. Szanto

(1998). Simulation Based Acquisition: A New

Approach. Defense Systems Management

College Press, Virginia.

5 Adapted from personal communication with

Jeff Lucas; Aviation and Missile Research,

Development and Engineering Center; System

Simulation Development Directorate, April 2006.

RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGY TODAY 2006 ISSUE 3 21


onTechnology

Directed Energy Weapon System

Effectiveness Model

The Raytheon Directed Energy Weapon

System Effectiveness Model (DEWSEM) is a

physics-based end-to-end directed energy

weapon simulation (Figure 1). It models a

one-on-one engagement of laser or

microwave weapon systems with a target in

a realistic propagation environment.

DEWSEM captures the important capabilities

of simulating target dynamics and

atmospheric propagation that are inadequately

addressed by high-energy laser

(HEL) testing and zero-range modeling

alone. The vast operating parameter space

available for a HEL weapon system necessitates

the development of simulation tools

capable of providing realistic lethality predictions

for ground-based, sea-based and

air-based systems. It is clearly unreasonable

to experimentally explore the enormous

trade space of weapon systems and scenarios

without guidance from the results of a

model such as Raytheon’s DEWSEM. The

simulation has already been used to provide

data for concept validation, subsystem

design requirements, technology development

and input to battlefield simulations

such as EADSIM, CASTFOREM, JCATS,

FACTS, SAMS, SUPRESSOR and BRAWLER.

System lethality estimates from DEWSEM

rely upon two primary functional components:

System Engagement Modeling and

Radiation-Material Interaction Modeling.

System Engagement Modeling characterizes

the target, the laser, the engagement

scenario, beam propagation through the

atmosphere, and the mapping of laser

energy onto the target. Radiation-Material

Interaction Modeling characterizes materials

properties of target and the radiation

damage model.

The simulation architecture was developed

using object-oriented programming and

22 2006 ISSUE 3 RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGY TODAY

Laser System

Beam Control

Beam Steering

Dynamic Focus

Adaptive Optics

System Jitter

Tracking

Pulse Format

Platform Position

and Orientation

Target Model

Target Trajectory, Orientation and Rotation

Target Materials and Shape

Irradiance Mapping on Target

Angle Dependent Absorption

Lethality Model

Response to Damage

high level message passing. This flexible

software infrastructure allows for easy simulation

development and tailoring. Software

objects may be swapped in and out to test

variants or to add capability such as ultrashort

beam propagation or to provide for

different lethality mechanisms. Each modular

object has also been designed with

numerous input and output variables to

easily tailor the simulation to user specific

requirements. Objects were created for each

itemized function discussed above. These

objects include an object that calculates the

six degree-of-freedom (6DOF) variables for

arbitrary target and platform trajectories,

laser propagation through turbulent atmospheres,

irradiance mapping onto arbitrarily

shaped objects (targets), radiation damage

modeling (laser-material interactions) and

EO/LASERS

Propagation Model

Turbulence

Molecular Scattering

and Absorption

Aerosol Scattering

and Absorption

Numerical Propagation

Figure 1. A physics-based, end-to-end simulation of engagements between laser weapon

systems and targets.

more. These capabilities provide a solid simulation

environment for generating lethality

predictions of high fidelity and accuracy.

Simulation characteristics are defined by a

user-defined configuration file, which is

written in high-level script language that is

easily understandable. This file enables

straightforward simulation specification for

even the most complex simulations. The

required objects are defined, as well as their

input and output variables.

DEWSEM runs on Microsoft Windows, UNIX

and LINUX. In addition to standard C/C++

libraries, libraries for the Visualization

Toolkit (VTK) and Fastest Fourier Transform

in the West (FFTW) are required.

YESTERDAY…TODAY…TOMORROW


Figure 2. Sample engagement. A close-up

of the irradiance profile mapped onto the

target is shown in the figure inset.

Tactical Target Engagement

Tactical target engagements have been

studied extensively using DEWSEM due to

the topical relevance of the threats. In the

example shown in Figure 2, an attack is

launched on a short, high trajectory, with

the laser close to the protected asset. The

presence of atmospheric turbulence leads to

a speckled irradiance profile shown on the

target in the picture inset. The red and green

lines on the target are used to visually indicate

the spin rate. The target trajectory is

the line shown in blue, the laser beam is

represented by the translucent red swath,

and the laser itself is represented by the

blue hemisphere. After studying a number

of laser weapon systems using commercialoff-the-shelf

lasers, it is believed that such

a weapon system could protect an area

that has a radius of about 1,000 meters.

Summary

This directed energy weapon system simulation,

which has been in used for many

years at RMS, has proven itself to be a

powerful predictor of laser propagation

and laser weapon system performance.

Stephen Dolfini

smdolfini@raytheon.com

onTechnology

Fiber Remoting:

A GPS Example

A growing number of signal remoting

applications require transferring radio frequency

(RF) signals from an often inaccessible

or inhospitable remote location. A fiber

optic solution can offer many advantages

for these types of situations, including complete

electrical isolation; a very small, lightweight

interconnection; and a completely

self-contained power source. This RF/photonics

module technique offers the unique

solution of supplying signals, control and

power — all completely by light.

Early generations of RF/photonic modules

were very expensive, but demonstrated the

feasibility and advantages of photonics. In

recent years, a new generation photonic

module has been developed — one that

offers high performance at greatly reduced

cost and ease of manufacture. In this implementation,

commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS)

components and direct laser modulation

have been the key driving elements.

ANT

YESTERDAY…TODAY…TOMORROW

LNA

RF Switching

and Diplexer

RF SYSTEMS

GPS Photonic Module

For some applications, a method of

obtaining physical location via the global

positioning system (GPS) is of great interest.

Prior photonic module designs have not

been required at RF frequencies above 500

MHz. A straightforward extension of

RF/photonics link performance utilizing the

same core technologies, form factor, and

critical components has been extended to

1.6 GHz to cover the GPS band. An existing

module was modified with higher frequency

designs for all RF circuitry, and a novel,

compact diplexer design encompassing

both standard GPS bands was integrated

in place of existing bandpass filters.

Figure 1 shows the basic block diagram of

the GPS photonic module implementation.

A distributed feedback (DFB) laser is implemented

for direct modulation of the RF

signal. A GaAs photovoltaic cell assembly

LNA

Control and

Test Circuits

Bias and

Current

Source

Directly

Modulated

Laser

Photo

Detector

Photo Voltaic

Cell

Continued on page 24

RF on

Fiber Out

Photonic

Control

Photonic

Power

Figure 1. GPS photonic module diagram. All the interfaces are on fiber, allowing the antenna

and LNA to exist at a distance from the main system, with no wired connections.

RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGY TODAY 2006 ISSUE 3 23


RF SYSTEMS (continued)

Continued from page 23

(PVA) converts light power to DC, providing

+2V/80mA to the module for powering all

circuitry. The photo detector receives control

signals, enabling added functionality such

as switching, attenuation and test/calibration.

All of these optical components have

been qualified for high yield, ruggedness

and low failure rate. RF receive path circuitry

includes low noise amplifiers (LNAs),

switches, filters and a limiter to protect the

RF receive chain.

Figure 2 shows photos of a modified breadboard

GPS photonics module. For the GPS

demonstration, DFB laser performance was

characterized for gain and noise figure (NF)

with bandwidth exceeding 2 GHz, indicating

feasibility of the approach.

Figure 3 shows the gain spectrum of the

completed breadboard module from 1 to

1.8 GHz, displaying the simultaneous gain

performance in both GPS bands. Using a

preamplifier (currently external, but potentially

integrated onto the module), a link NF

of ~6-7dB and gain of 16-18dB was measured.

For reference, previous designs in the

UHF and VHF range have demonstrated

typical NF ~5dB and gain ~14dB with a

single LNA stage.

Summary and Outlook

The development of photonics-based RF

modules using all COTS components is rapidly

maturing, as seen in this GPS photonics

module design example, and reduced to

practice in several other applications at

lower frequencies. In addition, applicationspecific

control functionality (all photonic

based) such as frequency band switching

and attenuation level setting is currently

being demonstrated. The core RF/photonics

technology and designs utilizing this baseline

approach have been extended to frequencies

as low as the HF band (5-30 MHz)

and as high as GPS (1.6 GHz), indicating the

24 2006 ISSUE 3 RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGY TODAY

Figure 2. GPS photonic module photo. Top side of board includes diplexer, LNA, laser matching

and DFB laser. Bottom side includes limiter, test/receive switches, bias control and PVA.

Figure 3. GPS photonic module gain response in the L1 and L2 bands.

broad range of frequency performance and

the vast potential for a variety of future

applications. The ability to remotely locate

an RF sensor or emitter that is completely

electrically isolated from the primary

system offers intriguing possibilities to

the system designer.

Dr. Richard Hsia

richard_p_hsia@raytheon.com

YESTERDAY…TODAY…TOMORROW


onTechnology

The conceptual design phase is arguably

the most important phase in product development,

whether it’s software, hardware or

a highly integrated mechanical/electrical

system such as a missile.

Numerous studies have demonstrated that

in addition to technical performance, a

large fraction of overall life-cycle cost is

determined by decisions made at a program’s

outset. At the same time, the actual

work performed during the pre-design

phase is often the least understood process

in all of design. Generally speaking,

conceptual design is a very abstract process.

Oftentimes, design risk is buried within

multi-disciplinary uncertainty among highly

coupled systems.

Our effort in Multi-Disciplinary Analysis and

Multi-Disciplinary Optimization (MDA and

MDO) at Missile Systems concentrates on

the conceptual design of future missiles. We

examine the vehicle conceptual design

process, where the design can be postulated

in terms of variables that define the vehicle

external configuration, vehicle subsystem

packaging, and the primary and secondary

materials. In turn, these design variables

directly impact system mission performance,

system life-cycle cost and development risk.

Often, the proper selection of vehicle shape,

surface and structural materials, and their

response to thermal environments will have

a large impact upon vehicle feasibility, dry

weight, structural integrity and cost.

Similarly, the location of structural weight

influences the overall vehicle mass properties

and mass moments of inertia — a key

factor overall vehicle payload/range performance,

as well as stability and control.

YESTERDAY…TODAY…TOMORROW

MATERIALS & STRUCTURES

Quantitative Systems Engineering

and the Multi-Disciplinary Conceptual Design Process

A schematic of Raytheon’s Multi-Disciplinary

Analysis/Optimization toolkit, using Model Center as

the trade study environment.

Using Design for Six Sigma With

Quantitative Systems Engineering

Design for Six Sigma (DFSS) methodology

embraces the concept of quantitative systems

engineering. It holds that decisions can

be better made if a series of coupled numerical

analyses can be used to represent a collection

of subsystems performance metrics

that define the overall system performance.

Using presentation methods common to

DFSS, such as single variable, multi-variable

and “Pareto” sensitivity analysis, true multiobjective

design feasibility screening and

optimization may be performed. Within

Missile Systems we have embraced a very

flexible DFSS trade study environment called

“Model Center” (a commercial off-the-shelf

software package) to serve as the glue

among our disciplinary analysis methods.

Managing Analytical Tools

and Screening Processes

In order to effectively screen numerous

possible design options, the computational

intensity of the analytical tools

and screening processes must be

managed. The quantitative metric

of “goodness” for a given

design is based on the output of

a suite of coupled analysis, synthesis

and screening methods.

For missile configuration design,

the link between external vehicle

configuration, aerodynamics,

aerothermodynamics, seeker

design, trajectory evaluation,

and mass properties is inseparable.

Consequently, we have

embarked on the development

of a variety of lean screening

methods to evaluate future missile

configurations. In order to enable quality

quantitative systems analysis, the underlying

disciplinary analysis methods must enable a

smooth flow of data. Consequently, we

must attend to the functional decomposition

of the design problem. This means

identifying which disciplinary analysis

goes “first,” and what the system-level

“independent design variables” are.

We must enable these methods to be used

in both a purist optimization approach (with

a well-defined objective function and constraints)

and a design feasibility screening

tool (where the objective function and constraints

are defined during post-processing

of trade data). Ultimately, the design

process must invert these explicit methods

to answer such questions as, “Do we

design a vehicle with a wing? And if so,

how big must it be?”

Timothy Takahashi

timothy_t_takahashi@raytheon.com

RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGY TODAY 2006 ISSUE 3 25


TECHNOLOGY INSIGHT: DR. PETER PAO

Dr. Peter Pao

Vice President

of Technology

Disruptive

Technologies

Technology is a precious resource. The good news

is that Raytheon has a solid and broad technology

base, and moreover, the ability to renew and

expand it. But like any finite resource, technology

must be consciously managed to ensure it provides

the most effective value to our business.

Over the past several years, the company has

established a logical process for managing technology

by linking it to our business vision and strategic

products. Key enabling technologies are identified,

along with technology gaps for which closure

plans and roadmaps with key milestones and decision

points are developed. Given the realities of

funding constraints, prioritization is always a difficult,

albeit essential, part of the process. We now

perform this technology management process quite

well. As a result, Raytheon is able to continually

provide incremental improvements to the value

propositions we offer our customer base.

This type of framework is termed Sustaining

Technology. Sustaining Technology addresses the

needs of current customers who still require

improved performance. Existing organizational

structures and management processes are used.

Sufficient knowledge exists regarding the marketplace,

resources and financial analyses, allowing

informed decisions to be made.

26 2006 ISSUE 3 RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGY TODAY

Unfortunately, we are largely neglecting other

opportunities that have the potential of not only

expanding our marketplace, but also displacing our

competitors’ incumbency positions. These are the

so-called Disruptive Technologies (DT), as

researched and documented by Professor Clayton

Christensen of the Harvard Business School in his

books, The Innovator’s Dilemma, and The

Innovator’s Solution .

Disruptive Technologies are fundamentally initially

characterized by assumptions rather than the facts

and knowledge by which enterprises make decisions

about Sustaining Technologies. The span of

impact of such disruptors, at their infancy, is often

intuitive. Ultimate “killer applications” may not initially

be known, yet if the initial assumptions (also

viewable as risks) can be converted to facts and

knowledge, the DT’s potential can be realized.

Low-End Disruptors

Prof. Christensen identifies two broad categories of

DT: low-end disruptors and new market disruptors.

Low-end disruptors target customers who are currently

overserved by existing products; these customers

simply don’t need all the features they are

forced to pay for. A low-end disruptor offers a less

feature-laden product that still meets customer

needs, but does so with a significantly reduced

price and within a business model that still enables

profitability at the lower price points. Examples

cited by Christensen include mini-steel mills and

discount retail stores. Or, how about “watered

down” versions of the powerful desktop word processing

and spreadsheet applications we all have,

but whose features we seldom use?

New Market Disruptor

The second type of DT identified by Christensen is

the new market disruptor. This type of DT addresses

those customers craving for a capability they currently

cannot get conveniently, cannot perform for

themselves, and is often too costly. Such customers

would be delighted to have even rudimentary

capabilities that don’t initially fulfill all their needs.

Examples include teeth whitening strips and Black

& Decker’s introduction of handheld electric tools.

If nothing else, the desktop computer has empowered

the individual to complete tasks on his or her

own. For instance, remember when vugraphs were

routinely vended out to be created overnight?

What needs are currently going unmet by

Raytheon’s potential customers?

Research has shown that the probability of displacing

an incumbent is appreciably improved via a

Disruptive Technology strategy. Incumbents are

entrenched and have large resources. They know

their market and will fight hard to protect it. But

incumbents are often relieved to abandon the low

end of their markets and are likewise often willing

to ignore a new market disruptor until it is too late.

After all, the new market disruptor doesn’t provide

the level of performance that the existing customer

base demands.

Managing DT at Raytheon

So what are we doing about DT at Raytheon? Well,

to start, we have identified the need and are

becoming educated. Each business’s technology

director/VP has been provided with Christensen’s

summary video course and other resource materials.

Each business is actively canvassing IR&D projects

and other sources for DT candidates. Likewise,

each technology network is doing the same and

the IDEA projects are also being reviewed. Given

the realities of globalization, we must also look

outside of Raytheon for potential disruptors — and

we must do so both from a defensive and offensive

perspective. To this end, we will rely on consultants,

as well as our ongoing relationships with universities,

consortia, strategic alliances and small

business innovative research (SBIR) associations.

To manage DT at Raytheon, we will implement a

process of Discovery-Driven Planning. This process

helps convert the initial set of assumptions associated

with a DT to facts and knowledge, upon

which funding, execution, transition and exit decisions

can be made.

You Can Make a Difference

We urge you to acquaint yourself with the DT literature.

Each of us has a different life experience,

perspective and way of organizing our knowledge

to create new ideas. Take a moment to think about

potential disruptors and please bring them forward.


Events

Technology Integration Week

Focus on Collaboration and Development

Each year, technologists from around

the company come together to discuss

technology strategy, past developments

and future plans. Led by Raytheon’s

vice president of Technology Dr. Peter S.

Pao, this year’s meeting brought more than

100 people to Global Headquarters in

Waltham, Mass., for four days of intense

presentations and breakout sessions. In his

welcome remarks, Pao stated, “the purpose

of integration is to try to find synergies

between the businesses and how we can

work together to provide better solutions

to our customers.”

Pioneer Award

Speaking to success, Pao was proud to

present the first Pioneer award to a

Technology Network leadership member for

continuous dedicated service to the company.

Similar to other pioneers in our nation,

such as Thomas Edison, Henry Ford and the

Wright Brothers, these technology leaders

observe what needs to be done and find a

way of overcoming obstacles to successfully

benefit the community at large. In this spirit,

Raytheon has established the Pioneer

award to recognize those rare leaders of

our technology community who have

dedicated themselves to the betterment

of our industry.

Having served at the helm of the technology

networks since their inception in 1997,

Integrated Defense System’s Bruce Kinney

was named the inaugural recipient of

the Raytheon Pioneer award. Many of

the attributes we observe in our successful

Technology Network culture have been

established through Kinney’s individual,

often quiet, leadership. Kinney established

many of the technology sharing, communication

and organization tenets, and his

principles are taken as standard practice

today by all the technology networks.

Focus on Disruptive Technology

Also paving the way for the future of technology

is disruptive technology, a new

focus area at this year’s Technology

Integration Week. “Our market is ripe for

disruptive technology,” Pao said. “Our world

has changed. Our customers’ needs have

changed. We can no longer rely on the

recipe we developed during the last 50 years.”

Our customers need a different set of solutions

to solve their problems, which

requires us to think differently about applying

our portfolio of technology and how

we work with our technology partners. “It

is not about technology; it is about solutions

or new ways of delivering solutions,”

Pao said. “A company that can adjust to

this change will cause disruption in our

market and grow rapidly.”

Looking Ahead

Engineering, Technology and Mission

Assurance Vice President Dr. Taylor W.

Lawrence challenged the team to consider

different ways in which our technology can

meet customers’ needs. “Now is the time

to look at critical investments and technology

to fill out our portfolio,” he said.

Lawrence quoted the Quadrennial Defense

Review, which details the Department of

Defense’s needs in the main focus areas of

terrorist networks, homeland defense,

shaping the world’s crossroads and preventing

the use of weapons of mass destruction.

Many of the capabilities mentioned in

these four focus areas — such as persistent

surveillance, joint command and control,

global strike, operations in cyberspace, etc.

— provide us with opportunities.

Additional opportunities were set out by

the technology leads from each business

who presented their technology business

strategies and opened up the channels of

discussion. This type of collaboration is

key, explains Pao. “We have common

interests and, by working together, we

can find success.”

Bruce Kinney, IDS, was

named the inaugural

recipient of the Raytheon

Pioneer award.

RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGY TODAY 2006 ISSUE 3 27


Events

Sponsored jointly by Raytheon’s Operations Council and

Quality Council, the 2006 Mission Assurance Forum held

June 28–30 helped attendees understand how the work they

do every day determines the success or failure of our

customers’ missions.

Forum speakers encouraged the more than 600 attendees to

return to basics: focus on lessons learned, test rigorously, guard

against the flow of new requirements, flow down the Mission

Assurance message to subcontractors and suppliers, manage

risks, and remain disciplined when following processes. A customer

panel on the final day of the forum emphasized that

Mission Assurance involves more than checking boxes; it’s

about building a culture where every employee takes pride in

the work they do every day.

During a special evening banquet, 20 teams were

presented with 2005 Quality Excellence and Excellence

in Operations Awards. Selected from a pool of 892

nominees, the 88 winners demonstrate Mission Assurance in

action and set an example for the more than 80,000 Raytheon

employees around the world.

To read more about the Mission Assurance Forum, including

descriptions of the award winners’ accomplishments, visit

http://home.ray.com/feature/maf06.

28 2006 ISSUE 3 RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGY TODAY

Ensuring Our Customers’ Success


Congratulations to the 2005

Excellence in Operations and

Quality Excellence Award winners

Excellence in

Operations Awards

Lean Initiative for Value

Excellence Team (IDS)

Philip A. Conte

John P. Day

Matthew S. Mercer

Kristen M. Poulin

Jean M. Zabroski

Building S79

Implementation Team (IIS)

Jeffrey S. Ham

Roberta Weadley

Process Reinvention

Integrating Systems for

Manufacturing Team (RMS)

Joseph L. Cartier

Lacinda S. Davidson

Sherry L. Lollar

Thomas F. Lowell

Thomas L. Natale

Tomahawk Factory

Implementation

Team (RMS)

Timothy L. Buss

Karol M. Ginorio

Garrett J. Olszewski

Maria L. Spalt

Jean D. Wadsworth

Regressive Excellence

Team (NCS)

James E. Hayduke

Connie M. Lowe

Rebecca L. Malmleaf

Paul F. Wagner

U.S. Army National Training

Center Tactical Engagement

Simulation Product

Improvement Team (RTSC)

Wray L. Bloxson

Lynn R. Brooks

Thomas Doyle

Ronald N. McCay

Raymond M. Tabet

1900 Spares Team (RAC)

Rita M. Ashley

Kevin G. Ealey

Kathy L. Santee

Vicki L. Sewell

Michael R. Vermillion

Better, Faster, Cheaper –

The Continuous Journey

Team (RSL)

Scott Bradley

Andy Fallon

Helen Henry

Scott Thomson Jackson

Lesley Shepherd

Advanced Targeting

Forward-Looking Infrared

Repair of Repairables

Program Team (SAS)

Roger A. Cole Jr.

Chad M. Esquivel

Timothy K. Fitzgerald

Michelle S. Lee

Matthew H. Snodgrass

Hurricane Katrina Customer

Commitment Team (SAS)

Regina L. Bass

Samuel P. Johnson

Graham E. Keenan

James H. Shearer

Randall J. Weston

Quality Excellence

Awards

Performance Excellence

Engineering CMMI

Team (IDS)

Michael J. Campo

Randy R. Dellaire

John L. Duclos

George S. Graw

Supplier Assessment

Process Team (IIS)

Donna M. Bucher

Scott M. Gosdin

Wanda S. Jones

Lisa J. Luciano

Francisco H. Rivero

Key Product Characteristic

Processes Team (RMS)

Debra S. Childers

Debra S. Herrera

Tony L. Strickland

Supplier Rating System

Phase III Enhancements

Team

Franklin H. Anderson II (IIS)

Charles A. Hill (NCS)

Claire Brockelman (Corp.)

Tate A. Wazenegger (RMS)

Doris Wong (NCS)

Future Combat Systems

Ground Sensor Integrator

System of Systems

Requirements Team (NCS)

David L. Benton

Ricky D. Hill

Kenneth G. Krebaum

Michael A. Platz

Sheila R. Wooten

Improving Firefinder Depot

Throughput Through

Customer-Focused Mission

Assurance, Mission Support

and Public/Private

Partnership Team (TRS)

Robert P. Alvey (SAS)

Art C. Bierschbach (RTSC)

Steven R. Bruce (NCS)

Sherrie L. Gasper (NCS)

Wilbur R. Sims (SAS)

Guam Base Operations

Support and Customer Focus

Team (RTSC)

Daniel F. Nussberger

Jeffrey S. Rogers

Mary K. Williamson

Paint Improvement

Team (RAC)

David G. Alfrey

Rodger D. Brown

David N. Forwalder

Brenda K. Ives

William Sheldon Jr.

ISO 14001 Team (RSL)

Jillian Jarvie

Thomas King

Supplier Engagement

Performance Improvement

Team (SAS)

Wayne E. Bowen

Thomas A. Hanft

James Hartsock

Brian C. Semmelroth

Keith D. Weiss

RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGY TODAY 2006 ISSUE 3 29


Events

Raytheon played a vital role at this

year’s annual International Council on

Systems Engineering (INCOSE) Symposium

in Orlando, Fla. More than 900 delegates

from 22 countries representing more than

360 organizations attended to learn about

the latest developments in systems engineering.

More than 110 presentations

were given during the four-day event,

including five papers and three tutorials/

working group sessions given by Raytheon

employees from across the company.

This year’s symposium was sponsored in

part by Raytheon, a longtime INCOSE supporter

and member of the INCOSE corporate

advisory board.

The symposium was organized by three

Florida chapters of INCOSE. Wes Calhoun

and Dave Cleotelis, both of Raytheon St.

Petersburg, Fla., planned the event as general

chair and technical program chair,

respectively. Calhoun and Cleotelis also

lead the Central Florida chapter of INCOSE,

which serves the Tampa Bay area.

What is INCOSE?

INCOSE is a not-for-profit membership

organization that develops and disseminates

the interdisciplinary principles and

practices that enable the realization of

successful systems. There are more than

6,000 members representing a broad spectrum

of disciplines — from technical engineering

to program management to business

development. Members work together

to advance the state of the art and the

practice of systems engineering by promoting

interdisciplinary, scalable approaches

to producing technologically appropriate

solutions that meet societal needs.

INCOSE was founded in 1990.

A Global Outreach

Keynoters from industry and academia

around the globe offered their perspectives

on what it takes to be successful in

building effective systems.

Raytheon Shares Knowledge and Experience at

INCOSE 2006 Symposium

30 2006 ISSUE 3 RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGY TODAY

Among the presenters was Russell

Romanella, director of Space Shuttle Payload

Processing and the International Space

Station Directorate at NASA Kennedy Space

Center. Romanella generated plenty of

enthusiasm with his retrospective on NASA

and his vision of future space exploration

with the Constellation program.

Dr. Annik Magerholm Fet, a professor at the

Norwegian University of Science and

Technology, stressed the importance of

environmental management in concert

with life-cycle analysis.

Raytheon Presenters

Make Strong Showing

Awards and recognition given to some of

the guest speakers included Rick Steiner,

Engineering fellow and Systems Technology

Network lead from IDS, who received an

INCOSE service award for his part in creating

the Systems Modeling Language (SysML)

specification version 1.0 (http://www.sysml.org).

Rick conducted a full day tutorial called

“Introduction to SysML” with two colleagues.

Voted one of the most popular papers was

“How Do We Win This Game When the

Rules Keep Changing? A Case for the

Increased Application of Design for Six

Sigma in Systems Engineering.” It was

authored by Dave Cleotelis of NCS, and

Neal Mackertich of IDS.

Learning Can Be Fun

Special sessions during the symposium

addressed using the design of experiments

with modeling and simulation and complex

systems. A particular highlight was a

systems engineering game show quiz with

prizes that stimulated enthusiastic participation

in a learning event.

As a welcome bonus to the daily

plenary and technical sessions, a robotics

demonstration included high school teams

participating in the U.S. FIRST Robotics

Competition. Local team members participating

in the DARPA Grand Challenge also

provided an overview of the competition.

Students demonstrated their inventions to

a captivated crowd; in fact, younger family

members of symposium attendees helped

show off the innovative robots’ capabilities.

Not All Work and No Play

The symposium banquet offered awards,

humorous banter and a cirque show featuring

incredible acrobats, a comical juggler,

an amazing contortionist and elaborate

costumed characters.

After the symposium, participants chose

between two technical tours: a full-day

tour of the NASA Kennedy Space Center,

or a half-day tour of the University of

Central Florida to visit the Institute for

Simulation and Training and the Center for

Research and Education in Optics and Lasers.

Next year’s symposium, to be held in San

Diego, Calif., promises to be just as

rewarding. For more information on this

year’s event, visit the 2006 INCOSE

Symposium website at http://www.incose.

org/symp2006 or the INCOSE website at

http://www.incose.org.


Events

The Farnborough Air Show

Mission Systems Integration

The single greatest advantage

we provide our partners...

Raytheon’s MSI message was heard throughout

the global defense, aerospace and aviation industry

at this year’s air show in Farnborough.

Raytheon was featured in approximately

90 articles in more than 37 publications

and broadcast programs worldwide including

CNBC, which highlighted Raytheon’s

prominence at Farnborough 2006. With

seven general aviation aircraft on display,

in addition to the United Kingdom’s first

public unveiling of the Airborne Stand Off

Radar (ASTOR) airplane and ground stations,

Raytheon captured the minds of

many. The message was clear: Raytheon has

the ability to leverage extensive domain

knowledge from numerous and diverse

platforms allowing it to be one of the

world’s leading mission systems integrators.

Raytheon welcomed 2,300 customers at

the exhibition and company chalet that

held a record number of meetings. More

than 20 foreign delegations were hosted

by Raytheon including the United

Kingdom’s Defence Procurement Minister

Lord Drayson;, Chief of the Defence

Procurement Agency Sir Peter Spencer; and

two United States congressional delegations

led by Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska);

and Representative Bill Young (R-Florida).

Raytheon also participated in the

Farnborough International Youth Day, a

day dedicated to getting young people

excited about careers in science, technology,

engineering and mathematics. Raytheon

hosted more than 50 students from local

schools around Raytheon Systems Limited’s

(RSL) facilities in Harlow, England, and

Broughton, North Wales. Throughout the

day, RSL’s students were escorted by four

RSL Youth Ambassadors from the fields of

Human Resources and Engineering. Some

of the activities included, “Mars Express,”

“Build a Plane in Two Hours,” “Combat

Robot” and the “Parachute Regiment’s

Assault Course.”

With business in more than 70 countries,

Farnborough was a perfect opportunity for

Raytheon to showcase its diverse portfolio

of products, services and MSI programs.

Prominently displayed were Raytheon

Aircraft Company’s various products, such

at the T-6B, a mission-ready Beechcraft ®

AT-6 platform for the net-centric battlefield,

and the U.K.’s advanced, long-range ground

surveillance system, the ASTOR aircraft.

For complete details on Farnborough, visit

http://home.ray.com/feature/fas06.

Sen Sami

sen.sami@raytheon.com

Youth Ambassadors pictured with the Prime Minister Tony Blair (left to right): Lee Baverstock

(Recruitment manager, Harlow), Nigel Deeks (Design Liaison engineer, Broughton), Mick Bond

(Production engineer, Harlow), Alex Barrett (Test Development engineer, Harlow).

RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGY TODAY 2006 ISSUE 3 31


Events

SEtdp Waves 2 and 3 Graduate

On May 25, 2006, a group of Raytheon

engineering leaders joined 47 of our brightest

systems engineers to celebrate their

graduation from the Systems Engineering

Technical Development Program (SEtdp).

SEtdp is an enterprise-wide program,

developed jointly by experts from IDS, IIS,

NCS, RMS, SAS and RTSC working with

Raytheon Engineering Learning. The program

is structured to allow students to

exercise technical and leadership skills while

developing a broad understanding of

Raytheon’s customers and company strategy.

It also offers unparalleled opportunities to

network with Raytheon’s senior technical

experts and the rising stars of the future.

SEtdp students are selected for the program

by their business leadership team, based on

their performance and potential to grow into

senior technical roles. In 30-person waves,

SEtdp graduates: Wave 2 above and Wave 3 below

32 2006 ISSUE 3 RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGY TODAY

the students explore key technologies, competencies

and domains at SAS in El Segundo,

Calif.; IDS in Massachusetts; RMS at Tucson,

Ariz.; IIS in Garland, Texas; and NCS in

McKinney, Texas. They finish up with an

introduction to our customer base hosted by

Business Development in Washington, D.C.

Raytheon’s senior leadership actively

supports SEtdp. “When I was first assigned

as a chief engineer, it didn’t take me long

to realize that I was not prepared for the

job,” said Dr. Peter Pao, Raytheon’s vice

president of Technology. “I had to learn as I

went. Later, as a program manager, I realized

that my chief engineer was also not

prepared. The goal of SEtdp is to prepare

1,000 of our best engineers to

take on jobs like chief engineer on complex

MSI programs.”

Larri Rosser

larri_rosser@raytheon.com

Prize Winning

Projects Benefit

Raytheon

The Systems Engineering Technical

Development Program (SEtdp) includes a

cross-company class project that addresses

real and current challenges proposed by the

businesses. At the end of the program,

teams present their projects to a jury of

senior engineers, who assess them based

on technical merit, application of SEtdp

principles, creativity and engineering

process. On the whole, graduates say that

the projects are “challenging but valuable.”

A passing project assessment is a graduation

requirement, and the top projects from

each jury receive awards. The projects are

also reviewed by the project sponsors and

the Systems Engineering Council. Wherever

possible, they are put into use in Raytheon

programs and initiatives.

The following is a list of projects completed

by waves 1-3. For more information on

these projects, contact any member of the

project team.

BEST OF WAVE, WAVE 1, RMS

Border Patrol Intelligence, Surveillance

and Reconnaissance

Project Team: Ronni Cavener, Kevin

Euteneier, Laurel Gutierrez, Kevin Matthies

Challenge: Facilitate the detection and

apprehension of those in violation of border

control regulations. Provide electronic

sensors at the border that are capable

of working through all weather, and


differentiating between alerts caused by

humans and animals. The sensors must also

be easily maintained and available. Improve

the interagency alerting systems.

PEOPLE’S CHOICE AWARD, WAVE 1, NCS

Model-Driven Architecture

Project Team: Cameron Gibson, Anisha

Patel, Jeff Lee, Tom Stephens, John Firda,

Mike Nickels

Challenge: For Raytheon to succeed as a

Mission Systems Integrator, we must

address the issues of increasing system

complexity and the need to build quality

systems in a cost-competitive fashion.

Model-driven architecture (MDA) potentially

addresses this issue, in that it supports the

analysis of complex systems that can

reduce the cost of systems and software

engineering on both strategic and tactical

levels. Currently, there is a low level of

understanding of MDA in the Raytheon

engineering community. This team will

explore ways in which the Raytheon engineering

community can make use of DMA.

BEST OF JURY AWARD, WAVES 2/3,

SAS (WAVE 2)

Beech 350 ER ISR Platform for Maritime

Domain Awareness

Project Team: Thomas Bergman, Brian

Croyle, Leonard Koike, Bryan Shoemaker

Challenge: Raytheon is currently unable to

market the B350ER to U.S. customers due

to prioritization forced by limited marketing

resources. Although open domestic customer

needs could be addressed with this

platform, the current marketing and technical

approaches focus on East Asian needs.

This team will explore Beech 350ER platform

solutions to domestic customer needs.

BEST OF WAVE AWARD, WAVES 2/3,

NCS (WAVE 3)

Service-Based Architecture and

Heterogeneous Timeframes

Project Team: John Allen, Patrick Sain,

Carrie Schoenholtz, Derek Shipley, Donn

Slaughter, Christopher Toal

Challenge: Future government procurements

will require new systems of all

types — particularly sensor, command and

control, and intelligence systems — to have

a “plug-and-play” capability in a servicebased

architecture. Interoperability will

be expected. This team will propose an

architecture that responds to these

anticipated needs.

PEOPLE’S CHOICE AWARD, WAVES 2/3

RTSC (WAVE 2)

Shared Reconnaissance Pod (SHARP)

Trade Study

Team members: Kimberly Byrnes, Carlos

Costas, Andrew Dutton, Louis Revor, Todd

Surinak, David Tsai

Challenge: The SHARP operational requirements

document has several growth

requirements. There is no road map of how

or why these growth requirements should

be implemented. Several internal and external

customers have expressed interest in

using SHARP for missions not included in

the original scope. This team will capture

customer interest and develop future

requirements for SHARP and a road map to

support these new missions:

Countering improvised explosive devices

Compressing the kill chain

Net-centric operations

PASSING PROJECTS, SEtdp WAVE 1

Minimum Architecture Views, SAS

Project Team: Leah Martin, Antony Selim,

Andrew Urquhart, Rick Wood, Kurt Wuest

Sensor Netted Solution, IDS

Project Team: Brian Harkins, Tony Luken,

Katherine Proctor, Navid Yazdani,

Randall Bullard

Net-Centric Integrated Air Defense, IIS

Project Team: Andrea Duran, Anne-Marie

Buibish, Teresa Arreola, Brenda Boorda,

John Bagley, Robert Senator, John Garnett

PASSING PROJECTS, SEtdp WAVE 2

Anti-Terrorism/Ship Protection (AT/SP):

Counter Swarm Technologies, RMS/IDS

Project Team: Michael Townsend, Jonathan

Bain, Deanna Harden, Jama Mohamed

Trade Studies for the C2SA Portion of

SBInet, IIS

Project Team: Dale Anglin, Richard Calma,

Jeff Hand, Eric Peterson, Edward Potter

Study of Reference Architecture

Applicability to Urban Warfare

Environment, NCS

Project Team: Kimberly Ball, Marcos

Sastre-Cordova, Tim Hagen, Charlie

Hansen, Doug Williams

PASSING PROJECTS, SEtdp WAVE 3

System Architecture/Design Artifact

Repository, IDS

Project Team: Dean Gossett, Brian Teeple,

Roberto Vasquez, Zachary Wagner,

Jennifer Walker

Broad Area Announcement

Dissemination, IIS

Project Team: Rich Ernst, Joe Manas,

Nick Kontoyannis, Kevin Weber,

Terry Chaloupka

Modular Unmanned Aerial System, RMS

Project Team: Paul Morales,

Clarence Johnson, Martin Navarrette,

Michael Rakijas, David Ringheiser

High Energy Laser Force Protection

System, SAS

Project Team: Dallas Clow, David Filgas,

Cedric Fletcher, Jennifer Sandels

RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGY TODAY 2006 ISSUE 3 33


People

New Technical Area Directors

Bring Decades of Expertise to Roles

Raytheon has been energized recently by an infusion of talent at the Technical Area Director level as five new faces have

assumed leadership roles. Here’s a brief look at each of these deserving individuals:

Architecture

Systems

Software

Rolf Siegers

has spent most

of his 22 years

at Raytheon

working all phases of system

development and deployment

for large-scale, software-intensive

classified

programs in Intelligence and

Information Systems.

Before becoming a Technical

Area Director, he was the

chief architect of Raytheon’s

Garland Engineering Center

and continues to lead the

corporate Raytheon

Enterprise Architecture

Process (REAP) initiative.

Rolf and several colleagues

began the initial work on

REAP in 1999. Baselined in

IPDS in 2002, REAP has

been established as the

Raytheon-wide standardized

architecting process.

Rolf developed an interest in

formalized architecting techniques

about 10 years ago,

developing and deploying a

Software Architecture Team

(SWAT) concept to address

cross-IPT architectural issues

for programs at his site.

Degrees:

BS, Computer Science,

Huntingdon College

BS, Mathematics,

Huntingdon College

Electro-Optics/Laser

Doug

Anderson

has 22 years of

experience in the

field of active

and passive

electro-optical sensor

development, design, and

production at Raytheon. He

is currently the manager of

the Optics department

within the Mechanical and

Optical Engineering Center

for SAS Engineering.

Prior to January 2006, Doug

was the manager of the

Optics and Laser department,

and served as the

leader of EOSTN Laser TIG

activity for three years. He

has also held several IPTL, or

Responsible Engineer (RE),

positions prior to accepting

his department manager

roles. Some of those roles

include the Mechanical IPTL

for Thermal Weapon Sight

(TWS), overall IPTL for the

Airborne TOW Designator

(ATD) for the M-65 product

line, and overall RE for the

EN-6 LADAR Transceiver.

Degrees:

BS, Mechanical Engineering,

University of Illinois,

Champaign-Urbana

34 2006 ISSUE 3 RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGY TODAY

Materials and

Structures

Steve Tunick

has been

a member

of the

Materials

and Processes department

for his entire Raytheon

career, which began at

Hughes Aircraft Co. in

Culver City, Calif., nearly 30

years ago.

As the new Technical Area

Director for Materials and

Processing, Steve is looking

forward to providing a

bridge between the MMTN,

its technical interest groups

and the functional mechanical,

structures and thermal

engineering organizations.

Currently, Steve is a senior

manager engineer in the

Materials Engineering

department at the Product

Engineering Center in El

Segundo, Calif. Over the

years, he has provided general

materials and processes

information and assistance

to several programs within

Space and Airborne Systems,

principally the Space

Tracking and Surveillance

Systems (STSS) program.

Degrees:

BS, Chemical Engineering,

University of California at

Los Angeles

MS, Chemical Engineering,

University of California at

Los Angeles

MBA, University of Santa

Clara

Processing

Rich Crowley

has been

lending his

expertise to

Raytheon

for more

than 13 years,

all at the company’s

St. Petersburg, Fla., site.

Currently, Rich is providing

engineering support to the

program office that is pursuing

business with NASA. The

goal is to help NASA deliver

manned missions to the

moon and Mars.

In prior years with Raytheon,

Rich worked to develop

signal processing systems for

space applications, which

included the IOT lead of the

signal processing payload for

the Mobile User Objective

System pursuit. He also led

the effort to develop the

receiver unit that was part

of the UHF payload that

Raytheon provided the

OPTUS satellite. Additionally,

he led design teams that

provided the digital signal

processing functions for the

SeaWinds and GFO remote

sensing satellites.

Degrees:

BS, Electrical Engineering,

Michigan State University

MS, Electrical Engineering,

University of South Florida

RF Systems

Ken

Gautreau

has been with

Raytheon

for nearly

20 years,

all of them devoted to radar

design and signal processing

for aircraft and missile systems.

As a recognized

authority in radar

systems engineering, he

brings senior technical

expertise to a variety of

radar applications across

Raytheon Missile Systems,

from advanced concept

development and technology

demonstrations, to the

development of world-class

fielded systems.

Prior to his current role, Ken

was the technical capture

lead for the AMRAAM

Capabilities Enhancement

Package program within the

air-to-air product line.

Among his accomplishments,

he matured the concept and

an implementation of a nextgeneration

advanced radar

missile, which will bring revolutionary

tactical advantage

to U.S. Air Force and Navy

operations. He also architected

the development of the

Tactical AMRAAM Simulation,

AMRAAM’s high-fidelity, performance-predicting

simulation.

Degrees:

BS, Electrical Engineering,

California State University at

Long Beach

MS, Electrical Engineering,

University of Southern

California

MBA, University of Arizona


Supplier Rating System team

2005 Quality Excellence award winners

(left to right) Charles Hill, Andy Anderson,

Tate Wazenegger and Doris Wong (Claire

Brockelman not pictured)

CFM PROFILE

Supplier Rating System team

represents the tenets of

Customer Focused Marketing

Recently awarded the 2005 Quality Excellence

award for their work on the Supplier Rating

System (SRS) Phase III enhancements, Franklin H. Anderson II (IIS), Claire Brockelman

(Corporate), Charles A. Hill (NCS), Tate A. Wazenegger (MS) and Doris Wong (NCS) were

part of a One Company effort to align supplier performance ratings across the enterprise.

The enterprise Supplier Rating System provides a consistent method of rating suppliers

across Raytheon and provides ratings that are the basis for communication between

Raytheon and their suppliers. SRS provides visibility into critical performance data and presents

a One Company face to our supplier base. SRS is a key enabler of Mission Assurance

to drive supplier performance, strengthen and build solid relationships with our strategic

suppliers, and foster collaboration between the businesses and our supply base so we can

provide superior customer solutions.

The need for Performance

Raytheon’s competitive position depends heavily on our ability to execute as a Mission

Systems Integrator, meaning less parts coming through the shipping docks and more

reliance on suppliers to deliver the right product on time, on budget and to specification.

The SRS team worked to identify opportunities for improvements to the SRS toolset to

assist in proposal preparation, supplier selection and supplier performance improvement

efforts to better support the business in reducing program risks and operation costs. Ideas

for the enhancements were gathered from internal users as well as suppliers based on surveys

and interviews. The improved toolset allows us to move from evaluating suppliers to

creating partnerships to ensure they have internalized our commitment to Mission

Assurance and engage in healthy competitive supplier behavior.

The cross-enterprise working Relationships

The SRS core team consists of representatives from each Raytheon business, as well as

representation from Corporate Supplier Quality and Information Technology. The team

effectively worked in a virtual collaborative environment to successfully design and deploy

the SRS Phase III enhancements.

The Supplier Rating System Phase III Enhancements team used the Integrated Product

Development System (IPDS), Earned Value Management System (EVMS) and Raytheon Six

Sigma to manage the deployment of the improved SRS toolset.

Coming together to provide Solutions

The team worked seamlessly across business and function lines to design, develop and

deploy the next-generation of supplier rating tools, including a qualitative data input tool

for rating suppliers, enhanced supplier report cards, new capabilities for supplier bid evaluations,

and an upgrade of the hardware and software for internal reporting to meet

increased usage demand.

Gaps in the integration of the toolset were closed by ensuring rating dependencies

between all aspects of a supplier’s performance. Training and communication stressed the

integration of the toolset.

The accomplishments of this team are integral to our ability to execute as a Mission

Systems Integrator. The team’s improvements to the SRS toolset position Raytheon to

succeed in this landscape.

For more information about SRS visit http://srs.app.ray.com

Claire Brockelman, James Bushnell, Doris Wong

RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGY TODAY 2006 ISSUE 3 35


Resources

IPDS v3.1 - Continuing Progress to the Future States

In June 2006, the Raytheon Engineering

Common Program released the IPDS version

3.1. This release was the result of hard

work by many experts from across

Raytheon, who represented the various

businesses and disciplines. The extent of

involvement and participation across

Raytheon was the greatest since the development

of the original IPDS v2.0.

The goal of the work on IPDS is to put a

process in place that is more streamlined, easier

to navigate, and better suited to the needs

of Raytheon personnel and our customers.

The focus of efforts with this release was to

integrate the disciplines into the Integrated

Product Development Process (IPDP), extend

the streamlining to the remaining stages of

the IPDP, and further enhance the website

and process viewing capabilities. This latest

release represents a major step toward

achieving the following IPDS vision:

IPDS is the Raytheon enterprise system that defines

the standard organization processes used by all

businesses to ensure program success.

With version 3.1, the essential activities performed

in numerous previously-separate discipline

processes are now contained in the

appropriate tasks in the IPDP, for stages 2-5,

the core development processes. In addition,

some (but not all) of the separate discipline

processes are also contained in the

appropriate tasks in the newly streamlined

and updated stages 1, 6 and 7. As a result,

material for a single task of IPDP that previously

was contained in many pages of

material, scattered across numerous separate

discipline processes, is now streamlined

and combined into a single task in IPDP.

Supporting these improvements to the content

of IPDS, work also continued on the

underlying IPDS database and website.

Users now have significantly enhanced, flexible

viewing capabilities, providing users

with the ability to directly control the format

and the extent of the task information

displayed. Additional process flow diagram

views and other website enhancements

have been put in place to help users.

The various discipline councils and businesses

are also starting to place their supporting

process materials and assets (“how to’s”) in

the same common Raytheon Process Asset

36 2006 ISSUE 3 RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGY TODAY

Library (RayPAL), connected to the “essential

whats” in the IPDP. Over time, as businesses

implement their transition, the number of

assets available to users will continue to grow.

More specifically, this release of IPDS represents

the following major accomplishments:

1. Discipline Integration: The major disciplines

that are in prior versions of IPDS have

had their “essential whats” integrated into

IPDP stages 2-5. The prior standalone discipline

subprocesses have been removed from

the website with this IPDS release. The basic

activities are now in IPDP, with ownership of

tasks or activities (paragraph steps) in the

tasks with the appropriate discipline. Future

improvements to the IPDS website will

make discipline process views available to

users as graphical views. In this release,

the discipline home pages provide a table

of contents listing of discipline activities

in IPDP.

2. New Stages 1, 6, and 7: These stages

have been significantly streamlined in terms

of the number of tasks, number of levels,

number of outputs, and the extent of the

task narrative. Similar to the work done in

IPDS v3.0 with stages 2-5, the original

scope of the tasks have been maintained,

but the tasks have been combined and narratives

distilled into numbered paragraphs

to focus on the “essential whats” in order

to aid application, understanding, navigation

and support to business needs.

Integration of discipline subprocess activities

into stages 1, 6, and 7 is limited with

this release.

3. New Task Descriptor Viewer: With the

v3.0 release, the task descriptors (TDs) were

displayed as dynamic extracts from the IPDS

database, but the format was static. With

this release, the user can now control how

they view the TDs, with control filters that

can be set to manage what information is

displayed for a given task descriptor. For

example, the user can choose to view only

the activities owned by a specific discipline.

The user can also now individually collapse

or expand the display of major elements of

the TD. These capabilities provide the user

with significantly enhanced flexibility in how

they adjust their viewing and use of IPDS to

their needs. This new viewer capability

includes improved print capability and the

ability to dynamically generate a Word file of

user-filtered, multiple TDs within a stage.

4. New Process Views: Discipline process

views are available from the discipline

process links at the IPDS home page, as

well as from each discipline’s home page

under IPDS, so that users can still view

“their” discipline process information.

These process views are available as a table

of contents listing. In the future, they will

also be available as discipline-specific flowcharts.

Discipline-owner annotated IPDP

flowcharts are available as alternate views

of the IPDP flowcharts, allowing users to

see where “their” discipline process exists

within the IPDP. New threads are also available

to users, displayed as a table of contents

listing of the specific activities that

make up the thread. These threads are sets

of logically related tasks and include

Architecture, Simulation, CAIV, DFSS

and COTS.

A navigation guide and other training on

the viewer are available from the IPDS

home page. The content from the prior

subprocesses and process details will not be

lost, but will be captured as RayPAL assets

and attached to the tasks in IPDP as appropriate.

The content also remains available

by selecting a prior version of IPDS.

This release is more practical to use for executing

and planning a program, but further

improvements will be made. With the version

3.2 release, additional streamlining of

the outputs and activities in IPDP and the

existing discipline processes will be fully

integrated into the IPDP. The mappings to

CMMI, AS9100 and the MAP will be updated.

Additional Web enhancements to further

aid user navigation and understanding

will be added over the next several months.

These improvements will enhance the utility

and applicability of IPDS to all of Raytheon

and ultimately make it easier for programs

to plan and execute using disciplined

processes. Periodic updates on progress and

early looks will continue to be provided

from the IPDS home page.

For additional information and user support,

please contact your local business representatives

or your local process group.

You can also visit the IPDS website at

http://ipds.msd.ray.com/Current/.

John Evers

john-evers@raytheon.com


Help Students get Back 2 Math

Raytheon’s initiative to erase the “summer slump” and make math “kid cool”

September is synonymous with students

going back-to-school — school buses begin

to populate the roadways, classrooms begin

to buzz and teachers begin “reminding”

students of what they learned before the

lazy days of summer. Time spent by the

pool, at the beach and playing baseball

seems to erase the algebraic equations and

mathematical formulae students learned

the year before.

In fact, Raytheon recently conducted a survey

on the “summer slump” and found

that 71 percent of math teachers agreed

that students’ math skills regress over the

summer. Of the 1,000 middle-school teachers

surveyed, every teacher felt that math

skills suffer the most when compared to

other subjects.

You can almost hear middle school students

saying, “I’m never going to use this!” It’s

difficult to capture students’ focus on fractions

and geometry when the memories of

summer are fresh in their minds. Enter

MathMovesU — Raytheon’s innovative

initiative that focuses on giving math an

image makeover by changing the perception

of math as boring and geeky to

exciting and cool.

The program communicates with today’s

pre-teens on their terms by utilizing the

Internet and celebrity involvement. On

MathMovesU.com, students can get “Back

2 Math” with interactive tune-ups from

“kid-cool” celebrities such as BMX biker

Dave Mirra and soccer star Mia Hamm.

Students use their math skills to figure out

everything from the degree turn of Dave

Mirra’s tailwhip trick to Mia Hamm’s yearly

scoring average. The site also features tips

and tools that parents and teachers can use

to help students get “Back 2 Math.”

There are a number of different ways that

employees can help support MathMovesU.

In addition to encouraging students to log

on to MathMovesU.com for prizes and

scholarships, you can log onto http://home.

ray.com/feature/mathmovesu to:

Download posters to display in your

office or share with local schools

and teachers

Read the MathMovesU messages

and related articles

Download overview presentations

and facts

Volunteer for MATHCOUNTS, our

national nonprofit partner in the

MathMovesU program. At mathcounts.org

you can find a school in which to volunteer

and read about their national math

coaching and competition program.

Back-to-School season is a perfect time

to promote MathMovesU and its new

resources for students, parents and

teachers. Get involved and show students

how math has played a role in your life

and career.

Vanessa Rubino

vanessa_l_rubino@raytheon.com

Interested in Volunteering?

Go to http://home.ray.com/feature/

mmu06_toolkit to access the new

MathMovesU Volunteer Toolkit that gives

you all the tools you need to volunteer.

The toolkit includes a number of fun and

exciting activities and presentations you can

use with students in grades six through

eight. Activity sheets in the toolkit outline

everything you’ll need — from materials

and supplies, to step-by-step instructions.

Another way to help is by logging on to

VolunteerMatch, a national volunteer

matching tool that offers volunteer opportunities

related to math and science education

and other worthwhile causes.

VolunteerMatch comprises almost 40,000

nonprofit organizations and has become

the Web’s largest database of volunteer

opportunities, connecting hundreds of

thousands of volunteers with nonprofits

nationwide. VolunteerMatch enables communication

and collaboration among volunteers,

nonprofit organizations and socially

responsible businesses such as Raytheon.

You can access VolunteerMatch on

home.ray.com under “Quick Links” or at

www.volunteermatch.org.


U.S. Patents

Issued to Raytheon

At Raytheon, we encourage people

to work on technological challenges

that keep America strong and develop

innovative commercial products. Part

of that process is identifying and

protecting our intellectual property.

Once again, the U.S. Patent Office

has recognized our engineers and

technologists for their contributions

in their fields of interest. We

compliment our inventors who

were awarded patents from March

through July 2006.

LAP W. CHOW

7008873 Integrated circuit with reverse engineering protection

GARY A. FRAZIER

7012475 Method and apparatus for effecting high-frequency

amplification or oscillation

MARWAN KRUNZ

PHILLIP I. ROSENGARD

7013318 Method and system for encapsulating cells

JEROME H. POZGAY

7015857 Calibrating an antenna by determining polarization

WILLIAM F. DIXON

TROY D. FUCHSER

7015858 Antijam module

DAVID A. ANSLEY

CHUNGTE W. CHEN

7016040 Imaging polarimeter sensor with achromatic beamsplitting

polarizer

RICHARD M. LLOYD

7017496 Kinetic energy rod warhead with imploding charge for

isotropic firing of the penetrators

LUCIAN A. BRASIER

TIMOTHY C. FLETCHER

JAMES S. MASON

JAMES S. WILSON

7017651 Method and apparatus for temperature gradient control

in an electronic system

DAVID J. KNAPP

PAUL K. MANHART

7019320 Liquid filled conformal windows and domes

JOSEPH K. MIYAMOTO

JOE A. ORTIZ

FRANK H. WANG

7019503 Active power filter with input voltage feedforward,

output load feedforward, and output voltage feedforward

DAVID J. CANICH

DAVID D. CROUCH

JAMES R. GALLIVAN

ROBERT E. KARLSON

KEITH G. KATO

DAVID R. SAR

PHILIP D. STARBUCK

7019640 Sensor suite and communication system for cargo

monitoring and identification

GEORGE R. SPENCER

7019684 Phase lock loop circuitry

ROBERT M. FRIES

THOMAS L. MC KENDREE

TIMOTHY R. SCHEMPP

7019687 Method and apparatus for satellite integrity messaging

PHILIP C. THERIAULT

7022629 Print through elimination in fiber reinforced matrix

composite mirrors and method of construction

38 2006 ISSUE 3 RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGY TODAY

ARTHUR J. SCHNEIDER

7023380 Rf attitude measurement system and method

RICHARD DRYER

ANDREW J. HINSDALE

7024998 Projectile with propelling charge holder

PAUL J. SCHNEIDER

7027719 Catastrophic event-survivable video recorder system

PHIL F. MARSH

COLIN S. WHELAN

7030032 Photodiode passivation technique

MICHAEL G. ADLERSTEIN

KATHERINE J. HERRICK

7030600 Broadband microwave power sensor

THEODORE B. BAILEY

7032469 Three axes line-of-sight transducer

MICHAEL D. RUNYAN

SCOTT T. JOHNSON

DAVID T. WINSLOW

7032651 Heat exchanger

MICHAEL L. WELLS

7032856 Modern thermal sensor upgrade for existing missile

system

DARIN S. WILLIAMS

7032858 Systems and methods for identifying targets among

non-targets with a plurality of sensor vehicles

DARIN S. WILLIAMS

WALTER WRIGGLESWORTH

7034283 Absolute incremental position encoder and method

ROBERT C. ALLISON

7034373 Wide band cross point switch using mems technology

JONATHAN LYNCH

7034619 Monolithic array amplifier with periodic bias-line

bypassing structure and method

TODD KAPLAN

LOUIS LUH

7034728 Bandpass delta-sigma modulator with distributed

feedforward paths

KENNETH W. BROWN

7034751 Reflective and transmissive mode monolithic millimeter

wave array system and in-line amplifier using same

HAI-WEN CHEN

THOMAS K. LO

HARRY A SCHMITT

7035475 Non-traditional adaptive non-uniformity compensation

system employing adaptive feedforward shunting and operating

methods therefor

MARK C. HAMA

THOMAS R. WOODALL

7035996 Generating data type token value error in stream computer

JOSEPH K. MIYAMOTO

JOE A. ORTIZ

FRANK H. WANG

7038435 Method for input current regulation and active-power

filter with input voltage feedforward and output load feedforward

GARY A. FRAZIER

7038526 Method and apparatus facilitating operation of a resonant

tunneling device at a high frequency

MICHAEL J. GILBERT

7038608 Digital to analog converter

JAMES G. CHOW

KAPRIEL V. KRIKORIAN

ROBERT A. ROSEN

7038612 Method for sar processing without INS data

ELI BROOKNER

7038615 Efficient technique for estimating elevation angle

when using a broad beam for search in a radar

GARY A. FRAZIER

7038623 Method and apparatus for detecting radiation at one

wavelength using a detector for a different wavelength

DAVID A. ANSLEY

ROBERT B. HERRICK

7038776 Polarimeter to simultaneously measure the stokes vector

components of light

JOHN S. ANDERSON

CHUNGTE W. CHEN

7038863 Compact, wide-field-of-view, imaging optical system

RICHARD M. LLOYD

7040235 Kinetic energy rod warhead with isotropic firing of the

prpjectiles

ROBERT W. BYREN

7041953 Beam control system with extended beacon and method

DAVID J. KNAPP

7042654 Optical system having a transmission optical corrector

with a selectively nonuniform passive transmission optical property

KEITH D. MYERS

EDWARD J. WARKOMSKI

7043345 System and method with adaptive angle-of-attack

autopilot

LACY G. COOK

BRYCE A. WHEELER

7045774 Wide-field-of-view, four-telescope, radial scanning

search and acquisition sensor

ALPHONSO A. SAMUEL

HARRY A. SCHMITT

DONALD E. WAAGEN

DAVID A. ZAUGG

7046188 System and method for tracking beam-aspect targets

with combined kalman and particle filters

FRITZ STEUDEL

7046190 Process for phase-derived range measurements

DELMAR L. BARKER

HARRY A. SCHMITT

7046358 Electric field resonance assisted raman scattering for

ladar iff

GARY SCHWARTZ

WILLIAM G. WYATT

7046515 Method and apparatus for cooling a circuit component

IAN B. KERFOOT

JAMES G. KOSALOS

7046582 Method and system for synthetic aperture sonar

MILTON BIRNBAUM

KALIN SPARIOSU

7046710 Gain boost with synchronized multiple wavelength

pumping in a solid-state laser

JOHN E. ALBUS

GRACE Y. CHEN

JULIE R. SCHACHT

7046823 Correlation tracker breaklock detection

DUANE K. ARTER

JON R. BOYD

RICHARD L. COLLINS

TERESA M. CRIST

RICHARD S. DOTSON

DAVID J. DREW

BRENT A. LYONS

BRYAN R. NICHOLS

JESSIE R. NICHOLS

RYAN J. PETERS

CLARK A. STEPHENS

ANDREA M. WEST

SCOTT D. ZIBRAT

7047801 Portable guidance assembly test station

JAMES P. BAUKUS

LAP W. CHOW

WILLIAM M. CLARK JR

GAVIN J. HARBISON

7049667 Conductive channel pseudo block process and circuit

to inhibit reverse engineering

THOMAS R. WOODALL

7050390 System and method for real-time fault reporting in

switched networks

JERRY R. CRIPE

CHRISTOPHER L. FLETCHER

ANDREW G. TOTH

7052927 Pin detector apparatus and method of fabrication

REZA TAYRANI

7053484 Miniature broadband switched filter bank


VERNON R. GOODMAN

TIMOTHY R. HOLZHEIMER

DAVID M. SHIFRIN

7053820 Generating three-dimensional images using

impulsive radio frequency signals

GERALD A. COX

MARK S. HAUHE

STAN W. LIVINGSTON

CLIFTON QUAN

ANITA L. REINEHR

COLLEEN TALLMAN

YANMIN ZHANG

7057563 Radiator structures

JAMES M. IRION II

NICHOLAS SCHUNEMAN

7057570 Method and apparatus for obtaining wideband

performance in a tapered slot antenna

ROY P. MCMAHON

7060905 Electric cable having an organized signal

placement and its preparation

KAPRIEL V. KRIKORIAN

JAR J. LEE

IRWIN L. NEWBERG

ROBERT A. ROSEN

STEVEN R. WILKINSON

7061443 MMW electronically scanned antenna

MICHAEL C. BARR

ANTHONY T. FINCH

CARL S. KIRKCONNELL

KENNETH D. PRICE

7062922 Cryocooler with ambient temperature surge volume

MILTON LUM

THOMAS R. WOODALL

7064665 Pseudo-random state mechanical switch

DOUGLAS M. KAVNER

7068185 System and method for reading license plates

DAVID L. STEINBAUER

7068215 Reducing antenna Boresight error

KENNETH S. BARRON

CHRISTOPHER D. COLLINVITTI

BERNARD J. GIL

JEFF M. HORSLUND

7071871 Low power dissipation tracking architecture for

GPS navigation systems

STANISLAW SZAPIEL

JAMES R. WHITTY

7072540 Method of assembling a multiplexer/demultiplexer

apparatus to account for manufacturing variations in the

thin-film optical fibers

DELMAR L. BARKER

WILLIAM R. OWENS

ROSS D. ROSENWALD

NITESH N. SHAH

HAO XIN

7078697 Thermally powered terahertz radiation source

using photonic crystals

PERRY MACDONALD

7078983 Low-profile circulator

CONRAD STENTON

7079259 Optical alignment for a multi-mirror telescope

JASON M. BAIN

RUSSELL B. CLINE

DONALD E. CROFT

CHARLES M. DE LAIR

CHRISTOPHER P. OWAN

SHANE P. STILSON

7080565 Dynamic load fixture for rotary mechanical systems

JEFFREY T. DUNCAN

BENJAMIN KLAUS

ROBERT J. SCHALLER

7081614 Optical sensor system with built-in test capability

JAMES G. SMALL

7081850 Coherent detection of ultra wideband waveforms

GIB F. LEWIS

7081851 Overlapping subarray architecture

CHUNGTE W. CHEN

7081978 Novel beam combining device for multi-spectral

laser diodes

International Patents Issued

to Raytheon

Congratulations to Raytheon technologists

from all over the world. We would like to

acknowledge international patents issued

from June through mid-August 2006. These

inventors are responsible for keeping the

company on the cutting edge, and we salute

their innovation and contributions.

Titles are those on the U.S. patents; actual

titles on foreign counterparts are sometimes

modified and not recorded. While we strive

to list current international patents, many

foreign patents issue much later than the

corresponding U.S. patents and may not yet

be reflected.

AUSTRALIA

PYONG K. PARK

20035696 Electromagnetic Coupling

DOUGLAS M. KAVNER

2001253856 Predictive automatic incident detection using

automatic vehicle identification

AUSTRIA, BELGIUM, SWITZERLAND, GERMANY, SPAIN,

FINLAND, FRANCE, GREAT BRITAIN, GREECE, IRELAND,

ITALY, NETHERLANDS, PORTUGAL, SWEDEN

AYMAN FARAHAT

960413 Cooperative resolution of air traffic conflicts

BELGIUM, GERMANY, SPAIN, FRANCE, GREAT BRITAIN

ANDREW C. AUSMAN

MICHAEL W. BROGAN

DOUGLAS M. KAVNER

THOMAS E. MCCANN

LARRI A. ROSSER

JOHN R. TIFFANY

817994 Graphical user interface system for manportable

applications

CANADA

RICHARD C. PRINGLE

2071557 Use of iteration to improve the correction of AGC

dependent channel-to-channel gain imbalance

GERMANY, DENMARK, GREECE, NETHERLANDS

CRAIG H. MCCORDIC

1283975 Thermoelectric dehumidifier

GERMANY, FRANCE, GREAT BRITAIN

DELMAR L. BARKER

DENNIS C. BRAUNREITER

DAVID J. KNAPP

ALPHONSO A. SAMUEL

HARRY A. SCHMITT

STEPHEN M. SCHULTZ

1444533 Far field emulator for antenna calibration

LACY G. COOK

863421 Dual wavelength wide angle large reflective unobscured

system

GEORGE M. BURITICA

NICOLE C. GROTTODDEN

SAM NISHIKUBO

1149267 System and method for electronic stabilization for

second generation forward looking infrared systems

JOSEPH M. FUKUMOTO

1196817 System and method for sensing atmospheric

contaminants using transmitter with dual optical parametric

oscillators and receiver for same

CHUNGTE W. CHEN

1198730 Optical system with extended boresight source

GERMANY, GREAT BRITAIN, ITALY, NETHERLANDS

ERWIN M. DE SA

1117972 Highly accurate long range optically-aided

inertially guided type missile

GERMANY, SPAIN, FRANCE, GREAT BRITAIN,

GREECE, ITALY, NETHERLANDS

MARY L. GLAZE

1018095 Stand-alone biometric identification system

PHILLIP J. KELLMAN

1474789 System and method for representation of aircraft

altitude using spatial size and other natural perceptual cues

GERMANY, SPAIN, GREAT BRITAIN

MICHAEL R. COLE

PETER CHU

LIPING D. HOU

ROBERT F. WANG

C. P. WEN

WAH S. WONG

950263 High power prematched MMIC transistor with

improved ground potential continuity

ROBERT C. RASSA

COLIN A. SMITH

JAMES D. UPHOLD

810558 Advanced maintenance system for aircraft and

military weapons

GREAT BRITAIN

ROBERT S. BECKER

KELLY D. MCHENRY

FREDERICK J. WAGENER

1272808 Projectile for the destruction of large explosive targets

GABOR DEVENYI

2386936 Leadscrew assembly with a wire-wound leadscrew

and a spring-pin engagement of a drive nut to the leadscrew

ISRAEL

GILBERT L. ALEGI

136636 Barrier mountable optically coupled isolator housing

and assembly having a waveguide

MAURICE J. HALMOS

138047 Dual cavity laser resonator

GERALD A. COX

DOUGLAS A. HUBBARD

TIMOTHY D. KEESEY

CLIFTON QUAN

DAVID E. ROBERTS

CHRIS E. SCHUTZENBERGER

RAYMOND C. TUGWELL

144551 Vertical interconnect between coaxial or GCPW circuits

and airline via compressible center conductors

CHUNGTE W. CHEN

101666 Optical systems employing refractive and diffractive

optical elements to correct for chromatic aberration

JAPAN

CHARLES A. COCRUN

3676802 Epitaxial passivation of group II-IV infrared

photodetectors

NORWAY

MICHAEL B. SCHOBER

DONALD M. TARGOFF

318275 System and method for simultaneous data link with

multipurpose radar operations

STANLEY O. AKS

KIRK K. KOHNEN

318298 Localizing magnetic dipoles using spatial and temporal

processing of magnetometer data

STEPHEN BLACKETER

RICHARD T. HENNEGAN

JEFFREY A. PAUL

RAYMOND SANTOS JR

CHAIM WARZMAN

318457 Frequency conversion circuit and method for millimeter

wave radio

SOUTH KOREA

LEONARD P. CHEN

MARY J. HEWITT

JOHN L. VAMPOLA

475318 Multiplex bucket brigade circuit

HOWARD T. CHANG

LEONARD P. CHEN

EILEEN M. HERRIN

MARY J. HEWITT

JOHN L. VAMPOLA

475319 Bi-directional capable bucket brigade circuit

TAIWAN

JERRY R. CRIPE

LE T. PHAM

ANDREW G. TOTH

229190 Radiation hardened visible P-I-N detector

STEPHEN M. SHOCKEY

229581 Method and apparatus for configuring an

aperture edge

RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGY TODAY 2006 ISSUE 3 39


Future Events

6th Annual CMMI Technology

Conference & User Group

CALL FOR REGISTRATION

November 13–16, 2006

Hyatt Regency Tech Center

Denver, Colorado

The Systems Engineering Division of the

National Defense Industrial Association, in

conjunction with the Software Engineering

Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, is

pleased to announce the 6th Annual

CMMI ® (Capability Maturity Model ®

Integration) Technology Conference and

User Group.

The purpose of the conference is to

exchange ideas, concepts and lessons

learned concerning the continuing evolution,

adoption, and use of the CMMI and

its associated appraisal (assessment and

evaluation) methods. This conference brings

together CMMI adopters, users, developers,

and appraisers, as well as those with general

interest in process improvement. It provides

a forum for the free exchange of ideas

and affords a unique opportunity to meet

with the sponsors, developers, and stewards

of the CMMI, as well as those offering

CMMI training and implementation

assistance.

For more information, please visit:

http://www.ndia.org/Template.cfm?Sect

ion=7110&Template=/ContentManagem

ent/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=108

38#papers

* * *

SEPG 2007 - 19th Annual Premier

Conference for Software and

Systems Process

Transforming Performance:

Products, People and Business

CALL FOR REGISTRATION

March 26–29, 2007

Austin, Texas

SEPG is the premier international exposition

for professionals in development, acquisition

and support of software and systems.

For the latest information about the

2007 conference in Austin visit:

http://www.sei.cmu.edu/sepg/2007/

* * *

Raytheon’s 9th Annual Electro-

Optical Systems Symposium

CALL FOR PAPERS

– Coming Soon –

Late March, 2007

(tentative date)

For more information visit the EOSTN

Web site: http://home.ray.com/rayeng/

technetworks/epstn/eostn.html

* * *

Raytheon’s 6th Annual Software

Symposium

CALL FOR PAPERS

– Coming Soon –

April 30–May 4, 2007

Renaissance Hotel

Richardson, Texas

For more information visit the Software

Technology Web site: http://home.ray.

com/rayeng/technetworks/swtn/swtn.html

Do you have a great idea for an article?

We are always looking for ways to connect with you — our engineering, technology and

Mission Assurance professionals. If you have an article or an idea for an article regarding technical

achievements, customer solutions, relationships, Mission Assurance, etc., send it along. If

your topic aligns with a future issue of Technology Today or is appropriate for an online article,

we will be happy to consider it and will contact you for more information. Send your article

ideas or suggestions to techtodayeditor@raytheon.com. We’re waiting to hear from you!

Copyright © 2006 Raytheon Company. All rights reserved.

Approved for Public Release, Printed in the USA.

Customer Success Is Our Mission is a trademark of

Raytheon Company. MATHCOUNTS is a registered trademark of

MATHCOUNTS Foundation.

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines