2004 Issue 3 - Raytheon

technology 

today 

HIGHLIGHTING RAYTHEON’S TECHNOLOGY 

SHAPING OUR FUTURE 

People • Culture • Technology 

2004 Issue 3

A Message from Greg Shelton 

Vice President of Engineering, 

Technology, Manufacturing & Quality 

or 

Ask Greg on line 

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

2 2004 ISSUE 3 

This issue of technology today kicks off with a feature on cognitive computing/cognitive systems. Wow, 

what a difference a career makes. When I was in college, I did a project on an artificial intelligence 

(AI) game that, given a set of rule-based assumptions, would “learn” strategy. It was a small project of 

four pawns on each side of the board. The program took three boxes of punch cards; remember, there 

were no memory sticks back then. The game required several iterations before I got it right, and I got 

complaints from the mainframe (IBM 360) guys that I was hogging computer time (I ran my runs at 

1:00–3:00 a.m.). 

Since that early experience with AI, I have watched technology grow and compute power following 

Moore's law. I have seen systems based on genetic programming, artificial intelligence and neural 

networks evolve into useful products that are just now beginning to affect our lives. 

Today we are working towards cognitive systems. Does that bring back any thoughts to the over-fifty 

crowd? Could we be on the verge of generating a “HAL 9000” from 2001: A Space Odyssey? When the 

film was first released 40 years ago, 2001 was so far off, and the concept of a “thinking computer” was 

just science-fiction. But only a few years after the fictionalized 2001, the Cassini probe en route to 

Saturn spotted two "shepherd" moons which keep one of the planet's rings in check through their 

gravitational influence. We are a few years behind in generating the HAL 9000, but it does not quite 

seem like science fiction now! Think about it: Within the next 10 years, the technology advances we 

are working on today could birth a much kinder, gentler HAL 9000... I hope. 

Alas, so much for the sci-fi mind-wandering. Back in technology today, you hear us say “our technology 

is as good as our people,” and this will become startlingly clear as you read our several spotlights on 

people and how they relate to our future. For example, Raytheon’s dedication to K-16 education is 

highlighted to show you how we are committed to supporting education as students discover the wonders 

of math and science. A diverse and educated pool of bright young minds in the fields of engineering 

and science is a key to keeping this company at the leading edge of technology. 

Throughout this issue, you will also see profiles of our five technology areas as well as engineering, 

manufacturing, technology and quality (ETMQ, for short) professionals — their accomplishments, 

career paths and visions. They are shining reasons why we emphasize the importance of our employees 

and how we rely on our people — you — who shape the future of this company and the future of the 

industry itself. 

Speaking of leading-edge technology, make sure you flip to “Tech Talk,” a feature we will be publishing 

in national magazines to spotlight key programs and technologies across Raytheon. Keep a lookout for 

Tech Talk, both on www.ray.com and in the trades. 

Last, but certainly not least, is the addition of our international patents awards. Look for these roundthe-globe 

achievements where we list the quarterly U.S. patent awards. If there’s any question about 

whether or not Raytheon is leading the way in the electronics and aerospace industries, this list — 

and this issue of technology today — should make it clear. Are people our strongest asset? Of course. 

If they weren’t, the person in the office next to you would be named HAL. 

Sincerely, 

Greg

TECHNOLOGY TODAY 

technology today is published 

quarterly by the Office of Engineering, 

Technology, Manufacturing & Quality 

Vice President Greg Shelton 

Managing Editor Jean Scire 

Editors Mardi Scalise, Lee Ann Sousa 

Art Director Debra Graham 

Photography Jon Black, Rob Carlson, 

Roy Chamberline, Mike McGravey, 

Tom Morris, Ken Ulbrich 

Publication Coordinator Carol Danner 

Contributors 

Michael Adlerstein 

Linda Ban 

Duncan Crawford 

John Evers 

Tim Fitzgerald 

Jocelyn Hicks-Garner 

Cathy Ibrahim 

Alan Jost 

Jay Lala 

Peter Matthewson 

Mason Nakamura 

Dan Nash 

Amy Ochs 

Jill Pate 

Alan Silver 

Mark Warner 

INSIDE THIS ISSUE 

An Interview with Dr. Ronald Brachman 4 

Profiles: Jay Lala and Pete Bata 9 

Raytheon UK World Class Technologies 

Eye on Technology 

10 

Architecture & Systems Integration 12 

RF Systems 13 

EO/Lasers 14 

Processing 15 

Materials & Structures 16 

Technology Strategy Integration Offsite 17 

Spring Symposia 18 

Leadership Perspective – Peter Pao 19 

Systems and Software Technology Conference 20 

Excellence in Technology Awards 21 

Quality Excellence and Excellence in Operations Awards 22 

IPDS Program Planning Tool 24 

IPDS Upgrades 26 

T2: Tech Talk 27 

CMMI Accomplishments 28 

Design for Six Sigma 30 

DD(X) Team receives SPC Excellence Award 31 

DesignCamp 32 

U.S. Patent Recognition 33 

International Patent Recognition 34 

Interactive online technology today 36 

Future Events 36 

EDITOR’S NOTE 

The end of the summer is quickly upon us and, as my three children return to school, I think about 

what I can do to encourage them and their friends to be excited about learning, especially about 

math and science. I talk to so many children, especially girls, who think that they’re not good in 

math and science, or that it’s not “cool.” 

I often visit classrooms and am troubled that many students do not know anything about engineering 

or the exciting opportunities that are available to them. We all need to play a part in 

changing this perception by showing our children that they can actually enjoy math and science, 

and that they are more competent than they think — simply point out how they are often more 

computer savvy and can run the electronics in the house better than us! The motto in my home is based on the Henry 

Ford quote: “Either you think you can or you can’t; either way, you’re right.” 

I had the opportunity (yes, I must admit, my job is a lot of fun) to visit UMass Lowell’s DesignCamp, a hands-on experience 

for students. Raytheon was integral in this math and science educational initiative by getting the camp started 

with a major grant and continued sponsorship. The children were excited and couldn’t wait to share with us what they 

were learning and how much fun they were having. It’s no small declaration to say our children of today are the 

future of tomorrow, which is why we decided to put children on the cover of this issue, especially since Raytheon is 

focused on promoting technical literacy for all, from pre-K to grade 16. 

I am excited about new developments with technology today. One is the introduction of “Eye on Technology,” a new 

section that will feature where we were, where we are and where we are going in our five key technology areas. 

Another is the new online interactive version of technology today for which many of you were integral in providing 

feedback and ideas. Thirdly, with editors Mardi Scalise and Lee Ann Sousa, we are continuing to grow and work to 

provide you with an invaluable resource you can use every day. 

Jean Scire, Managing Editor 

jtscire@raytheon.com 

We welcome your comments and suggestions; go to technology 

today via www.ray.com/rayeng and visit the Interact section, or 

email us at techtodayeditor@raytheon.com. 

2004 ISSUE 3 3

An interview with Dr. Ronald Brachman, 

DARPA/IPTO Director 

On Feb. 6, 2004, 

Dr. Ronald Brachman, 

director of the Information 

Processing Technology Office, 

sat down in his office at 

DARPA in Arlington, Va. for an 

interview with Dr. Jaynarayan 

Lala, engineering fellow in IDS 

and a former IPTO program 

manager. The discussion yielded 

topics ranging from the origins 

of cognitive computing to 

DARPA’s vision of Cognitive 

Systems to where we might 

expect major breakthroughs. 

LALA: What are the origins of cognitive 

computing? And, do you prefer the term 

“cognitive computing” or “cognitive 

systems”? 

BRACHMAN: Generally, we’ve been using 

the term “cognitive systems.” We are very 

interested in building computational systems 

that are substantially more versatile 

and adaptive, and less prone to surprise 

from unanticipated circumstances — in 

other words, more intelligent — than the 

ones we have now. A word that naturally 

comes to mind when we think about our 

aspirations is “cognitive”: We are most 

excited about emulating the kinds of capabilities 

that humans uniquely have that 

involve thinking: solving complex problems, 


making decisions and learning. Together 

these amount to the very definition of the 

notion of cognition. So, you can call what 

we are doing “cognitive computing,” “cognitive 

systems” or, as our office BAA names 

it, “cognitive information processing technology.” 

We are trying to take notions that, 

in the natural world, exemplify cognition 

and marry them with work in computer science. 

We’ve tended to use “cognitive systems” 

to emphasize the fact that we not 

only care about the “cognitive” part but 

also about building fully integrated, functional 

systems. 

There are different ways to think about 

the origins of this kind of thinking. In the 

bigger picture, great thinkers have been 

contemplating artificial cognition for centuries 

— all the way back at least to 

Aristotle. The late 17th century philosopher 

Leibniz believed that thinking was a 

mechanical process that could be captured 

in a formal, computational way. Leibniz, 

one of the inventors of the mathematical 

calculus that we all know and love from 

high school, contemplated the notion of a 

“calculus of thought,” computing with 

symbols in a way that would be analogous 

to the differential calculus’s way of computing 

with numbers. Subsequently, at the end 

of 19th century, Gottlob Frege made a critical 

invention: a mathematical system that 

allowed the formal computation of logical 

conclusions. We have come to think of this 

as formal logic — a symbolic system that 

supports the mechanization of reasoning. 

Most of us are at least passively familiar 

with the kind of computation that Frege’s 

logic allows; perhaps the easiest way to 

think of classical logic is through syllogisms 

like “All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; 

therefore, Socrates is mortal.” We can see 

that, for a very long time, philosophers and 

mathematicians have toyed with the idea of 

“thinking” as a mechanical process. But 

until recently, none of them had machines 

on which they could test their ideas and 

help them see the incredible implications of 

their visions of mechanized reasoning. 

Once the digital computer came into being, 

modern thinkers could begin to see the 

tremendous implications of the dreams of 

Aristotle, Leibniz, Frege and others. In the 

1950s when the technical field of Artificial 

Intelligence got its start, people like John 

McCarthy started to think about using formal 

logic to allow computing machines to 

reason. So, in a more narrow view, the 

notion of an artificial cognitive system really 

started to take shape in the middle of the 

20th century. And since then, once mechanized 

reasoning was first implemented, 

researchers in the field started looking at 

the consequences of more richly emulating 

human thought, including the implications 

of looking at psychology from an information-processing 

point of view. Researchers 

branched out and began trying to understand 

the many different ways that people 

think, well beyond the very simple kind of 

deductive reasoning you can get from strict 

use of Frege’s classical logic. 

From a DARPA perspective, the cognitive 

systems initiative started with Tony Tether, 

the agency’s director. In 2001, Tony was 

looking for a new computation flag to 

raise, something more cohesive and visionary 

than the IT agenda then in place at 

DARPA. He brainstormed with a few trusted

colleagues, and together they came up 

with the idea of a cognitive systems thrust 

as a major new focus for work in IT and 

computer science. Tony believes, as do all 

of us in IPTO, that serious progress in this 

area could create a revolution in computing 

as significant and broad-reaching as the 

Internet, which is probably the office’s 

greatest and most well-known prior 

achievement. Tony invited me and my 

deputy director, Zach Lemnios, to join 

DARPA in 2002, and handed us the charter 

to make the general idea real. Given the 

history of the office, including early work in 

the 1960s by J.C.R. Licklider, the first IPTO 

Director, I suggested we change the name 

of the office back to IPTO (it was previously 

ITO) and, with that inspiration, we were off 

and running. 

LALA: How do you see AI as being related 

to cognitive computing? What breakthroughs 

do you believe have taken place 

to allow a revolutionary advance in cognitive 

systems? 

BRACHMAN: In its history, DARPA has 

had times when it put major efforts into 

Artificial Intelligence. Licklider’s earliest 

agenda for the office (in the early 1960s) 

involved “man-machine symbiosis” with a 

vision of intelligence as machines as partners 

for human users. There was a lot of 

work done in AI on planning in the 1990s 

that ultimately became very successful in 

supporting military logistics. In the 1980s 

and early ‘90s there was the Strategic 

Computing Initiative’s emphasis on rulebased 

systems, with three major applications, 

including a “Pilot’s Associate.” 

People may want to know why DARPA is 

tackling this once again. First, in its early 

years, raw computing power was a serious 

limitation for AI. But Moore’s Law over the 

last 10 years has qualitatively changed the 

landscape of the way people do AI work. 

In addition, during the 1990s, which some 

people call the “decade of the brain,” 

there was a tremendous amount of investment 

by NIH to do research in neuroscience. 

In fact, our understanding of the 

brain and natural reasoning, thinking, and 

learning mechanisms has changed substantially 

because of this investment. Third, 

there have been substantial developments 

over this time in traditional AI where new 

technologies, such as machine learning, 

have proven that, in some application 

areas, they scale and are real. There have 

been many other types of AI and related 

technologies that have become practically 

and even commercially viable. NASA, for 

example, has done some wonderful work, 

putting very rich and complex models of 

system behavior and goals on board spacecraft 

and allowing the Deep Space 1 mission 

to test out fully autonomous operation. So 

much new technology and understanding 

now exists over the expert-systems period 

of 15 years ago that it would be a mistake 

not to see how far it can now take us with 

respect to machine cognition. 

LALA: Could the Mars rover “Spirit” have 

diagnosed its own problems if it had something 

like cognition? 

BRACHMAN: In principle, there are classes 

of problems that could occur in scenarios 

like we saw with Spirit, where the right 

kind of self-aware software — one that 

could examine the physical state of the 

machine it was running on and even some 

of the software itself — could deal with 

unforeseen problems in very intelligent 

ways. In other words, you could get some 

interesting behavior if a program could 

“step back” from the problem and do 

some reasoning about the variance 

between its current state and its expected 

state. I already mentioned briefly ways in 

which NASA itself has explored the role of 

intelligent processing, a certain amount of 

self-awareness and multi-level reasoning in 

“It’s essential that humans are 

fault-tolerant. This type of 

reasoned response to problems 

would be a very powerful 

type of capability to have 

in computational systems.” 

autonomy trials on some of its missions. 

Since that work was still very experimental, 

it could not have made its way onto the 

current generation of Mars rovers, but 

there is hope that it will play an important 

role in a Mars mission in 2009. 

LALA: So, fault tolerance is a necessary 

condition? 

BRACHMAN: Yes, but we want to interpret 

“tolerance” very broadly. There are 

many ways that fault tolerance can be built 

into computational systems, but we see a 

whole new level of capability being made 

possible by creating explicit models and 

allowing reasoning — and learning — to 

help with diagnosis, recovery and even system 

improvement over time. Note that the 

same is true in natural systems. It’s essential 

that humans are fault-tolerant. Sometimes 

our bodies heal themselves, continuing to 

operate while repairs are in progress, and 

sometimes it takes groups of humans, 

thinking, solving problems and designing 

cures and vaccines, to deal with a problem. 

Continued on page 6 


BRACHMAN INTERVIEW 

Continued from page 5 

This type of reasoned response to problems 

would be a very powerful type of capability 

to have in computational systems. 

LALA: What are the DARPA-hard problems 

you think must be solved for cognitive 

computing to advance significantly? 

BRACHMAN: If you think about characteristics 

of natural intelligent systems, it is 

clear that we are multi-faceted, multidimensional 

systems. I don’t know whether 

major successes along independent, indi- 

vidual technology paths (e.g., vision, 

speech, planning, default reasoning, etc.) 

will simply add up, or whether it’s the 

interaction between the pieces that is really 

critical. So, we are investing in work in 

both dimensions. Clearly, if something is 

going to be cognitive, it has to apply 

knowledge to make judgments and decisions. 

That’s really the essence of being 

cognitive: to know things, to reason and to 

use that knowledge to influence your activities. 

So, at the core what we want is 

robust, multi-dimensional reasoning by 

machine. Some great formal reasoning 

technology already exists, but there are 

some very challenging problems still out 

there having to do with the scale of human 

knowledge, the use of background knowledge 

and “context,” “common-sense reasoning,” 

defaults, model-based reasoning 

and other things. Another area that is 

absolutely critical is learning. You can have 

a very clever machine that makes good 

decisions, but if it makes a mistake and 

repeats that mistake over and over again 

(and you see this with our PCs all the time), 

it just appears stupid. Our belief is that 

learning is as essential as reasoning to build 

cognitive machines. And an essential part 


of real reasoning and learning is the connection 

of the entity to the world. It has to 

be “situated” somewhere and deal with 

inputs and outputs that come from the rest 

of the universe. We don’t want to construct 

an isolated “brain in a bottle.” So, 

it’s very important to look at the intersection 

of reasoning and learning at the core 

and perception at the periphery — taking 

in inputs through multiple sensor modalities. 

One of the interesting things about 

the future of cognitive systems is that we 

could imagine sensor modalities that are 

quite different from what natural systems 

have. People don’t use LADAR and infrared 

and inertial sensors in the way robots do. 

You could have broader sensor suite in an 

artificial system than in a natural one, and 

that might give you a lot more powerful 

capability. 

And on the flip-side of perception, we 

want to build systems that can take action. 

It is one thing to decide something or to 

create a formal, logical plan, but no intellectual 

plan survives contact with the real 

world. Things go wrong; sensors are imperfect; 

other agents do surprising things. We 

need to include actions, observation and 

re-planning in our research agenda. Of 

course, such actions could be in cyberspace; 

they don’t have to be physical. 

Another given is that the real world 

involves multiple reasoning entities. We 

have to take communication, collaboration, 

team and adversary activity into account. 

Certainly the military is heavily dependent 

on the performance of teams, both formal 

and informal. We have to take into 

account communication and coordination 

among multiple, independently reasoning, 

autonomous systems, whether they are 

humans or robots. 

Last point here: We could and need to 

make great strides in each of these areas 

independently, and that’s how research 

tends to go. However, we believe that it’s 

critically important that we look at architectures 

and issues of integration of the various 

components. 

LALA: What new applications do you feel 

will be enabled as a result of advances in 

cognitive computing? 

BRACHMAN: Virtually everything that 

matters in the Department of Defense and 

in the world in general — almost every- 

thing we do, everyday — depends on computing 

equipment. “Network-centric” warfare 

is the envisioned future of our military 

services. DARPA is very much engaged in 

support for visions such as the Army’s 

Future Combat Systems. We need to 

attend to the capability of the core platform 

on which all these future visions are 

going to be built. We want to pursue a 

radically different approach to large software 

systems, where the systems could 

ultimately be much more responsible for 

their own success. If you could understand 

the requirements for the first release of a 

system well enough to have them articulated 

to the system explicitly, then you’ve 

decided what the requirements were for 

the second generation, maybe you could 

avoid sending 500 programmers back to 

the lab and to design the next release and 

actually discuss changes with the system 

itself, advising it as to how you’d like to 

see it increase its own capabilities. Perhaps 

we can ultimately teach software systems 

the same way we teach humans and leave 

a great deal of the burden on the system 

as to how to assimilate and implement its 

new capabilities. A system that is more 

capable would not only be able to maintain

itself better in the field and prevent being 

taken down by contingencies and attacks 

by an adversary, but such systems might 

even improve and change their missions 

when they’re already deployed. This is a 

pretty radical vision but, the way I see it, 

something this extreme is urgently needed 

or we will simply be buried by the cost 

and complexity of the software we are 

producing (not to mention its growing 

fragility and vulnerability because of this 

complexity). 

LALA: Where do you think the initial 

breakthroughs will come? 

BRACHMAN: There is always a tension in 

a situation like ours, between knowing 

how to solve the core problems and longterm 

challenges, and feeling that there is 

low-hanging fruit to be harvested just by 

applying the right idea to the right problem. 

We are exploring both of those, 

although it is important to remember that 

DARPA is one of the few places that can 

really focus on the critical, long-term issues 

that are almost — but, not quite —impos- 

sible, and that is our primary responsibility. 

One place I hope to see some early breakthroughs 

is in a program that has just 

begun: “Self-Regenerative Systems.” In this 

program, we’ve created four technology 

thrusts that are trying to remove critical 

roadblocks in the way of building a software 

system that would be able to survive 

even successful attacks or failures and, not 

only survive, but always maintain 100 percent 

of critical functionality and grow back 

full functionality after an attack. I love this 

program because it has very significant 

work in hardcore computer science, complemented 

by a potentially critical contribution 

from reasoning and learning. It really 

exemplifies our view of the future of com- 

putational systems augmented by cognitive 

information processing. 

Another area that we’re exploring that 

should have some early payoffs is the application 

of reasoning and learning to the 

management of networks. The grand goal 

is to invent a virtual space that would be 

applied to large-scale distributed networks 

that would parallel the data plane and the 

control plane — a “knowledge plane” — 

that would have a global view of everything 

in this very distributed computing 

fabric. Such a system might, by observation 

of things going on in different places and 

reasoning about past experience, be proactive 

about, for example, distributed denialof-service 

attacks; or it might be able to do 

management of access or even network 

resources in a cognitive way where the 

tasking could come at a high level. It 

wouldn’t have to be reprogrammed by network 

engineers, and you wouldn’t need as 

many professional network managers who 

are watching the network traffic and making 

changes to parameters. 

Other areas in which we are seeking relatively 

short term gains have to do with 

applying state-of-the-art learning algorithms 

to robotic locomotion and navigation. 

You’re aware, I’m sure, of the DARPA 

Grand Challenge. While a very exciting 

event, the Challenge showed us how much 

more research needs to be done in dealing 

with autonomous navigation in natural terrain. 

We’re looking at some learning capabilities 

for leading robotic vehicles through 

a course by a human and then having it 

learn through experience how to navigate 

the course and get over different types of 

barriers. This work will be embodied in our 

new “Learning Applied to Ground Robots” 

program. I can envision results from this 

program supporting programs like FCS in 

less than five years. 

Finally, I think I can say that we’ve already 

seen some interesting potential breakthroughs 

in our Personalized Assistant that 

“There is always a tension… 

between knowing how to 

solve the core problems 

and long-term challenges, 

and feeling that there is 

low-hanging fruit to 

be harvested.” 

Learns (PAL) program. Our researchers have 

created some new machine learning algorithms 

that, in some early tests, seem to be 

doing better than the very best prior algorithms 

— by taking background knowledge 

into account. We are very excited about 

these results and the promise of more 

learning breakthroughs. 

LALA: What else can you tell us about PAL? 

BRACHMAN: When you make a system 

operate in a way that begins to look cognitive 

and you look at how it might work 

with a war fighter or a commander, what 

seems obvious is that the best way to think 

of it is as an assistant. It would likely have 

a significant degree of autonomy so as not 

to be a constant burden to its user, but 

you’d want it to be advisable and take 

guidance from its supervisor. You’d like it 

to use some common sense, be aware of 

the mission and be personalized over time 

to the needs of the user. The ideal that 

Continued on page 8 


BRACHMAN INTERVIEW 

Continued from page 7 

comes to mind is an executive assistant or 

a chief of staff. Typically, the more people 

work together, the better they work as a 

team, making each of them more independently 

effective, so the idea of building 

an integrated artificial assistant has motivated 

us. In that image, we’ve created 

Personalized Assistant that Learns (PAL). 

What we’re trying to do in PAL is focus 

on each of the elements that I mentioned 

earlier — learning, reasoning, perception, 

communication and action — but, most 

importantly, on the integration of those, 

and then tackling the real-world complex 

tasks that an executive assistant would be 

asked to tackle. For example, this means 

not just looking at how well the system 

parses a visual image of a conference room 

or a calendar, but how it integrates what it 

sees and hears with what it knows about 

the mission, what is going on in a meeting 

and what the action items and outcomes are. 

The PAL program is really our office centerpiece, 

and it’s very ambitious. The idea of 

building an artificial chief of staff or an 

assistant applies all over the military. 

Recently, a visiting Marine talked about 

how useful it would be to augment or 

replace a radio operator in a tank or in a 

unit. It’s a very critical yet tedious position 

for a person and ranges from boring, low 

levels of activity to high-stress, chaotic, 

time-critical activities — seems like the perfect 

place to consider a cognitive computer 

assistant. We’ve observed activities in an air 

operations center training setting where 

you can see how the JFAC could use assistance 

in coordinating the activities of all 

the people that report to him, prioritizing 

activities, riding herd over people to make 


“Recently, a visiting Marine 

talked about how useful it 

would be to augment or 

replace a radio operator 

in a tank or in a unit.” 

sure their activities have been completed, 

simply remembering conversations from 

the past so you could have the information 

ready at hand in the future, keeping things 

from falling between the cracks — all of 

the things that an excellent assistant does. 

LALA: How can one measure progress in 

this field? 

BRACHMAN: In some limited technical 

areas, like learning, you can set up very 

careful and quantitative evaluations. You 

can draw learning curves and show that 

how you want to push them ahead a certain 

distance. You can show the speed of 

learning and competitiveness between multiple 

learning algorithms. But when you are 

trying to build an artificial executive assis- 

tant, think about how we evaluate such 

people in the real world. It tends to be subjective; 

it’s complex and multi-dimensional, 

and there is no one dimension of what 

they do that is the most important. We 

may want to look at ways in which learning 

and reasoning and other types of performance 

are measured in humans by psychologists 

and educators. There may be 

some good ideas there that can help us. 

Nevertheless, we’re at the very beginning 

of this. Many people are familiar with what 

is called the Turing Test that Alan Turing 

invented 50 years ago, which is a way of 

trying to determine whether a computer is 

actually intelligent, but that’s totally inade- 

quate for the purposes we have. It’s not 

quantitative; it doesn’t involve taking any 

actions, and it doesn’t involve learning 

from experience. 

LALA: How do you keep a long-term 

research effort like this going long enough 

to succeed? 

BRACHMAN: We don’t know whether 

we can succeed. We think the probabilities 

are reasonable, but DARPA doesn’t work 

on things that are guaranteed success. So 

what we are trying to do is think about 

meaningful, exciting and compelling problems 

with some intermediate results that 

will show our successors that there is 

promise here. What we’re dealing with 

here is a very-long-term vision. So we’re 

going to build some small things that build 

on past history, and we’re going to do 

some ambitious, long-term things that 

address the vision directly and hope that 

the portfolio is very strong by the time we 

leave. Things have been going very well 

with this initiative, in large part because we 

have very strong support from the director 

of the agency. 

LALA: Is there anything else you would 

like to add? 

BRACHMAN: I should conclude with 

one very important thought. DARPA lives 

and breathes through its program managers. 

The success of any of these efforts 

and the longevity of projects really depends 

on getting excellent technical people who 

really understand the field and understand 

how to put together a vision, to sell it and 

manage it. We really are critically dependent 

on these people coming in from the 

community and helping turn exciting 

visions into reality. •

PROFILE: Jay LALA 

Upon earning his Sc.D. in Instrumentation from MIT, 

Jay Lala embarked on an impressive 25-year career 

at Draper Laboratory where he designed and developed 

fault-tolerant computers for mission- and safety-critical 

applications. These included the swim-bywire 

ship control computer for the SEAWOLF nuclear 

attack submarine and the flight-critical computer to 

control all on-board functions of NASA X-38 crew 

return vehicle. In 1999, Jay joined DARPA as a 

Program Manager (PM) under the Interagency 

Personnel Agreement (IPA) before coming to 

Raytheon in 2003. 

Started in the late ‘90s, DARPA’s Information 

Assurance & Survivability program provided 

Jay with an opportunity to achieve his 

vision of integrating the two previously distinct and parallel disciplines of fault 

tolerance and computer security. Working at DARPA enabled Jay to change the 

security paradigm from prevention and detection to intrusion tolerance. 

“Intrusion tolerance moves from the classical computer and network security 

approach of prevention — where you build all types of forts and moats to keep 

attackers out — to intrusion tolerance where you design systems that, even 

when some parts fail or are successfully attacked, continue to operate and 

degrade gracefully to perform all the mission-critical functions correctly,” he 

explained. Even though Jay served only four years at DARPA, a congressionally 

mandated term-limit for IPAs, he was awarded the Office of Secretary of 

Defense Medal for Exceptional Public Service for his many contributions to 

improving the security of our nation’s networks. 

PROFILE: Pete BATA 

Pete Bata has always enjoyed working with customers, building relationships 

that enable Raytheon to provide them with the best solutions. After graduating 

from the University of Colorado with a BS aerospace engineering, Pete joined 

Raytheon as a test engineer in Aurora, Colo. 

He then moved into systems engineering working on a large satellite command 

and control system. When the system was complete, Pete went to the customer 

site in Washington, D.C. where he spent three years working directly with the 

customer on installation of the system. “The knowledge I gained working directly 

with the customer was invaluable,” Pete said. “I was able to see how the customer 

used the system and what their needs where. This is where you learn the 

importance of Mission Assurance and what the customer needs really are.” 

With the experience he gained in the field, Pete returned to a lead systems 

engineering role on a satellite system in Aurora.At the same time, Pete earned 

his MS in Aerospace Engineering and participated in the Engineering 

Leadership Development Program (ELDP), a two-year leadership program that 

focuses on developing highly capable engineering leaders by providing crossfunctional, 

leadership and business training. 

Through the ELDP, Pete became aware of an exciting opportunity in the 

Business Development office of Advanced Technology. This position would 

enable him to leverage his experience working with the customer, but also challenged 

him to step outside his comfort zone by directly working with DARPA 

learning the latest technologies. “This opportunity provided me with the visibility 

of the depth and breadth of, not only Raytheon’s technology capabilities and 

strengths, but also our competitors. I work directly with the customer and our 

partners on new solutions for the next-generation battle space.” 

Pete is working with DARPA on military solutions for the war fighter and is 

particularly proud of the “Integrated Solution” team concept that he was integral 

in developing. This concept brings together technologists, domain experts, 

DARPA empowered Jay to carry out his vision by providing substantial 

resources and a highly streamlined execution environment. He was thrilled with 

his experience at DARPA. “DARPA is a unique agency in the world where new 

blood is constantly brought in from outside, and the PMs are trusted with enormous 

funds to accomplish their vision,” Jay said. “The knowledge gained from 

working with top-notch principal investigators, as well as the visibility into a 

broad swath of the latest science and technology, was invaluable.” 

Now located at Customer Integration Center at IDS in the Crystal City offices of 

Arlington, Va., Jay’s current position demonstrates Customer Focused Marketing 

at its best. He has built solid relationships with his DARPA peers, now 

Raytheon’s customers. He understands our customer needs and has a thorough 

comprehension of the science and technology landscape that enables him to 

provide state-of-the-art solutions. Since joining IDS, Jay has been integral to 

several key wins and will continue to work with customers to help ensure that 

our commitments are met and delivered as promised. 

Jay’s background and experiences in fault tolerant computers, as well as changing 

a mindset from prevention to intrusion tolerance, is closely aligned with 

Raytheon’s pursuit of Mission Assurance. “We are well-prepared for Mission 

Assurance. We have the IPDS, Raytheon Six Sigma TM and CMMI ® processes,” 

he said. “Our systems architectures need to be consistent with the mapping 

of Mission Assurance requirements so that we design the ability to perform 

missions from the ground-up early in the design cycle.” 

For more information, contact Jay at Jay_Lala@raytheon.com 

customers and partners in a workshop-styled setting. Each workshop focuses 

on a critical mission area — such as urban warfare, space control or, most 

recently, improvised explosive devices (IEDs) — in which the problem is 

defined, gaps and needs are identified, and solutions are generated. The end 

result is growth with new program wins. 

As a result of the IED workshop, 10 new potential solutions were developed. 

“The objectives of the workshop were to frame the IED problem and generate 

a number of system concepts that address the current needs and gaps,” 

explained Pete. “We focused on solutions with potential for rapid implementation 

in Iraq to save U.S. lives. We are now in the process of refining 

these concepts for presentation to DARPA and the services.” 

Pete is planning to return to the businesses, leading a program 

or function where he can utilize the knowledge and skills 

gained by working in the D.C. office, and where he can work 

directly with our customers and partners. “I encourage 

everyone in Engineering to seek new and exciting opportunities 

outside of their comfort zone,” he urged. “These stretch 

assignments are invaluable to career growth and 

development. I have learned so much about our 

great company that I could not have learned while 

working on a single program or within a business. 

Now I can apply that knowledge and insight to 

provide One Company solutions leveraging 

the strong relationships I have built within 

the customer community.” 

For more information on the IED 

workshop, visit http://www.ray.com/ 

feature/ied_workshop, or email Pete at 

pdbata@raytheon.com 


Air Traffic Management 

Systems (ATMS) 

RSL has become a major supplier of 

Monopulse Secondary Surveillance Radars 

(MSSR) around the world. The company 

pioneered this technology after World 

War II, installing the first Secondary 

Radar at London’s Heathrow airport in 

the early 1950s. 

Today, approximately 300 Raytheon MSSR 

systems have been installed in 34 countries, 

and customers include the United States 

Federal Aviation Administration and the 

United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority. 

Automatic Dependent 

Surveillance–Broadcast (ADS-B) 

The next generation of cooperative Air 

Traffic Management Systems (ATMS) surveillance 

technology is called ADS-B. This 

system utilizes positional information from 

aircraft navigation systems, 

and broadcasts 

it to receivers on 

the ground or 

to other aircraft. 

Received messages 

provide situational 

awareness of the location 

and intent of aircraft in the vicinity. 

The sky has become increasingly congested 

and the number of transmissions has 

increased, RSL Harlow, England has developed 

decoding technology that allows reli- 


able signal reception despite “garbling” of the 

signals. RSL’s demonstration of the ADS-B 

receiver shows potential customers the power 

of this innovative new decoding technology. 

Flight Planning Systems 

The RSL Northern Ireland Systems and 

Software Center (NISSC) has been working 

as a fully integrated part of the P1 

program — along with the Raytheon 

facility in Marlborough, Mass. — to supply 

the ATM solution for the German civil 

aviation authority (DFS). The system provides 

advanced functions such as precise 

trajectory calculation and flight-plan-based 

conflict prediction that allows a safe 

introduction of flexible and dynamic 

airspace utilization concepts. 

P1 system at Langen control center. Picture 

courtesy of DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH. 

System Integration 

Airborne STand Off Radar (ASTOR) 

Thirteen Engineers from RSL are on site at 

Greenville, Texas to support the development 

and integration of the first ASTOR 

aircraft and to transition the design authority 

for the platform to the UK. Four production 

aircraft have now been delivered to 

RSL in Broughton, Wales for assembly. The 

aircraft are being extensively modified to 

incorporate the dual-mode radar antenna, 

data link antennas, SATCOM system and 

the Defensive Aids Group. In addition, the 

aircraft has been equipped with a comprehensive 

mission system, which permits the 

control of the radar, mission flight plan and 

communications systems. 

RSL has all necessary approval 

capabilities to allow us to 

undertake further upgrade 

programs associated with 

the integration of varied 

systems on many platform types. 

Successor Identify Friend or Foe 

(SIFF) 

RSL’s Airborne and Naval platform integration 

teams have, as part of the SIFF 

program, introduced new IFF transponders 

and interrogators into 11 different aircraft 

types and are integrating eight more. They 

have also successfully introduced the system 

to four different classes of ships. This 

complex process includes integration with 

the naval combat system highway and 

ships’ primary sensors.

Electronic Systems 

Digital GPS Anti-Jam Technology 

GPS systems are vulnerable to 

interference and deliberate 

countermeasures. RSL 

manufactures a range of 

systems that offer aircraft a high 

level of protection against a wide 

range of jamming scenarios. 

To date, 2,400 systems have been 

delivered to customers 

around 

the world. The 

next-generation 

fully digital solution 

is currently 

under development at RSL and is designed 

to offer better jamming cancellation performance, 

more flexible modes of operation 

and simultaneous protection of both 

GPS frequency bands. 

Power and Control Electronics 

The RSL facility in Glenrothes, Scotland is 

a leader in the supply of power and 

control systems. 

Motor Drives and Controls 

Our Power and Control Motor Drive team 

designs and develops Direct Current (DC) 

brushless motor drive solutions for aerospace 

and defense applications. Leadingedge 

algorithm design techniques — such 

as Space Vector Pulse Width Modulation 

(PWM) and Field Oriented Control, along 

with position control loops around the 

inner torque control loop — are used to 

produce high performance. 

Semiconductor Products 

RSL’s wafer fabrication facility (Fab) was 

involved in the early pioneering and development 

of non-volatile Complementary 

Metal Oxide Semiconductors (CMOS). 

When combined with analog and digital 

circuitry, the non-volatile elements can 

store system and calibration data. 

Encryption devices, fusing, fire detector 

sensor elements, transponders and security 

devices have benefited from this technology. 

One application couples an RSL ASIC 

with a micro electro mechanical sensor 

(MEMS) element to provide the sensor 

interface, calibration and signal conditioning 

functions used in automotive vehicle 

stability control and braking systems. 

The Fab is a “flexible foundry” where 

low-volume and unconventional projects 

can be accommodated. This has enabled 

solutions for obsolescence issues on older 

military systems where ASICs have been 

remanufactured from original design 

databases, reducing the need for 

system re-engineering and qualification. 

Silicon carbide processing techniques are 

also being developed for use in power and 

high-frequency applications to support 

higher-density power solutions and better 

microwave components. 

Hybrid Microcircuits 

RSL develops and manufactures hybrids for 

use in power conversion and motor drives. 

Package materials and technologies are optimized 

to maintain the thermal and electrical 

performance required within size constraints 

such as low profile and small outline. 

Martin Stevens is the chief 

architect of the ADS-B 

demonstration system and 

the new decoding technology 

developed to underpin 

RSL’s entry into the emerging 

ADS-B market. 

His family has a long history with RSL, 

beginning with his grandfather, Walter, 

who joined the company in 1933 (then 

trading as Cossor). Walter was involved in 

development of the original Chain Home 

HF radar system for defense of the UK 

during World War II and, later, as Works 

Manager where he was instrumental in 

bringing the business to the Harlow site. 

Martin’s father, Michael, worked in the 

business for 40 years and was the chief 

innovator for Monopulse Secondary 

Surveillance Radar, now a standard RSL 

product. Some of Michael’s MSSR patents 

protecting the technology are still in force. 

As a result of the 1961 merger with 

Cossor, Michael became part of Raytheon. 

Martin, in turn, has been with RSL for 17 

years, during which he has developed 

Mode-S Secondary Radar Interrogators and 

Identification Friend or Foe technology. 

His family history and his own accomplishments 

have served as an ideal background 

for Martin’s role in RSL’s present-day challenge 

of developing superior new technology 

and implementing this technology into 

products to address a new market for RSL. 

RSL’s hybrid facility 

recently achieved 

Qualified 

Manufacturers 

Listing (QML) 

accreditation, one of only two sites in the 

UK to receive such an endorsement. The 

team also supports long-running defense 

programs that are running into component 

obsolescence and, in some cases, system 

upgrades driven by obsolescence. • 

Peter Matthewson 

peter.matthewson@raytheon.co.uk 


Microwave 

Semiconductor 

Technology: 

An Overview 

The Transistor 

In 1947, few appreciated the tremendous 

impact of Bardeen, Brittain and Schockley’s 

point contact transistor invention. Early 

transistors were built using Germanium, but 

Silicon quickly became the preferred material 

due mostly to Silicon’s purity and chemical 

properties. Silicon is the most widely 

used transistor material today, particularly 

in computers and consumer electronics, but 

it is not adequate for applications where 

there is a tradeoff between speed and power. 

Frequencies of operation in Raytheon communication 

and radar products range from 

5 GHz to 100 GHz. This range includes the 

microwave bands (10 GHz, 15 GHz and 20 

GHz) as well as the millimeter bands (35 GHz, 

44 GHz and 94 GHz). These high frequencies 

can be compared with state-of-the-art 

Pentium ® microprocessors operating at 2.5 

GHz using Si technology. 

Advanced Materials 

Raytheon RF applications have proven best 

served by compound semiconductors that 

combine elements from columns III and V of 

the periodic table. So far, Gallium Arsenide 

(GaAs) has been the key material for 

microwave applications. 

Raytheon’s commitment to this technology 

through a robust R&D effort has resulted in 

important material and design innovations, 

which enable high power transmit transistors 

and low-noise receive transistors operating 

in the microwave and mm-wave 

bands. Basic material designs are based on 

various crystalline combinations of Gallium, 

Arsenic, Aluminum, Indium and Phosphorus. 

Today, development of Gallium Nitride 

(GaN) transistors is one of the most important 

of Raytheon’s R&D activities. GaN, like 

the other materials, is a III-V compound 

semiconductor, but it is more ionic, so transistors 

made from GaN have a much higher 

operating voltage and power density compared 

with transistors made from GaAs. The 

advantage in power generation will have a 

significant impact on Raytheon’s future 

solid-state systems and will result in a competitive 

advantage for the company. 

Transistor Fabrication Technology 

Even with the most advanced material technology 

it is necessary to fabricate transistors 

with sub-micron features to achieve the 

Figure 1 

desired frequency response. Figure 1 is an 

electron micrograph of a GaN FET showing 

the structure of a transistor. Electrons flow 

from the source to the drain electrodes, but 

must first flow under the gate where the 

flow is modulated by a low power signal. 

Raytheon has made many contributions to 

transistor fabrication technology, and is 

continuing to enhance its fabrication techniques 

while attaining high performance, 

reproducibility, reliability and high yield. 

Monolithic Integration and Modules 

The discussion of transistor technology 

inevitably leads to a discussion of the circuits 

that surround them. For microwave 

devices, one cannot simply use ordinary 

resistors, capacitors and inductors since the 

dimensions of such components are on the 

order of the wavelength of the microwaves. 

Instead, structures must at least be printed 

on the circuit board and, further, printing 

the circuit components directly on the same 

semiconductor chip as the transistors themselves. 

In the 1980s and 90s, this technique 

developed into a process for chips called 

“Microwave Monolithic Integrated Circuits” 

(MMICs). With assistance from the Defense 

Advanced Research Projects Agency 

(DARPA), Raytheon continues to be at the 

forefront of this technology. As the company 

grew through acquisition of Hughes and 

Texas Instruments Defense Group, expert 

chip-design centers were added to Raytheon’s 

repertoire. Raytheon RF Components in 

Andover, Mass. presently provides the capability 

to manufacture MMICs. Typically, MMIC 

chips are sent to Raytheon’s Advanced Product 

Center in Dallas, Texas for assembly into 

hardware necessary for Raytheon products. 

YESTERDAY…TODAY…TOMORROW 

Power Amplifier 

GaAs MMIC 

Mixed Signal (Digital 

and RF) GaAs MMIC 

Constant improvement in measurement and 

modeling techniques of today’s advanced 

MMICs is necessary. To produce a successful 

monolithic circuit design, one must have an 

accurate model of the transistor over a wide 

variety of bias, operating powers and temperatures. 

Transistor data is gathered by 

advanced techniques and extensive analysis. 

The resulting models must be maintained 

for various fabrication processes. Using the 

models, powerful circuit simulation software 

tools are used to evaluate various circuit 

designs to achieve the desired performance 

in the MMIC. Following a trend toward 

higher frequencies and smaller chips, circuit 

layouts are often analyzed with sophisticated 

electromagnetic simulation software. 

Such analysis reveals interaction between 

elements that can adversely affect designs. 

What About the Future? 

There are several frontiers for MMIC 

research and development: use of new 

materials such as GaN; use of special coatings 

which eliminate the need for sealed 

modules; use of direct interconnects which 

eliminate the need for bond wires and associated 

pads; reducing the size and cost of 

MMIC chips; and incorporation of multiple 

functions — transmit, receive, digital control, 

digital conversion — on a single MMIC. 

Widening and deepening of these tributaries 

is an ongoing process within Raytheon 

and involve many disciplines — ranging 

from basic physics and materials to circuit 

design, packaging, thermal designs and 

manufacturing expertise. However, in contrast 

to tributaries, elements of MMIC technology 

cannot flow independently, but must 

be coordinated with a guiding vision aimed 

at low-cost and high-performance applications 

in Raytheon systems. • 

Michael G. Adlerstein 

2004 ISSUE 3 13 

RF SYSTEMS

EO/LASERS 

Seeing the Enemy First:* 

The United States Army takes its 

armored vehicles’ infrared eyes 

to another level* 

In the days of Vietnam, the U.S. military 

realized the advantage of owning the night 

through infrared imaging. Unfortunately, 

the cost of ownership in those early years 

was extremely high. Each IR system design 

was unique so that there could be no 

advantage of cost through scale, and logistics 

were a nightmare. 

However, Raytheon and the Army recognized 

the value of infrared technology and 

together developed a set of building blocks 

— called “common modules” — from 

which a variety of systems could be constructed. 

These modules could be built in 

large quantities and at a much lower cost 

than previously achievable, and logistics 

were greatly simplified. 

With government sponsorship and internal 

investment, Raytheon continued to improve 

technology to develop 

Figure 1 

(in the mid-1990s) a second-generation of 

common modules, now called “horizontal 

technology integration.” This technology 

consisted of system-unique (A-kits) and 

common (HTI-B kits) components. 

In addition to remarkably high resolution 

allowing vehicle commanders 

and gunners to see targets as far as 

their weapons can shoot, secondgeneration 

FLIRs (assembled from 

these modules) doubled the effective 

range of the target-acquisition sights — 

used by the commander and gunner on 

the Abrams and Bradley combat systems — 

compared to first-generation “commonmodule” 

FLIRs.* 

Raytheon developed and fielded every firstand 

second-generation EO/IR sensor for the 

U.S. Army’s ground combat systems: 

Abrams, Bradley, TOW, Javelin and LRAS3 

(see Figure 1). These high-performance, 

highly reliable systems were critical to success 

in both Gulf Wars and in Afghanistan. 

Now, during Operation Iraqi Freedom, our 

customers call our systems “Combat 

Multipliers” and say “They are the 

reason many young men and women have 

come home.” The Stryker Brigade’s Mobile 

Gun System, Long Range Reconnaissance 

vehicle and Anti Tank Guided Missile vehicle, 

deployed with the 4ID — Bradley and 

Abrams armor and cavalry components — 

US Army Illustration 

Figure 2. In a dual-band third generation FLIR 

image of a hand, the long-wave band the hand is 

obscured by a sheet of plastic, top, but the mid-wave 

band, bottom, the whole hand is detected. In the 

second image, a silicon ball is opaque in the longwave, 

top, but acts as a lens in the midwave, bottom. 

are all equipped with Raytheon high performance 

second-generation EO/IR systems. 

Raytheon is continuing its lead in the EO/IR 

sensor arena with the development of thirdgeneration 

EO/IR. The Dual Band Focal 

Plane Array Manufacturing (DBFM) and the 

Multi-Function Staring Sensor Suite (MFS3) 

programs are currently under contract with 

the Night Vision and Electronic Sensors 

Directorate (NVESD). 

In addition, the Army is developing thirdgeneration 

FLIRs to provide identification 

at detection ranges of current systems. 

Technological breakthroughs have afforded 

much greater resolution and the use of 

multiple colors (see Figure 2). 

The systems operate in both the mid- and 

long-wave infrared spectral bands, which 

are the best frequencies for detecting IR 

radiation within the atmosphere. The Army 

predominantly uses long-wave ISR sensors 

because they are better than mid-wave sensors 

at seeing through smoke and dust. The 

HTI second-generation FLIR operates in the 

long-wave (8 to 12 micron) band. Mid-wave 

(3 to 5 micron) IR sensors offer higher resolution 

for better target identification at long 

ranges. A third-generation dual-band FLIR 

would offer the benefits of both and provide 

a higher probability of recognizing targets 

hidden by camouflage or foliage.* • 

Alan Silver 

asilver@raytheon.com 

* From an article by Glenn W. Goodman, Jr. in the 

June 2004 ISR Journal. 

14 2004 ISSUE 3 YESTERDAY…TODAY…TOMORROW

High-Performance 

Processing 

now comes in a tiny 

little package 

Raytheon has been developing and 

deploying systems to meet critical U.S. 

Government needs for decades. Many of 

these systems support stringent timelines 

and require extremely high-performance 

processing. The underlying technologies 

that support these systems have evolved 

over the years, and Raytheon has adapted 

to the changing environment to take 

advantage of these technologies. 

An example that can illustrate the dramatic 

shift in the underlying technology base is a 

product line in Intelligence and Information 

Systems (IIS) that has been building signal 

processing systems since the late ‘60s. 

These systems are ground-based and 

deployed in standard data center environments. 

Because of this, they can easily leverage 

emerging commercial technologies. 

In the early ‘80s, these systems proposed 

using digital signal processing techniques 

to achieve significant performance 

improvements, but the required processing 

was more than anyone had ever deployed. 

Back then, more than 16 fully configured 

Cray computers would have been required 

(see Figure 1). Based upon early IRAD prototypes, 

Raytheon set out to develop a 

cost-effective solution based on custom 

hardware designs and Application Specific 

Integrated Circuit (ASICs). 

Figure 1. First generation processor was a custom 

hardware solution employing 24" x 24" boards. 

First Generation Processor 

Processing 13 GFLOPS RAM 1536 MB 

Circuit Cards 227 Power 48 kW 

Racks 4 FLOPS in HW 95% 

ASIC Types 14 FLOPS in SW 5% 

As illustrated in the table above, the performance 

may seem trivial compared with 

today’s systems, but it was a very challenging 

project for its time. It provided critical 

strategic information to Raytheon customers 

and was in operation until 2003. 

Figure 2. Second generation processor used COTS 

supercomputer technology. 

With DoD demanding increased capacity, 

Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm 

showed the importance of this system and, 

in response to a congressional mandate, 

Raytheon was asked to double the capacity. 

Challenges, as well as opportunities, 

began to appear a decade after the first 

system was built. Component obsolescence 

made rebuilding an identical copy unrealistic, 

but Moore’s law had made massively 

parallel Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) 

computers feasible. Raytheon had been 

prototyping algorithms on these machines 

and was ready to meet the challenge. 

Raytheon purchased one of the first Cray 

T3Es, similar to the one shown in Figure 2. 

A liquid cooled machine housed 160 central 

processing units (CPUs), and this allsoftware 

version of the system produced 

identical output to the hardware system. It 

was delivered on schedule and provided 

the increased capacity needed to support 

the war fighter. It was taken out of operation 

last year at the same time the original 

system was de-commissioned. 

YESTERDAY…TODAY…TOMORROW 

What replaced these systems was made 

possible by the inevitable march of CPU 

technology. Now, 20 years after the 

original contract was signed, processing 

capacity of a single CPU chip has increased 

more than 8,000 times. This means that 

a quad-CPU system with a field programmable 

gate array (FPGA) accelerated 

peripheral component interface (PCI) card 

can do the job. Systems, similar to the Sun 

V440 (see Figure 3) have been delivered 

and continue to be deployed to meet 

increasing demands. 

Figure 3. Today’s processor uses inexpensive entry 

level servers with embedded FPGA cards. 

The future promises dramatic performance 

increases. Analog Optical Signal Processing 

(AOSP), a DARPA program, illustrates one 

possibility. Using optical signal processing, 

AOSP hopes to provide 2,500 times the 

performance of the original system in a 

package the size of a VHS cassette. 

Again, Raytheon continues to explore new 

technologies to bring down the cost of 

these systems which, in turn, allows an 

exponential rise in mission effectiveness 

over time. • 

Duncan Crawford 

Duncan_L_Crawford@raytheon.com 

2004 ISSUE 3 15 

PROCESSING

2004 Technology Strategy 

Integration Offsite 

From July 12-15, more 

than 100 Raytheon 

employees from 

six businesses — IDS, IIS, NCS, MS, RTSC 

and SAS — gathered at HRL Laboratories, 

LLC in Malibu, Calif. for the 2004 

Technology Strategy Integration Offsite. 

At the annual event, business leaders set 

out how to integrate Raytheon’s business 

strategy technology needs into Raytheon’s 

global technology strategy. Each business 

defines their strategy carefully aligned with 

the Strategic Business Areas. Technology 

area directors integrate the technology 

needs from the businesses into a technology 

strategy for investment opportunities to 

leverage independent research and development 

investment to shape our customers’ 

technology vision while increasing 

contract research and development (CRAD) 

bookings. Strategic alliances and make/buy 

decisions are realized by leveraging technology 

investment across all of Raytheon. 

“Raytheon is a solutions company, and 

technology is our foundation,” said Dr. 

Peter Pao, vice president of Technology. 

“In the technology integration meeting, we 

identify the technologies we need to provide 

our customers with unparalleled capabilities, 

and we establish our technology 

acquisition strategy.” 

To include the entire portfolio of technologists 

across the company, representatives 

were on hand from the Advanced Product 

Center, Raytheon Vision Systems, Raytheon 

RF Components and HRL Laboratories, LLC, 

along with the strategic business areas of 

Missile Defense, Precision Engagement, 

Intelligence, Surveillance & Reconnaissance 

and Homeland Security. 

Dr. Paul G. Kaminski, Raytheon Strategic 

Advisory Board member, attended to 

provide an independent view of the 

Raytheon technology strategy 

developments. 

Technical directors from each business — 

Nick Uros, David N. Martin, Kevin Riley, Reo 

Yoshitani, and Winthrop Smith and Martt 

Harding for IIS technical director Lynwood 

Givens — presented their respective business 

strategy and technology needs. 

Businesses are evaluated by each attendee 

and are based on clear presentation of 

business strategy, and how the business 

capabilities support and manage the strategy 

and technology roadmap. This year IIS 

was awarded “Best in Class” at the 

evening networking dinner. 

The offsite is established 

around the five 

technology areas that 

comprise Raytheon’s 

prime focus: RF 

Systems, Architecture 

& System Integration, Processing Systems, 

EO/Laser Systems, and Material and 

Structures. 

Raytheon Six Sigma TM experts Catherine 

Keller, Michael Rogers and Robert 

Hawiszczak facilitated five working 

sessions in which they applied Raytheon 

Six Sigma process and principles to identify 

technology advancement areas and 

potential partnerships. 

This event marks the completion of the 

Technology Area Directors’ (TAD) 2003- 

2004 rotation assignment and passes the 

torch to the new leads for the next 15 

months. The leads are listed in order of 

assignment 2003/04, 2004/05. Champions 

continue as part-time mentors to the 

TAD leads: 

RF Systems – 

Champion: Michael Sarcione, 

Leads: Matt Smith, Scott Heston 

Architecture & System Integration – 

Champion: Bill Kiczuk, 

Leads: Randy Case, Kenneth Kung 

Processing Systems – 

Champion: Michael Vahey, 

Leads: Don Wilson, Duncan Crawford 

EO/Laser Systems – 

Champion: Lindley Specht, 

Leads: Alan Silver, Alan Martel 

Material and Structures – 

Champion: Randy Tustison, 

Leads: John Herold, Tony Rafanelli 

“Raytheon is a solutions company, 

and technology is our foundation.” 

Improved and increased technology development 

is necessary to reinforce Raytheon’s 

image as a leader in the technology industry, 

and events such as this Technology 

Strategy Integration offsite afford collaboration 

and communication to enable this 

development. Together, we embrace both 

our strengths and challenges as we move 

ahead in this industry. 

For more information: Documentation from 

the event is Raytheon proprietary and available 

via Docushare at http://docushare1. 

app.ray.com/docushare/dsweb/View/ 

Collection-73704. • 


As we enjoyed springtime and looked 

forward to a time of renewal and rejuvenation, 

many Raytheon employees took 

advantage of the season by attending 

spring symposia. These valuable opportunities 

offered a chance to exchange information 

via forums, share expertise in technical 

sessions and presentations, and build relationships 

via networking with professionals 

in similar disciplines. 

The 6th Annual Raytheon 

RF Systems Technology 

symposium, was held May 3–5 in Boston at 

the scenic Boston Marriott Long Wharf 

hotel. Located in downtown, more than 

450 attendees had the entire city at their 

fingertips, but most were enveloped in an 

abundance of education. Entitled “One 

Company — Advancing Technology for 

Customer Success,” the symposium 

focused on RF/microwave, millimeter wave 

and associated technology. According to 

Conference Chair Ray Waterman of IDS, 

the company-wide event provided the 

RF/microwave technical communities, business 

segments and HRL 

with a forum to exchange 

information on existing 

capabilities, emerging 

developments and future 

directions. 

In building the theme 

of the symposium, 

customers were invited to attend and give 

keynote addresses emphasizing their system 

and mission needs. Sixteen customers 

were present to provide their perspectives, 

and six of them also gave plenary speeches. 

Papers presented at the myriad technical 

sessions emphasized Raytheon’s advances 

in RF systems technologies to benefit customers. 

The 237 presentations included 11 

plenary sessions, 188 technical sessions and 

38 poster papers. 

Among the speakers were Mark Russell, 

IDS vice president of Engineering, and Greg 

Shelton, corporate vice president of 


Engineering, Technology, Manufacturing 

and Quality. In addition, customers from 

the Naval Sea Systems Command, the 

Naval Research Laboratory and the Army 

Aviation and Missile Command, as well as 

the Air Force Research Laboratory and the 

Defense Advanced Research Projects 

Agency were on hand to share viewpoints. 

In his opening remarks, Shelton commented 

that we have to sharpen our focus on 

how we’re meeting our customers’ objectives. 

“There are opportunities for us to do 

better,” he said. “We need to solicit more 

abstracts and start thinking cross-business 

while increasing collaboration across business 

areas.” 

Captain 

Charles 

Goddard, 

the Navy 

DD(X) 

program 

manager, 

followed 

with a 

keynote address regarding future surface 

combatants and RF-technology enabling 

systems. Providing insight into the DD(X) 

project and features of this “sea tank,” 

Goddard explained how the Navy 

is facing battle challenges like it never 

had before. DD(X) is system engineering 

Networking and education for 

employees and customers 

at a level that has never before been 

accomplished and Raytheon, according 

to Goddard, is at the forefront of this 

technology with a lot of the key development 

models. 

From April 20–22, the 

Electro-Optical Systems 

Technology symposium was held at 

the Manning 

House, a restored 

historic mansion in 

downtown Tucson. 

“Our goals were to 

have great attendance 

and participation 

from all 

business units and from our customers,” 

said Brian Perona, this year’s conference 

chair. As a result, the symposium boasted a 

record-setting attendance of 334, including 

17 customers. “Involving our customers 

was another goal, and we had three customer 

keynote speakers and four customers 

who did technical presentations.” 

In total, the symposium comprised 

nine session tracks made up of 64 

technical sessions — including six 

presentations from customers — 

along with 70 poster papers and 

four “birds of a feather” interchange 

sessions. All of this material 

came together to foster communications 

among technologists with like interests 

in Raytheon’s electro-optic technology. 

“Raytheon electro-optical engineers and 

technologists are doing such interesting 

work that they are enthusiastic about sharing 

it with our customers and peers across 

the company,” said Perona. 

Having customers participate in the presentations 

was key to fostering relationships 

and solutions. “Our customers have many 

difficult problems,” said Perona. “We have 

technologies and techniques that can be 

solutions.” This kind of interaction allows 

us to better understand customers’ 

challenges through collaboration and

The Systems & Software 

Technology Conference 

(SSTC) held its 16th annual 

symposium April 19–21 in Salt Lake 

City, Utah. This symposium attracts 

systems and software 

professionals in the 

Department of 

Defense (DoD) 

and government, 

related 

industry and 

academia. 

This year’s 

symposium 

was appropriately 

themed to 

reflect the 

increasingly important 

role of technology 

used in the defense of our 

nation: “Technology – Protecting America.” 

SSTC 2004 provided a forum for the 

exchange of policies, proven technologies, 

lessons learned and practices common 

throughout the DoD. 

More than 2,500 participants gleaned 

valuable information from approximately 

255 booths and 180 events, including 

general sessions, speaker luncheons, plenary 

sessions, poster sessions, and presentation 

and exhibitor tracks. 

In addition to the strong DoD presence, 

defense-industry players — competitors as 

well as partners — such as Boeing, Northrop 

Grumman and Lockheed Martin exhibited 

as well. As a regular participant in SSTC, 

Raytheon takes advantage of this opportunity 

to showcase the company’s software technology 

products and services as a leader in 

the technology and defense industries. 

The large company booth commanded a 

presence befitting our reputation and 

attendee expectations. In addition to the 

plasma screen displaying the video on the 

DD(X) project — a joint venture between 

Raytheon and Northrop Grumman — 

Raytheon staff presented ongoing simulations 

representing ISR, Missile Defense, 

Precision Engagement, Homeland Security. 


Systems and Software 

Technology Conference 

The impressive user-controlled Tiger 

Simulator was on hand to demonstrate software 

applications in a variety of combat 

environs and attracted many users likened 

to kids in a video arcade. 

Human Resources recruiters were 

also available to help interested 

persons search 

rayjobs.com and 

encourage interest in 

joining the compa- 

ny. More than 20 

Raytheon representatives 

from all 

over the U.S. were 

on hand to answer 

questions and promote 

the Raytheon 

identity. 

Each year, the conference publication, 

CrossTalk, announces five winners of the 

United States Government’s Top 5 Quality 

Software Projects presented at the conference. 

We are proud to announce that the 

PM Intelligence and Effects and Raytheon 

Team received one of the 2004 awards for 

their “Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data 

System (AFATDS) — A Government-Industry 

Team Success Story.” 

After the show’s exhibit days, Greg Shelton, 

corporate vice president of Engineering, 

Technology, Manufacturing and Quality, 

engaged the crowd at the speaker luncheon 

on April 22. Greg’s presentation, “Bringing 

Key Advanced Software Technologies to 

America’s Defense,” discussed how 

America’s needs for homeland security and 

for military excellence are increasingly 

dependent on software intensive systems. 

The presentation examined key needs for 

the next few years in the areas of networkcentric 

warfare, communications, precision 

strike and sensors. Advances in enabling 

software technologies — such as networking, 

intelligent agents, anti-tampering and 

data fusion — are required for successful 

implementation of these systems. Greg also 

offered factors that affect the successful 

development and deployment of these 

technologies. The interactive presentation 

piqued the audience’s attention as Greg 

answered their questions. 

In addition to Greg’s speech during the 

conference, he, along with Randy Case, 

Louis DiPalma and J. Dan Nash, penned 

“Advanced Software Technologies for 

Protecting America,” an article for the May 

issue of CrossTalk. You can read the full article 

at http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/ 

2004/05/0405shelton.html 

SSTC was a successful show for Raytheon. 

Our strong presence and intriguing demonstrations 

attracted attendees, while our 

unified image and fully staffed presence 

reinforced our role and responsibilities in 

software technologies necessary for our 

country’s future. Raytheon is a technology 

company, and we will continue to reinforce 

our prowess on the defense field with 

extraordinary employees, contributions and 

development in our industry. •

Raytheon is proud of its history of innovation 

in technology, and our innovation and 

technology benchmarks ensure Raytheon’s 

place in an increasingly competitive world. 

The 2003 Excellence in Technology Awards 

were presented on April 7, 2004 to honor 

individuals and teams across the company, 

for outstanding technical contributions to 

the company and to society as a whole. 

Recipients of this award were joined by the 

leadership team, colleagues and guests as 

we celebrated their remarkable achievements 

in Washington D.C. at the National 

Air and Space Museum’s new Steven F. 

Udvar–Hazy Center. Paired with these 

impressive technology achievements, the 

evening was inspirational. 

The Excellence in Technology Awards are 

meant to acknowledge technical creativity 

at every professional level; to recognize an 

entire workforce by stressing professionalism 

and talent throughout the organization; and 

to celebrate the specific achievements of 

individual contributors and teams. 

For a complete list of winners, see the last 

issue of technology today (Vol. 3, Issue 2) 

or visit http://www.ray.com/rayeng/people/ 

awards2003/EITawards2003.html. 

Theresa Olson has 

been with Raytheon for 

1-1/2 years. “I’m a 

software engineer, but 

that doesn’t relegate my 

tasks to coding,” 

Theresa says. “This 

company offers so much 

opportunity. Looking around at the 

different projects that people are working 

on, it’s easy to see that you can get involved 

with almost any technology you want to 

explore.” On her first day at Raytheon and 

fresh out of college, Theresa was assigned 

to the IIS Cube Antenna Team, along with 

Daniel Goulette, Robert McEachern, 

Charles Mitchell and Ray Welsh. 

The team received a 2003 Excellence in 

Technology award for their development 

of a unique, patented 3-D sensor capability 

that allows the United States to find 

and characterize enemy groups. 

“Receiving the award really highlighted 

that I’ve been given an opportunity that 

not many new graduates receive,” 

Theresa recalls. “I’m working with people 

that are absolutely at the top of their 

fields. Receiving an award like this makes 

you feel like what you’re doing really 

matters and is beneficial to the company 

on so many levels.” 

The team’s efforts directly resulted in 

contract wins with the Air Force and the 

Defense Intelligence Agency. Along with 

creating an easy-to-use software package 

for viewing and collecting data, “the Cube 

Antenna Team took a government technology 

and improved it, making it smaller, 

easier to build and more easily maintained,” 

explains Theresa. 

Working at Raytheon is a family affair for 

Theresa, who was hired around the same 

time as her father, Russell Olson, a Senior 

Software Engineer on the EmergeJust test 

team in Linthicum, Maryland. “He’s the 

person who got me interested in computers 

and programming,” Theresa says, 

“and Raytheon’s given me a lot to expand 

my horizons.” 


Amy Brunson is the 

Software Department 

Manager for the 

Precision Strike and 

Airborne Surveillance 

Engineering Center in 

Space and Airborne 

Systems in McKinney, 

Texas. She joined 

Raytheon in 1981 (back when it was 

Texas Instruments) and has experience 

designing, developing and managing test 

software as well as real-time embedded 

software on the Harpoon and Multimode 

Radar programs. 

Amy received the 2003 Quality Excellence 

award for her performance on the 

NCS/SAS Texas Software Capability 

Maturity Model Integration ® (CMMI) Level 

5 Certification team, which also included 

Johnny Barrett and Steve Allo. “This 

award enforces Raytheon’s commitment 

to quality and recognizes that quality is 

part of what we do — almost like the air 

we breathe,” Amy said. 

This team achieved multi-business-site 

Capability Maturity Model Integration 

Level 5 software certification, a first for 

the company and a rare benchmark in 

the industry. CMMI Level 5 measures our 

progress in implementing IPDS by utilizing 

Raytheon Six Sigma TM methodology. 

“Now, at Level 5, our organizational data 

gives Raytheon a competitive advantage 

in cycle time and the quality improvements 

our customers require,” says Amy. 

Talk about performance: During the 

CMMI Level 4-5 journey, the number of 

defects have decreased by half, the 

schedule performance index has improved 

by 15 percent, and the cost performance 

index has improved by 9 percent. 

“I love working for Raytheon and always 

have,” asserts Amy. “It gives me a great 

sense of worth and accomplishment. The 

things I do every day are important, and I 

feel like I do make a difference — for me, 

my team, my customers and my nation.” 


2003 

Quality Excellence & 

Excellence in Operations 

Awards 

Quality Excellence Awardees 

INTEGRATED DEFENSE SYSTEMS 

IDS Capability Maturity Model Integrated 

Quality Assurance Team 

Nancy A. Carchedi, George Graw, 

Guy Mawhinney, Jr., Paul Savickas 

INTELLIGENCE & INFORMATION SYSTEMS 

IIS Calibration Team 

Ken Anders, John D’Avanzo, James L. Bowyer, 

DeWayne Hawkes, Stanley Snider 

MISSILE SYSTEMS 

Supplier Readiness Process Team 

Timothy L. Buss, Rhonda S. Wade 

NETWORK CENTRIC SYSTEMS 

NCS/SAS Texas Software Capability 

Maturity Model Integrated Level 5 

Certification 

Steve Allo, Johnny Barrett, Amy Brunson 

TMD Supplier Engagement Team (TRS) 

Dave Lupinski, Frank Martinez, Collin Reeves, 

Rick Russell, Dave Stephens 

Quality Assurance and Inspection 

Department (RSL) 

Mike Collins, Peter Gidlow, Lynne Miliziano, 

Les Shaw, Pam Wycherley 

RAYTHEON AIRCRAFT COMPANY 

Kansas Quality Award 

Tony Crawford, Bill Davis, Dave Hammond, 

Chris Knaak 

RAYTHEON TECHNICAL SERVICES COMPANY LLC 

Fuel Tanker Offload Team 

Gerald Crist, Joe Heil III, Scott Taube, 

Tom Vinson, Ralph A. Young 

SPACE AND AIRBORNE SYSTEMS 

F-15 APG-63(v)1 Form, Fit, Function 

Interface Lifetime Contractor Sustainment 

Team 

Mamoru Nakatsui, Sam Reid 

The Quality Professional Team 

Margaret Ngo-Utley, Rita F. Scott, 

Annie H. Truong, Victor Wright, 

Bradley L. Zastrow

As a company driven by providing solutions on time, on budget and 

according to plan, Raytheon places the highest value on not only how 

something functions, but how well it functions. 

The Quality Excellence and Excellence in Operations Awards for 2003 were presented on 

May 6, 2004 on a wonderful night in Boston at the Boston Marriott Long Wharf hotel to 

honor one individual and 20 teams across the company for outstanding achievements vital 

to Raytheon's growth. These accomplishments help further our success in the industries 

and markets that our diverse businesses represent. 

The company is only as good as its people; 

its products and processes are only as good 

as the excellence of its people. And, 

excellence begins with a belief and a 

passion to do everything right to the best 

of our abilities. 

Raytheon recognizes and applauds these 

examples of quality and operational 

leadership that have a long-term impact 

on our business. 

Excellence in Operations Awardees 

INTEGRATED DEFENSE SYSTEMS 

Patriot Product Assurance Improvement 

Program Team 

James J. Eisenlord, Robert J. Flannagan, 

Harry R. Schuler 

Circuit Card Assembly Operational Excellence 

Program Team 

LaVern Brungardt, Norman “Buddy” Carideo, 

Amanda Gustafson, Dawn Marrocco, 

Gary Stoltz 

INTELLIGENCE & INFORMATION SYSTEMS 

Falls Church Manufacturing 

Gerry Ehlers 

MISSILE SYSTEMS 

MS Manufacturing Excellence Model Team 

Mark Jepperson, Kevin McDonald, 

Bill Rudis, Jim Strickland 

MS ERP Conference Room Pilot Team 

George Ehrman, Joe Hume, Joe Murickan, 

Kate Pryor, Ron Showalter 

NETWORK CENTRIC SYSTEMS 

(RSL) Air Traffic Management Systems Keen 

for Lean Team 

Stephen S. Busby, Stuart P. Cairns, 

David F. Ferguson, Evelyn E. Loughlin, 

Paul R. Manning 

Thermal Weapon Sight Omnibus Production 

Team 

Alan Jeffrey Brackett, Scott A. Gallaway 

Drew J. Jerina, James R. Mathews, 

Archer A. Taliaferro 

RAYTHEON AIRCRAFT COMPANY 

Pro Line 21 Team 

Keith E. Hoch, Terry L. Houston, Frank A. Marsh, 

Milton D. Mock, Douglas R. Warner 

RAYTHEON TECHNICAL SERVICES COMPANY LLC 

RTSC Special Operations Forces Demolition 

Kit Team 

Patrick J. Kane, Timothy L. Marshall, 

Roland J. Pangan, Gary S. Thompson, 

Mary K. Unland 

SPACE AND AIRBORNE SYSTEMS 

Raytheon Manufacturing Capabilities Web 

Site Team 

Dong Cho, Mary Cooper, James Procter, 

Lori Ricarte, Niraj Shah 

Forest Manufacturing Excellence Team 

Robert Cline, Kelly Hickey, Monica Keeton, 

Denise Meredith, Patrick Thomasson 

Jim Eisenlord has 

been with Raytheon and 

the Patriot program since 

1980, beginning with minor 

design and analysis tasks 

and leading to his current 

role as Engineering Manager 

for Operations Integrated 

Air Defense along with 

Department Manager for Test Engineering 

at IADC. 

“I have had the opportunity and pleasure to 

work closely with both our local customers and 

the ultimate end users of our products around 

the world,” Jim says. “There is nothing more 

satisfying than to earn the trust and respect of 

those who rely on our products on a daily basis.” 

As part of the Patriot Product Assurance 

Improvement Program Team, along with Robert 

Flannagan and Dick Schuler, Jim received the 

2003 Excellence in Operations award for implementing 

a closed-loop manufacturing and 

quality assurance system for Patriot material. 

“The need for this system arose out of a number 

of manufacturing escapes that brought 

intense customer scrutiny (and displeasure) in 

the way we were performing our daily tasks,” 

Jim explained. “As a result, our relationship 

with our customer was not nearly what it 

should have been.” 

Faced with the possibility of losing Certified 

Contractor Status (CP2) with the Army, the 

team instituted a series of tactical checks and 

balances to assure quality hardware. All engineering 

and manufacturing documentation was 

compared to the hardware for compliance, a 

Bill of Material review, and a Quality Alert 

Program was implemented. 

“The local DCMA customer was asked to 

participate in our review of any findings, along 

with a Ship Readiness Review that is held on 

each component/assembly/system we ship,” 

Jim says. “As a result of this process, we were 

able to show to the customer our understanding 

of their concerns, our willingness to engage 

and communicate openly, honestly and directly 

with them, and our ultimate commitment to 

providing the best product we can.” 

Because of these quality controls, customer 

trust has now returned. “These improvements 

have yielded a working relationship with our 

customer that focuses on trust and teaming, 

driving for customer advocacy that will benefit 

the company in the long run.” 


The IPDS Program Planning Tool 

The IPDS Program Planning Tool (IPPT) is 

formerly known as “WizTailor,” a Microsoft 

Access-based application. It’s currently 

under development by the IPDS Deployment 

Network Steering Group with support from 

the IPDS Requirements and Architecture 

team. While initial release is anticipated in 

November 2004, beta copies are currently 

available upon request. 

The IPPT is a planning and management 

enabler for Integrated Master Plan & 

Integrated Master Schedule (IMP & IMS) 

development. It also helps programs manage 

document generation and storage 

needs, while supporting Gate review and 

CMMI compliance objectives throughout 

the program. 

Programs place priority on deliverables 

rather than on the processes required for 

work product generation. However, to satisfy 

cost constraints, quality measures and 

other business objectives, it is imperative 

that programs consider only those tasks 

needed for effective program implementation. 

The IPPT uses a hybrid planning 

approach, focusing on both the processes 

and work products used in program plan 

generation. The basic tool concept is that 

work products are the outcome of IPDP 

tasks. By developing a work product, the 

program is committing to perform a task or 

series of tasks (Figure 1). The program lifecycle, 

phase definition and product composition 

are specified in the planning phase of 

a program (Figure 2). A related step defines 

the Integrated Product Team (IPT) structure 

and assigns workload responsibility. 

One or more 

IPDP Tasks 

IPDP Task 

IPDP Task 

IPDP Task 

IPDP Task 

A Planning and Program Management Enabler 

One or more 

CMMI SP/GPs 

CMMI SP/GP 

CMMI SP/GP 

CMMI SP/GP 

CMMI SP/GP 

Figure 1. Basic IPPT Database Architecture 


Work Product 

(Artifact) 

Program 

Phases Program 

Phases 

IPDP Task 

IPDP Task 

IPDP Task 

IPTs 

Figure 2. Initial Planning Stages 

CMMI SP/GP 

CMMI SP/GP 

CMMI 

Systems, 

SP/GP 

Products & 

Components 

Schedule and 

Artifact List 

Once the IPTs are defined, their high-level 

tasks are identified. This is done by evaluating 

IPDP task descriptors for applicability, 

Figure 3. Initial Pre-planning Screen in IPPT 

requiring a time consuming, process-centric 

(not product-focused) approach. The initial 

planning session yields a program-wide set 

of tasks that can be evaluated by individual 

IPTs for product-level applicability. This preplanning 

session (Figure 3) addresses the 

following: 

• Program Type (internal R&D, 

Development, Full Scale Program, 

Follow-on or Continue-on 

• Functional Involvement 

(software/hardware involved) 

• General Implementation Task 

requirements 

• System Breakdown (products, 

components?) 

• Activities involved (i.e., Qualifications) 

• Key Milestones 

• Reviews planned 

Initial planning results in the elimination of 

unnecessary IPDP tasks and work products. 

Each IPT lead can then divide the planning 

work among various functional representatives 

comprising the team. The functional 

leads can identify essential work products 

(artifacts). By determining whether a work 

product will be produced on the program, 

the planner is indirectly determining the 

need for an IPDP task. CMMI compliance 

information/IPDP tasks are conveyed as in 

Figure 4 (work product tailoring screen). 

IPDP task rejection does not automatically 

eliminate a task. To help in the planning 

process, artifacts are keyed to both the artifact 

producer and to any corresponding

process thread. This enables the planner to 

view deliverables from both a functional 

and a process perspective. 

For each IPT, the IPPT produces a list of 

IPDP tasks contributing to work product 

development for the program. The task list 

includes recursion to depict system, product 

and component level architecture, 

along with the associated with work products. 

By importing this information into 

Microsoft Project, an initial schedule (IMS) 

can be generated. By integrating task exit 

criteria, the IPPT will also produce an (IMP) 

product table. 

The IPPT maps artifacts to Independent 

Review (IR) requirements supporting the 

Gating process. This facilitates the review 

process by automatically conveying the artifact-to-gate 

relationship, artifact development 

status, and gate readiness, thereby 

minimizing preparation efforts. 

Summarizing, the IPDS Program Planning 

Tool benefits: 

• Simplify the IPDP tailoring process during 

the planning phase of a program 

• Ensure that a program considers all the 

potential tasks/artifacts to be performed/ 

generated during program execution 

Figure 4. Work Product Tailoring 

• Allow automated IMS and IMP initiation 

• Provide CM/DM artifact management 

plan and status 

• Provide Visibility of CMMI compliance 

status during all stages of program 

execution 

• Simplify Gate and CMMI appraisal 

processes by providing artifact location 

and status 

• Produce automated report generation 

for tailoring, document storage plan, 

CMMI compliance, etc. • 

Mark Warner 

mjwarner@raytheon.com 

Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems has been selected as a “Best-Practice Partner” organization in project/program 

management by the American Productivity and Quality Center (APQC) and the Project Management 

Institute (PMI). The “Best Practice Partner” award was presented to Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems on 

August 18-19, 2004 in Houston, Texas. 

The PM practices recognized are those implemented by Raytheon IDS based on the PM and gating processes in IPDS. The PM 

process in IPDS originally leveraged best practices from across Raytheon as well as the PMI’s PM Book of Knowledge. This 

recognition means that Raytheon is able to continue participating in the PM consortium benchmarking study, sharing and 

learning best practices from across our industry. While the recognition is for Raytheon IDS, all of Raytheon can share in and 

be proud of this accomplishment. 


IPDS Version 2.3 Now Available 

More User Friendly — Reduces Stage 2 Task Descriptors 

This latest release, IPDS version 2.3, has 

realized several major accomplishments, all 

focused on increasing ease of use and 

reducing complexity. It also represents the 

first step towards the future vision of IPDS, 

significantly improved to meet business and 

user needs, with an improved IPDP Stage 2 

that is a preview of things to come for the 

rest of IPDP. 

The Program Leadership Council, in partnership 

with the IPDS team, initiated a 

multi-phase project to make IPDS more 

user-friendly. In response to consistent 

feedback, the new version significantly 

streamlines IPDP Stage 2 — Program 

Management — with a five-fold reduction 

in the number of Task Descriptors, from 

194 to 43, through concatenation and 

elimination of redundancy. As an example, 

risk management is now one task descriptor, 

versus 11 in the prior release. A oneto-one 

mapping between task descriptors 

and the gate checklists has also been built. 

John Evers is the new Integrated Product 

and Process Development System (IPDS) and 

Capability Maturity Model Integration 

(CMMI ® ) program manager for the 

Raytheon Engineering Common Program 

(RECP). During his move from the D.C.-area 

to Garland, Texas to assume his new role, 

John took a few moments to share his — 

and IPDS’s — history and future. 

“IPDS evolved from a wide collection of 

legacy company processes into what 

became IPDS v. 2.0,” John explains. “That 

version represented an approach to capture 

all practices needed to support all programs 

that may be performed somewhere within 

Raytheon. Thus, it became rather large and 

difficult to navigate without expert knowledge 

or assistance.” 

Enter the expert. John has been with IPDS, 

literally, from the very beginning as part of 

the development team. Utilizing his 22-plus 

years of experience in systems engineering 

and project management on numerous 

product development programs, he realizes 

the need for continuous improvement and 

constantly champions the system. 

This streamlining will reduce the time 

required to accomplish IPDS tailoring and 

increase the value and relevancy of the tailoring 

to program teams. 

“This new release aligns with the three pillars 

of Customer Focused Marketing,” said 

Greg Shelton, corporate vice president of 

Engineering, Technology, Manufacturing 

and Quality. “It provides enhanced performance 

through usability improvements, 

relationships built through trust in the system, 

and the best solutions to our program 

leadership community — both to our internal 

and external customers.” 

Key features of IPDS v2.3 include: 

• Initial Human Resources (HR) content 

added to Stages 1 and 2 of IPDP — 

This is the first step by an HR working 

group with more to come. 

• IPDS Process Asset Library (PAL) — 

The ability to set a site context has been 

added, which allows users to view local 

PROFILE: John Evers — Veteran and Visionary 


“This role includes responsibility for the 

efforts to evolve and improve IPDS towards 

the future vision,” he said. “This evolution 

will make IPDS more usable by programs, 

compliant with such models and standards 

as CMMI, AS9100 and Mission Assurance, 

and will provide Raytheon personnel with a 

system of processes and captured knowledge 

that will enable success for Raytheon 

and our customers,” he added. 

Specifically, the architecture can now better 

support how programs are planned and 

executed, and the number of tasks and task 

descriptors are being streamlined to make it 

easier for users to follow and understand. In 

addition, the Process Asset Library (PAL) is 

being improved to support different needs 

of the businesses and make it easier to find 

materials. 

“In the future, it will be easier to establish 

program plans, through automation tools 

that can generate an initial IMP/IMS based 

on various attributes of the program such as 

deliverables, system product structure, 

developmental lifecycle approach,” John 

says. “It will also be easier for users to 

assets in the PAL that are associated with 

the part of IPDS the user is viewing. 

• Gating Material Updates — There are 

updated flow charts and task descriptors, 

as well as training material and 

updated gate enablers, available in the 

IPDS PAL. 

• Deployment Updates — The most 

recent updates include changes to the 

Infrastructure Guide, the IPDS 

Deployment Tool, an Intermediate Level 

Training Package and a new quarterly 

newsletter available in the IPDS PAL. 

• IPDS PAL Assets — Gates Working 

Groups and Deployment Network 

Steering Group assets have been added. 

• Sub-process Updates — There have 

been some modifications to 

Configuration Management/Data 

Management (CM/DM), Mechanical and 

Supply Chain Management (SCM) 

processes to accommodate CMMI and 

other best practices. 

locate the tasks they are assigned to perform, 

and then locate relevant Enablers to 

help them execute those tasks.” 

Now in Texas, John is looking 

forward to settling into his 

new home and his new 

position. “With Steve Clark 

in Boston, this gives us 

greater ability to work 

directly with people across 

Raytheon — councils, business 

process groups — who 

support improvements 

to IPDS.” 

You can contact John at 

john-evers@raytheon.com

THE ABILITY TO SEE IN THE DARK CAN SAVE LIVES. For a soldier trying to observe 

threats from a safe distance or a firefighter scaling a smoke-filled building, it can be a matter of life 

and death. That’s why Raytheon is proud to be a pioneer of infrared and electro-optic technology. 

Soldiers and other personnel in Army helicopters and ground vehicles will be able to view display 

screens with the same level of clarity as their high-definition televisions at home. Our Dual Band Focal 

Plane Manufacturing Program will enhance the clarity to an Army standard for Forward Looking Infrared 

systems…to a 1,300-pixel by 700-pixel array. Our technology is bringing our soldiers a level of nighttime 

and poor-weather situational awareness that has never before been attained. 

INNOVATION DOESN´T JUST HAPPEN. The benefits of an open architecture computing 

environment have long been proven, but innovation needs to be easily integrated as new applications 

emerge. Raytheon is a leader in open architecture for the United States military. For the Navy, our DD(X) 

Total Ship Computing Environment and our Cooperative Engagement Capability architecture connect 

ships, aircraft and satellites. Our Battle Management Command and Control systems connect all Armed 

Services in a seamless, integrated battle-space environment. America’s soldiers, sailors, airmen and 

Marines will never be out there alone. 

HIDE AND SEEK ISN´T A GAME YOU WANT TO PLAY ON THE BATTLEFIELD. 

America’s soldiers stay connected with communication and long-distance sight technology. The ability 

to communicate or see over long distances is a powerful tool and has proven to be a vital capability 

on the battlefield. Like an eagle flying high above land and stream, our soldiers will be 

able to see opportunities and threats from hundreds of yards away. Raytheon is a 

leader in the development of radio frequency (RF) technology, the kind of technology 

we apply to the F-15 and F/A-18 fighter aircraft for threat detection and 

tracking, or the kind we use on the Mobile User Objective System to bring a 

ten-fold increase in satellite communications capabilities. RF technology connects 

more than 45,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. 

YOU CAN´T BE FAST ENOUGH. The ability to process huge volumes of 

data at lightning speed is no trivial matter. Our Armed Forces receive information 

from satellites, unmanned systems, aircraft and ships, all pouring in at realtime 

speed when lives are at stake. Raytheon’s MONARCH processor being developed 

for DARPA can place one teraflop of computing power — that’s more than 

1,000 personal computers — directly on board each space- or aircraft. Our advanced 

architecture can reconfigure onboard systems in real time, fast enough to handle rapidly 

developing needs. Our technology merges information from multiple sources into a single, consolidated 

picture to provide America’s Armed Forces with the information they need now to safely execute 

their missions. 


Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) 

ACCOMPLISHMENTS 

RTSC EPS Attains CMMI ® Level 4 

for Software Engineering 

Engineering and Production support has 

attained the Software Engineering Institute’s 

CMMI Level 4 for its software engineering 

competency. 

RTSC President Bryan J. Even said the 

achievement was a cross-business effort 

resulting from RTSC’s strategy and continuing 

focus on performance predictability and 

process. 

“The team comprised a dedicated group of 

over 20 employees who worked over the 

past eight months to achieve this rating,” 

Even said. “I am very proud of their hard 

work and so is the rest of Raytheon.” 

Greg Shelton, Raytheon vice president of 

Engineering, Technology, Manufacturing and 

Quality, congratulated the team in an e-mail 

to Even. “I know how hard they have 

worked to make this happen,” he wrote. 

“Eight months is actually quite quick for this 

certification.” 

John Gatti, RTSC vice president of 

Engineering and Technology, Quality and 

Program Performance, spoke to EPS employees 

during a June 28 luncheon in 

Indianapolis to celebrate their achievement. 

“You should feel great pride in your accomplishment,” 

Gatti said. “You join a special 

group of organizations and you’ve done it by 

exceeding everybody’s expectations by getting 

there faster and cheaper than most of 

your peers.” 

This CMMI Level 4 achievement places EPS in 

an elite group of only 50 companies worldwide 

that have obtained a Level 4 or 5 rating. 

It also validates EPS’s ability to develop 

and deliver quality software products on 

time and within budget to the benefit of our 

customers. 

The journey to this success began just after 

EPS achieved a Level 4 rating for software 

development under the SEI SW-CMM, in 


February 2003. While that was a significant 

achievement, the SEI had, by that time, 

determined that a single, integrated model 

for systems and software engineering would 

provide more cost-effective and responsive 

process improvements for businesses. As a 

result, CMMI was developed, building on 

and extending the best practices of the SW- 

CMM, the Systems Engineering Capability 

Model (SECM), and the Integrated Product 

Development Capability Maturity Model (IPD- 

CMM). Therefore, EPS began discussions of 

what needed to be done in order to pursue 

the more demanding CMMI. 

According to Jerry Slater, process and capability 

engineering department manager, EPS’s 

ability to successfully move from CMM Level 

4 to CMMI Level 4 in such a short time is 

due to three factors: the EPS environment; 

the teamwork displayed by all who worked 

on this project; and the level of management 

support. “We were all focused on the best 

possible appraisal,” Slater said. 

Even noted that the EPS team was assisted 

by more than 200 others, including help 

from Network Centric Systems and Space 

and Airborne Systems Software and Process 

engineering in North Texas. RTSC’s achievement 

in achieving Level 4 for software is truly 

a “One Company” success story. 

IIS Aurora and Omaha teams 

attain CMMI ® Level 3 

Congratulations to the Intelligence and 

Information Systems teams in Aurora and 

Omaha for attaining the Software 

Engineering Institute’s CMMI Level 3 rating 

for Systems Engineering, Software 

Engineering, and Integrated Product and 

Process Development. 

An independent appraisal led by the Center 

for Systems Management, an SEI-certified 

Lead Appraiser, confirmed a CMMI Level 3 

rating for the Aurora and Omaha sites. This 

accomplishment was the result of 18 months 

of hard work by dedicated people. 

The Aurora/Omaha team is the first in 

Raytheon to receive the Integrated Product 

and Process Development designation as part 

of this certification. At the end of 2003, only 

a dozen organizations worldwide had 

obtained this difficult-to-achieve designation. 

IPPD takes process improvement beyond 

technical and program management disciplines 

and encompasses all functions that 

participate in the program life cycle. 

“This Level 3 rating is critical to IIS because it 

demonstrates to our partners, customers and 

potential customers that we are serious 

about process improvement,” said Mike 

Keebaugh, president of IIS. “It proves we 

manage our processes and that customers 

can depend on us for the most effective 

solutions through knowledge sharing, 

repeatability and consistency.” 

This latest achievement follows a long history 

of process improvement in Aurora and 

Omaha starting with the adoption of SEI’s 

Software Capability Maturity Model in the 

early 1990s. 

“CMMI is a collaborative effort of industry, 

government and the Software Engineering 

Institute to establish a benchmark for the 

behaviors and processes demonstrated by 

high-performing organizations,” said Greg 

Shelton, Raytheon vice president of 

Engineering, Technology, Manufacturing and 

Quality.” “I believe it creates a foundation for 

predictable performance — one of our most 

important objectives in Customer Focused 

Marketing.” 

Keebaugh added, “I look forward to seeing 

all our operations reach their CMMI objectives 

and milestones in the coming months, 

as it tells our customers that they face fewer 

development risks, lower costs and get the 

best solutions when they choose IIS.” • 

®CMMI is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by 

Carnegie Mellon University.

NCS Organizations Achieve 

CMMI ® L5 SW/CMMI L3 SE 

In the journey to drive full CMMI integration 

across the Raytheon enterprise, two 

NCS organizations in Marlborough, Mass. 

have done their part to achieve this goal by 

reaching CMMI Maturity Level 3 and Level 

5 in one year’s time. The Software 

Engineering Center (SWEC) achieved Level 

5 — the highest CMMI level — while the 

Systems Engineering Center leveraged the 

SWEC experience, and brought their entire 

organization to CMMI Level 3, all in 2003. 

Neither organization started from ground 

zero at the beginning of the year. SWEC 

had a long history in process improvement 

and success, while SEC had a shorter history 

in their formal process improvement. 

Some of the more effective cultural 

changes, enablers and tools that helped 

in bringing both organizations CMMI 

success were: 

• KPA/PA process blitz meetings 

• Web-based Process Asset Library (PAL) 

• Training enablers including the Core 

Competency Model (CCM) and a rolebased 

Organizational Training Matrix 

(OTM) with sophisticated reporting 

enabling center-wide Organizational 

Training Reports (OTR) 

In 2003, Raytheon Systems 

Limited (RSL), the UK-based 

Raytheon Global Company, became 

the first in the UK to achieve CMMI 

Level 2 for Software Engineering. On the 

back of this success, they are now driving 

forward to achieve CMMI Level 3 for 

Software Engineering and Level 2 for 

Systems Engineering. The SCAMPIs 

(SCAMPI is the Standard CMMI Appraisal 

Method for Process Improvement) were 

held in December 2003 at the Harlowbased 

facility and the Software Center in 

Northern Ireland which had achieved CMM 

Level 3 the previous year. 

CMMI is a new concept in the UK and 

RSL’s customers are becoming very interested 

in it as a process improvement model. 

Both civil and defense customers are looking 

to use CMMI within their own organizations 

to improve their program management 

capabilities and processes. CMMI 

does not yet appear as a requirement for 

• Process Support Team (PST) 

• Robust metrics gathering, arranging 

and presentation capability 

• Integration of the Raytheon Six 

SigmaTM process with the Level 4 and 

5 process change management 

requirements of the CMM and CMMI. 

The cultural change to embracing the 

process has been wide spread across all 

SWEC and SEC projects. The use of the PAL 

has been substantial. Tracking books for 

managing the programs have become 

more automated, useful and consistent 

across all projects. The integration of 

process improvement activities with R6σ 

principles has become an undertone in 

everything they do. But how does the 

achievement of CMM/CMMI high maturity 

bids in the UK, although it is believed this 

will not be so for much longer. RSL has 

recently briefed the UK Ministry of Defense 

(MoD) and the UK National Air Traffic 

Services on their CMMI and process 

improvement activities. 

With RSL gaining the first CMMI ratings in 

the UK, Raytheon’s considerable wealth of 

experience in CMMI and process improvement 

has enabled the company to move a 

notch ahead of its competitors and get 

ahead of the game. 

RSL did not have a strong history of 

process improvement, so Raytheon’s pool 

of knowledge and process material has 

been invaluable. Like all of the Raytheon 

businesses, RSL’s process architecture is 

built upon the implementation of IPDS. The 

challenge has been selecting and translating 

the best practice into a model appropriate 

to RSL’s cultural and business needs. 

RSL has many small projects, as well as a 

few larger prime contract programs. requir- 

help their bottom line? By improving accuracy 

in their bidding process because they 

know exactly how much a project is going 

to cost to implement. They plan and monitor 

their programs in much more detail. 

They anticipate potential problems and can 

avoid major impacts to programs. They 

identify risks and opportunities and develop 

plans to mitigate or capture them as part 

of the program. The impact of CMM/CMMI 

is demonstrated in the processes that are 

applied to provide the engineering team 

control over so many variables involved in 

major programs and the organizational lessons 

learned that are fed back into the 

process to constantly improve program execution. 

These are the benefits of an organization 

achieving high maturity. • 

Alan C. Jost 

Alan_C_Jost@raytheon.com 

ing a flexible and light weight process 

architecture. The company recognized the 

importance of building on existing best 

practices rather than starting from scratch. 

Dr. Brooke Hoskins, director of Enterprise 

Process Improvement in RSL, says that 

“everyone worked really hard last year 

to make the Level 2 SCAMPIs a success 

and we’re asking them to do the same 

again this year. We have really strong 

backing from the RSL Leadership Team — 

that helps.” 

R6σ has been an integral part of the CMMI 

program in RSL, with two dedicated 

experts on the team and Process Action 

Teams being run as R6σ specialist projects. 

RSL has an integrated process and infrastructure 

improvement program that brings 

together CMMI, IPDS and R6σ. Bringing all 

of these improvement activities together 

provides opportunities to exploit synergies 

and makes it easier to manage the impact 

on the business. • 


DESIGN FOR SIX SIGMA - 

IN SPACE AND AIRBORNE SYSTEMS 

2004 has been a year of change for 

Space and Airborne Systems (SAS). The 

SAS Design For Six Sigma (DFSS) vision, 

using mature DFSS processes to conceive 

and deliver robust, cost-effective designs, is 

engaging engineering design from PCAT 

deployment to program planning. SAS has 

assimilated the benefits of DFSS and made 

it a key aspect of successful engineering 

development. SAS will continue to infuse 

DFSS processes into their development in 

order to stay competitive and achieve 

planned business growth. 

Several key events occurred this year that 

helped the SAS Engineering community 

accelerate into a DFSS mindset. One way to 

look at change is through the following 

formula for organizational change: 

D + V x L > R 

D = Dissatisfaction with how things are 

V = Vision of what is possible 

L = Leadership needed for success 

R = Resistance to change 

SAS Engineering leadership concentrated on 

the left side (D, V & L) of the formula to 

overcome the resistance to change (R). 

Communication and training of the Leadership 

team began early in the year and concluded 

with commitments to DFSS activities. 

“Socialization” Change Management 

The Dictionary of the Social Sciences 

defines socialization as “…the process 

through which individuals internalize the 

values, beliefs and norms of a society and 

learn to function as its members.” In practice, 

socialization involves capturing knowledge 

through physical proximity. The process 

of acquiring knowledge is largely supported 

through direct interaction with people. 

Ongoing SAS socialization activities include 

one-on-one discussions, program IPT planning, 

community-of-practice dialogue, tool 

application, team dialogue, training, leadership 

reviews, or any interaction of the individual 

with the group. These interactions 

are conducted with the primary purpose to 

communicate DFSS purpose, definitions 

and expectations. 


Vision Defined 

The SAS Engineering Leadership, in 2003, 

took the key tenets of the corporate message 

for DFSS and history for SAS programs 

to create the SAS version of the DFSS problem 

statement, vision and definition. 

DFSS Problem Statement – Product variation 

is not managed during concept development, 

initial product design, and application 

of the product by our customers, resulting in 

unpredictable program performance. 

DFSS Vision – Raytheon uses mature DFSS 

processes to conceive and deliver robust, 

cost-effective designs. DFSS is the way we 

do design and our customers are delighted 

with our program execution for product 

development. 

SAS DFSS Definition – DFSS is the use of 

statistics and specific six sigma tools 

throughout all of the phases of Product 

Development (Raytheon’s IPDP) to provide 

measures that improve our ability to predict 

product cost and product performance. This 

is tied to Customer Focused Marketing in 

that our ability to perform as predicted will 

help to make our customer successful. 

Engineering Hours 

Development 

Desired 

Typical 

Figure 1. The DFSS Opportunity 

Dissatisfaction Perspective 

In SAS, program performance during EMD 

Integration and Test, the associated followon 

LRIP, and Production has an opportunity 

(see Figure 1) to be more predictable 

and with this predictable performance, we 

I&T Production 

Months 

can continue our efforts to be the first 

choice of our customers. Several SAS programs 

have incurred obstacles to achieving 

original cost and schedule plans in production. 

The smooth transition from development 

to production is critical for program 

cost and schedule performance. DFSS and 

program performance go hand in hand, 

which is demonstrated by the obstacles 

identified on programs. These difficulties 

typically have some contribution from poor 

design margins. Poor design margins directly 

correlate to manufacturing yields and the 

associated product cost. DFSS analyses can 

identify the design margin and if deemed 

marginal, the analyses offer the mechanism 

to make the trade with many aspects of 

the design. 

The following examples are just a few of 

the DFSS accomplishments for SAS in 2004. 

DFSS Planning – All SAS development 

programs are being assessed for DFSS 

Planning at the Start up Gate 5. Planning 

could include affordability efforts such as 

Cost as an Independent Variable (CAIV) or 

Design to Cost (DTC). 

Potential Savings: Non-Recurring Costs 

Potential Savings: Recurring Costs 

Systems Engineering – The Systems 

Engineering leadership has been proactive 

to incorporate DFSS requirement elements 

(Performance) into the Systems portion of 

product development. Understanding our 

customer needs and their priorities on key 

requirements is critical to a program. 

Systems have piloted Quality Function

Deployment (QFD) to work with the customer 

and the IPTs for clearly identifying 

the importance and criticality of system 

requirements. QFDs have been conducted 

on several development programs with 

good results. The outcome of the QFDs is 

now being used to provide focus for analysis 

and trades to achieve the best value for 

the customer. 

Process Capability Analysis Toolset 

(PCAT) usage – Hardware Engineering 

Center Managers made a commitment to 

deploy PCAT for all design opportunities in 

2004. Over 180 SAS engineers were trained 

in PCAT and Producibility in the last eight 

months. There have been 951 PCAT analyses 

performed, which is more than the last 

four years combined. IPTs are learning how 

to apply the tool as well as interpret results 

to reduce cost and defect drivers. 

Mechanical Tolerance Analysis – 

Statistical techniques for mechanical tolerance 

were applied to an electro-optical sensor 

hardening program (see Figure 2). For 

this analysis, Raytheon manufacturing information 

was used to calculate the location 

variation of optical elements and assem- 

Raytheon’s 

DD(X) team receives 

SPC Excellence Award 

At a reception at the Tower Club 

in Vienna, Va. this past June, 

Raytheon was honored as one of 

the top-performing systems and software 

companies and received an SPC Excellence 

Award from the Software Productivity 

Consortium. The SPC Excellence Awards 

honor outstanding achievements in systems 

and software business performance. 

Of the three awards bestowed that 

evening, Raytheon received the SPC 

Program Excellence Award for our DD(X) 

Program. Raytheon was recognized for its 

innovative approach to integrating a 

Figure 2. Pro-E shaded model for MTS “hardened” 

Imager Assembly 

blies, such as lenses, mirrors and lens cells. 

Using this information, the engineer injects 

realistic variation into the Code V optical 

analysis to predict the variation of the system 

optical performance. With this data, 

design optimization is accomplished by balancing 

the manufacturing capabilities and 

optical performance requirements. 

The changes incorporated for mechanical 

tolerances improved the ability to meet 

variety of transformational electronic 

systems and information technologies in 

the U.S. Navy’s next-generation surface 

combat ship: the DD(X). 

“We are proud to honor these companies 

for their innovative approaches to building 

our nation’s most complex and vital 

systems,” said Dr. Jim Kane, SPC president 

and CEO. “Each has demonstrated exemplary 

leadership in maximizing the business 

performance of their software and 

systems development programs, in 

service to the federal sector and the 

nation at large.” 

optical prescriptions on nine of the 55 

opto-mechanical interfaces from a range of 

3.1–3.8 sigma to 4.1–5.9 sigma. These 

changes allowed higher yield part tolerances 

(i.e. lower cost) and achieved the 

proper alignment of all optical components 

at the assembly/system level. 

Change is not a simple procedure; it is a 

continuous communication (socialization) to 

ensure the target community is absorbing 

knowledge through interaction between 

individuals and real experiences. This learning 

is enhancing our design capability 

through experience which occurs over time 

and in ‘real life’ contexts, not in classrooms 

or training sessions. In the case of SAS, it is 

specifically the DFSS knowledge, DFSS 

application and associated benefit of the 

application. SAS is moving toward the 

vision of using mature DFSS processes to 

conceive and deliver robust, cost-effective 

designs. It is just the beginning of DFSS 

deployment and understanding, but with 

continued successes and focus, a DFSS 

Engineering culture will emerge to ensure 

our competitive advantage. • 

Tim Fitzgerald 

tfk@raytheon.com 

SPC President and CEO Dr. Jim Kane (second 

from right) with SPC Excellence Award recipients 

(l to r): Ron Paulson, Lockheed Martin; 

Ed Geisler and Bob Martin, Raytheon DD(X) 

Program, Tom Petit, SI International; Dr. 

Kane; and Brian Wells, Raytheon DD(X) 

Program. 

The award was presented by Mike Grady, 

vice president of Technology, Engineering 

and Quality, Northrop Grumman and 

leader of the National DD(X) Team, to 

Raytheon Company’s Bob Martin, DD(X) 

director of Software; Ed Geisler, DD(X) 

deputy program manager and technical 

director; and Brian Wells, DD(X) director 

of Systems Engineering. 


DesignCamp 

Inspires Kids to 

Create with 

Confidence 

Raytheon is proud to support 

this popular UMass Lowell 

program that excites kids about 

science and technology. 

An eighth-grade girl designs her dream 

home with lots of closet space and a sunsoaked 

courtyard. In the next room, a sixthgrade 

boy builds switches and emergency 

lights for an ad-hoc shelter he’s building for 

his imagined deserted isle. These aren’t just 

fun summertime fantasies; these students 

are learning about science and technology...and 

loving it! 

At the annual DesignCamp program at the 

University of Massachusetts, Lowell — 

sponsored in part by Raytheon — a diverse 

mix of students from fifth- through tenth 

grade explore their passions for science and 

technology. Some of these students hadn’t 

even thought about this discipline before. 

“My dad is an engineer,” says Michelle, a 

seventh-grader from Billerica, Mass. “I didn’t 

know anything about engineering, but 

this is a lot of fun!” 

In 12 focused one-week workshops held 

over four sessions, students like Michelle 

tackle everything from Shipwreck 

Electronics and Mechanical Gizmos to Flight 

School and Animatronics. Eighth graders 

may find themselves soldering parts on PVC 

submarines, while ninth and tenth graders 

are developing gumball machines or a claw 

machine designed to grab a toy out of a 

bin. At the end of each session, students 

celebrate by proudly showing off their 

designs to parents and a gathering of some 

500 people. 

These popular activities entice more than 50 

percent of the students to return year after 

year. When they’re “too old” to participate 


in the class as students, they often become 

interns and assistant teachers, inspiring the 

younger set to create gadgets, explore how 

things work and discover their talents. 

“The challenge is keeping students 

engaged after they’ve maxed out of the 

program,” says Jean Scire, Raytheon’s communications 

manager for Engineering, 

Technology, Manufacturing and Quality. 

“These young people are the future engineers 

of Raytheon and the technology industry,” 

she adds. “We have to promote technical 

literacy and keep them wanting more.” 

DesignCamp offers a hands-on experience 

that allows kids to learn about science and 

technology by engaging them in real challenges 

— design, invention, experimentation. 

Between creating light switches, 

robots and sea mobiles, students get tours 

of UMass Lowell’s engineering labs where 

they might see Frisbees being made, baseball 

bats being tested by a robotic arm or 

even how to control a computer with one’s 

mind. Inspiring images at any age, for sure. 

“It’s great watching kids solve problems,” 

says Diane Kinney, a sixth-grade Island 

Ecology teacher from Sharon, Mass. “They 

take ownership of their projects and 

choose their own design, and I just help 

facilitate that.” 

Students leave DesignCamp excited and 

confident. They’ve discovered new technologies 

and are instilled with imagination 

and initiative to continue their new 

“hobby” at home over the school year. As 

added incentive to further their interests, 

students are allowed to keep the toolkits 

they used in their workshops — tool boxes 

filled with items sometimes totaling more 

than 100 tools. 

“That’s great for summer camp,” you may 

be thinking, but DesignCamp isn’t limited 

to a few weeks. Often, teachers work with 

philanthropic initiatives to show students 

what their interest in engineering and education 

can accomplish. DesignCamp leaders 

are also developing programs for middle 

and high-school programs focused on service-based 

projects such as Habitat for 

Humanity. “When these kids graduate, they 

have a sense of purpose, not just an engineering 

degree,” says Doug Prime, 

DesignCamp’s director. 

More than 400 children took part this year. 

Next year, a new Forensic Sciences workshop 

will be added. I’m sure the students 

will knock ‘em dead. 

For more information, visit DesignCamp at 

www.designcamp.org, or call 978-934- 

4690. See DesignCamp photo on cover.

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 United States 

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 

mid-March through June 2004. 

MICHAEL JOSEPH DELCHECCOLO 

JOHN M. FIRDA 

MARK E. RUSSELL 

6675094B2 Path prediction system and method 

BRIAN M. PIERCE 

CLIFTON QUAN 

6674340B2 RF MEMS switch loop 180° phase bit 

radiator circuit 

EUGENE R. PERESSINI 

6690695B2 Laser with gain medium configured to 

provide and integrated optical pump cavity 

LLOYD LINDER 

6693573B1 Mixed technology MEMS/BiCMOS LC 

bandpass sigma-delta for direct RF sampling 

ERIC N. BOE 

HOYOUNG C. CHOE 

ROBERT E. SHUMAN 

ADAM C. VON 

RICHARD D. YOUNG 

6693589B2 Digital beam stabilization techniques for 

wide-bandwidth electronically scanned antennas 

YUCHOI FRANCIS LOK 

6677886B1 Weather and airborne clutter suppression 

using a cluster shape classifier 


DELBERT LIPPERT 


H. BARTELD VAN REES 

KEITH WANSLEY 

WALTER GORDON WOODINGTON 

6677889B2 Auto-docking system 


JOSEPH S. PLEVA 




6683557B2 Technique for changing a range gate 

and radar for coverage 

MICHELLE K. ESTAPHAN 

FREDERICK J. FRODYMA 

GUY T. RAILEY 

DANIEL M. VICCIONE 

6683819B1 Sonar array system 

KRISHNA K. AGARWAL 

GUILLERMO V. ANDREWS 

PAUL E. DOUCETTE 

GARY A. FRAZIER 

JAMES R. TOPLICAR 

6693590B1 Method and apparatus for a digital 

phased array antenna 

DAVID D. CROUCH 

ALAN A. RATTRAY 

6693605B1 Variable quasioptical wave plate system 

and methods of making and using 

CHUNGTE W. CHEN 

JOHN E. GUNTHER 

RONALD G. HEGG 

WILLIAM B. KING 

RICHARD W. NICHOLS 

6693749B2 Low-observability, wide-field-of-view, 

situation awareness viewing device 

ROBIN A. REEDER 

6693922B1 Reeder rod 

RICHARD DRYER 

6695252B1 Deployable fin projectile with outflow device 

LARRY W. DAYHUFF 

GEORGE OLLOS 

6696999B2 Sigma delta modulator 

MICHAEL T. BRODSKY 

6697811B2 Method and system for information management 

and distribution 

JOHN B. ALLEN 

6686997B1 Apparatus and a method for pulse detection 

and characterization 

MICHAEL F. HAMPTON 

ROY P. MCMAHON 

6688209B1 Multi-configuration munition rack 

JOHN C. EHMKE 

SUSAN M. ESHELMAN 

CHARLES L. GOLDSMITH 

ZHIMIN J. YAO 

6700172B2 Method and apparatus for switching 

high frequency signals 

LACY G. COOK 

6700699B1 Dual color anti-reflection coating 

PYONG K. PARK 

6703982B2 Conformal two dimensional electronic 

scan antenna with butler matrix and lens ESA 

EDWARD BENNEYWORTH 

JOHN BOWRON 

ALEXANDRE LIFCHITS 

CONRAD STENTON 

6704145B1 Air-gap optical structure having the air 

gap defined by a layered spacer structure 

TERRY A. DORSCHNER 

LAWRENCE J. FRIEDMAN 

DOUGLAS S. HOBBS 

L. Q. LAMBERT, JR. 

6704474B1 Optical beam steering system 

PAUL K. MANHART 

6705737B1 Reflective optical apparatus for interconverting 

between a point of light and a line of light 

BERINDER BRAR 

6706574B2 Field effect transistor and method for 

making the same 






6707414B2 Docking information system for boats 

DOUGLAS RICHARD BAKER 

STEVEN EDWARD HUETTNER 

STEVEN CRAIG REIN 

6707417B2 Accurate range calibration architecture 


JAMES T. HANSON 

JOSEPH S. PLEVA 




6707419B2 Radar transmitter circuitry and techniques 

DAVID A. ANSLEY 

ROBERT W. BYREN 


6707603B2 Apparatus and method to distort an optical 

beam to avoid ionization at an intermediate focus 


JOHN MICHAEL FIRDA 





6708100B2 Safe distance algorithm for adaptive 

cruise control 

KENNETH ALAN ESSENWANGER 

6674380B1 Digital-phase to digital amplitude translator 

with first bit off priority coded output for input to unit 

weighed digital to analog converter 

WILLIAM M. MURPHY, JR. 

6674390B1 Shipboard point defense system 

and elements therefor 

RUSSELL D. GRANNEMAN 

6677588B1 Detector assembly having reduced 

stray light ghosting sensitivity 

ROBERT T. FRANKOT 

6677885B1 Method for mitigating atmospheric 

propagation error in multiple pass interferometric 

synthetic aperture radar 

STAN W. LIVINGSTON 

6677897B2 Solid state transmitter circuit 

JAR J. LEE 

BRIAN M. PIERCE 

CLIFTON QUAN 

6677899B1 Low cost 2-D electronically scanned array 

with compact CTS feed and MEMS phase shifters 

TAHIR HUSSAIN 

MARY C. MONTES 

6680236B2 Ion-implantation and shallow etching 

to produce effective edge termination in high-voltage 

heterojunction bipolar transistors 

ALEXANDER A. BETIN 

ROBERT W. BYREN 

WILLIAM S. GRIFFIN 

6690696B2 Laser cooling apparatus and method 

GERALD A. LUNDE 

6692681B1 Method and apparatus for manufacturing 

composite structures 

ROLAND W. GOOCH 

WILLIAM L. MCCARDEL 

BOBBI A. RITCHEY 

THOMAS R. SCHIMERT 

6690014B1 Microbolometer and method for forming 


International Patents Issued to Raytheon 

Congratulations to Raytheon technologists 

from all over the world. Beginning with 

this issue of technology today, we would 

like to acknowledge international patents 

issued to the company. 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 

THOMAS V. SIKINA 

2001295015 Mechanically stearable array antenna 

(duplex victs-2 antenna) 

JAMES G. SMALL 

767479 Optical magnetron for high efficiency production 

of optical radiation, and 1/2 lambda induced pimode 

operation 

ROBERT S. BECKER 

KELLY D. MCHENRY 

FREDERICK J. WAGENER 

2001229156 Projectile for the destruction of large 

explosive targets 

DAN VARON 

769965 Air traffic control system 

FRANK L. SHACKLEE 

768323 Ammunition shipping and storage 

container and method 

KENNETH W. BROWN 

THOMAS A. DRAKE 

2001245334 Common aperture reflector antenna 

with improved feed design 

AUSTRALIA/BELGIUM/DENMARK/FRANCE/ 

FINLAND/GREAT BRITIAN/ITALY/ 

NETHERLANDS/NORWAY/SPAIN/SWEDEN/ 

SWITZERLAND 

STEVEN BLACKETER 

RICHARD T. HENNEGAN 

RICHARD P. MINTZLAFF 

JEFFREY A. PAUL 

RAYMOND SANTOS JR 

CHAIM WARZMAN 

ROY P. WIEN 

0858694 Compact microwave terrestial radio 

utilizing monolithic microwave integrated circuits 


BELGIUM/DENMARK/FRANCE/GERMANY/ 

GREAT BRITIAN/GREECE/ITALY/SPAIN/ 

SWITZERLAND 

SAMUEL S. BLACKMAN 

ROBERT J. DEMPSTER 

THOMAS S. NICHOLS 

0876622 Group tracking 

CANADA 

JAMES H. LOUGHEED 

DANIEL R. SHENEY 

MARK WARDELL 

2110307 Weapon aiming system 

LARRY W. BROWN 

JAMES A. LEAL 

ARTHUR J. MCGINNIS 

SRINI RAGHAVAN 

2263979 Electrostatic powder coating of electrically 

non-conducting substrates 

STEPHEN C. OXFORD 

2264265 Weapon system employing a transponder 

bomb and guidance method thereof 

ARTHUR J. SCHNEIDER 

JAMES G. SMALL 

2271766 Impulse radar guidance apparatus and 

method for use with guided projectiles (as amended) 

JOSEPH F. JENSEN 

HOWARD S. NUSSBAUM 

WILLIAM P. POSEY 

GOPAL RAGHAVAN 

2277756 Flexible and programmable delta-sigma 

analog signal converter 

ROBERT S. ROEDER 

MATTHEW C. SMITH 

2274473 Microwave cold/warm noise source 

THOMAS H. BOOTES 

MEL CASTILLO 

2279325 Improved missile warhead design 

BRADLEY A. ROSS 

ROBERT M. THOMPSON JR 

2292465 Cryogenic cooler with mechanically-flexible 

thermal interface 

KENNY J. HANZLICK 

STEPHEN W. LARIMORE 

2276784 Attachment bolt locking assembly 

WILLIAM H. MOSLEY JR 

DONALD R. STEPHENS 

2218806 Phaselock threshold correction 

DENMARK 

AVINOAM S. ZERKOWITZ 

175059 Digital range correlator 

FRANCE/ITALY 

KIRK K. KOHNEN 

ERIC K. SLATER 

970228 High dynamic range digital fluxgate 

magnetometer 

FRANCE/GREAT BRITIAN/GREECE/ 

IRELAND/ITALY 

RODERICK G. BERGSTEDT 

LEE A. MCMILLAN 

ROBERT D. STREETER 

1254474 Microelectromechanical micro-relay with 

liquid metal contacts 

FRANCE/GERMANY/GREAT BRITIAN 

MAURICE J. HALMOS 

ROBERT D. STULTZ 

1281219 Single laser transmitter for q-switched and 

mode-locked vibration operation 

LACY G. COOK 

0816891 Integrated panoramic and high resolution 

sensor optics 

DANIEL W. BRUNTON 

STEPHEN M. JENSEN 

JAMES R. MYERS 

NICHOLAS B. SACCKETTI 

DAVID R. SMITH 

SCOTT W. SPARROLD 

LAWRENCE A. WESTHOVEN JR 

0843185 Blur film for infrared optical applications 

WILLIAM F. DIXON 

ROBERT J. KYLE 

RONALD L. MEYER 

0823747 Rf phase and/or amplitude control device 

WILLIAM T. JENNINGS 

ALBERT P. PAYTON 

1212928 Heat conducting device for a circuit board 

CHET L. RICHARDS 

11660001 Rotary coupler for fluid conduits 

TZENG S. CHEN 

STEVEN C. MATTHEWS 

0998694 High beam quality optical parametric 

oscillator 

JOHN S ANDERSON 

GEORGE F. BAKER 


C. T. HASTINGS JR 

1290483 Ultra-wide field of view concentric scanning 

sensor system with a piece-wise focal plane array 

ANEES AHMAD 

THOMAS D. ARNDT 

1135662 Line-of-sight pointing mechanisms 

for sensors 

CARL S. KIRKCONNELL 

STEPHEN C. NEVILLE 

KENNETH D. PRICE 

1045212 Single-fluid stirling/pulse tube hybrid 

expander 

LUAN B. DO 

MARK A. GOHLKE 

RICHARD D. TINKLER 

0992022 System and method for local area image 

processing

FRANCE/GERMANY/GREAT BRITIAN/ISRAEL 

WILLIAM J. DEGNAN III 

JAMES R. MYERS 

DAVID R. SMITH 

LAWRENCE A. WESTHOVEN JR 

0857308 Infrared-transparent structure including 

an adherent, infrared-transparent polymer layer 

FRANCE/GERMANY/GREAT BRITIAN/ITALY 

JEFFREY J. STENSTROM 

0816889 Mount for optical components 

FRANCE/GERMANY/GREAT BRITIAN/ 

SWITZERLAND 

DOUGLAS A. ANDERSON 

CLARENCE E. DICKSON 

GARY J. MLADJAN 

0785406 Method and device for fire control of 

a high apogee trajectory weapony 

GERMANY 

JAR J. LEE 

GEORGE I. TSUDA 

4243057 Fiber optic corporate power divider/ 

combiner and method 

GREAT BRITIAN 


ERIC K. SLATER 

970228 High dynamic range digital fluxgate 

magnetometer 

GERALD L. FUDGE 

MICHAEL R. LEGAKO 

STEWART C. ODELL 

CLINT D. SCHREINER 

2369507 Method and system for down-converting 

a signal 

HONG KONG 

SIDNEY C. CHAO 

EDNA M. PURER 

CARL W. TOWNSEND 

HK 1010898 Liquid carbon dioxide cleaning system 

employing a static dissipating fluid 

INDIA 

DAVID A. ANSLEY 

ASHOK A. SISODIA 

190,174 Fiber optic ribbon subminiature display 

for head/helmet mounted display 

ISRAEL 

RONALD L. BOWDEN 

FINTON L. GIVENS 

153341 Method for autonomous determination 

of tie points in imagery 

JOSEPH M. BRACELAND 

JEFFREY W. DIEHL 

MARY L. GLAZE 

135252 Mobile biometric identification system 

(distributed mobile biometric indentification system 

with a centralized server and mobile workstations) 

JOSEPH M. BRACELAND 

MARY L. GLAZE 

135251 Stand-alone biometric identification 

system) 

KENNY J. HANZLICK 

STEPHEN W. LARIMORE 

130739 Attachment bolt locking assembly 

ROBERT T. FRANKOT 

134836 Averaging-area-constrained adaptive 

interferometric filter that optimizes combined coherent 

and noncoherent averaging 

ISRAEL/NORWAY 

ROBERT A. KUEHN 

CHARLES E. NOURRCIER 

118876 Laser range finder receiver 

JAPAN 

TERRY A. DORSCHNER 

DANIEL P. RESLER 

3512428 Optical beam sub array steered 

RICHARD W. BURRIER 

LISA F. KUEGLER 

STEVEN G. LABITT 

3510279 Analog to digital converter calibration 

system and method of operation 

EDWARD B. LIGUORI 

PETER A. NAGY 

WAYNE L. SUNNE 

3540747 Vehicle having a ceramic radome affixed 

thereto by a complaint metallic "t"-flexure element 

GERALD A. COX 

ALEC EKMEKJI 

PATRICK J. FITZGERALD 

SHAHROKH HASHEMI-YEGANEH 

DOUGLAS O. KLEBE 

WILLIAM W. MILROY 

KENNETH NASH 

EDWARD L. ROBERTSON 

3559243 A method of fabricating a true-time-delay, 

continuous transverse stub array antenna 

CARL G. FOSTER 

3540776 Passive doppler fuze 

ERWIN M. DE SA 

CLYDE R. HANSON 

3545709 Highly accurate long range optically-aided 

inertially guided type missile 

JEFFREY M. BILLE 

GARY L. CRANDALL 

DOUGLAS O. KLEBE 

LAN TSO 

ALLEN WANG 

3548122 Flared notch radiator assembly and antenna 

GREGORY J. PIETRANGELO 


MARK A. TOBIN 

3560618 Frequency multiplier 

NORWAY 

MICHAEL L. BRONSON 

JAMES W. ELLERT 

316554 Low latency update of graphic objects in an 

air traffic control display 

PATRICK M. KILGORE 

316849 Adaptive non-uniformity compensation algorithm 

SINGAPORE 

JAMES A. HENDERSON 

RONALD P. HUGHES 

JOSEPH E. TEPERA 

0085991 Mid-body obturator for a gun-launched 

projectile 

SOUTH KOREA 

MICHAEL B. SCHOBER 

DONALD M. TARGOFF 

040704 System and method for simultaneous data 

link with multipurpose radar operations 

DAVE S. DOUGLAS 

WILLIAM S. JOHNSTON 

433965 Integrated filter and detection process 

HAROLD C. GILBERT 


MICHAEL RAKIJAS 

ANTHONY SAGLEMBENI 

438128 Magnetic object tracking based on direct 

observation of magnetic sensor measurements 

THOMAS K. DOUGHERTY 

JOHN J. DRAB 

435177 Environmentally benign group ii and group iv 

or v spin-on precursor materialss 

TAIWAN 

LARRY W. BROWN 

JAMES A. LEAL 

ARTHUR J. MCGINNIS 

SRINI RAGHAVAN 

193339 Electrostatic powder coating of electrically 

non-conducting substrates 

FERNANDO. BELTRAN 

JOHN J. HANLIN 

RICHARD H. HOLDEN 

186954 Radio frequency antenna feed structures having 

a coaxial waveguide and asymmetric septum 

SIDNEY C. CHAO 

EDNA M. PURER 

NELSON W. SORBO 

191245 Gas jet removal of particulated soil 

from fabric 

TURKEY 

GARY SALVAIL 

I-PING YU 

19990039 Highly isolated multiple frequency band 

antenna 

ROBERT S. BECKER 

KELLY D. MC HENRY 

FREDERICK J. WAGENER 

200202270 Projectile for the destruction of large 

explosive targets 

B.V.K. VIJAYA KUMAR 

ABHIJIT MAHALANOBIS 

199802519 Polynomial filters for higher order 

correlation and multi-input information fusion 

DOUGLAS M. BEARD 

BLAKE G. CROWTHER 

DANIEL C. HARRISON 

DEAN B. MCKENNEY 

JAMES P. MILLS 

SCOTT W. SPARROLD 

199901220 Sensor system with dynamic 

optical corrector 


Future Events 

Raytheon’s 4th Annual 

Mechanical and Materials 

Engineering Symposium 

CALL FOR REGISTRATION – 

October 19–21, 2004 

Renaissance Dallas-Richardson Hotel 

Richardson, Texas 

The symposium, sponsored by the 

Mechanical Engineering and Technology 

Council, is focused on our technical performance 

to build strong relationships with 

our internal customers, external customers 

and peers, and to provide solutions to technical 

and logistic challenges we face. 

For more information or to register visit 

http://home.ray.com/rayeng/technetworks/ 

tab6/mmtn2004/index.html 

INTRODUCING 

New Interactive Online Edition 

of technology today 

Earlier this year, more than 50 percent of 

Raytheon engineers surveyed requested an 

online edition of technology today. In 

response to that request, we have completed 

the new edition — available at 

http://www.ray.com/rayeng — which we 

hope will prove to be a resource you can 

use from day to day. 

Our online version will include: 

• Links within articles to provide you 

with additional information 

• Link to the pdf of the current issue in 

addition to the archive of past issues 

• Changes in navigation capability, 

including “top of page,” “back” and 

“home” buttons 

• Printer-friendly pages 

• Authors’ names and emails so you 

can utilize their expertise 

Raytheon’s 2004 

Mission Assurance and 

Quality Forum 

CALL FOR REGISTRATION – 

October 25–27, 2004 

Embassy Suites at Outdoor World 

Dallas, Texas 

The 2004 Mission Assurance/Quality Forum 

is sponsored by the Raytheon Quality 

Council. Quality, Operations, Supply Chain, 

Engineering, IT and all professionals will 

come together to collaborate on Mission 

Assurance and Performance Excellence 

initiatives. 


http://home.ray.com/rayeng/quality/ 

forum2004.html 

Future improvements will include: 

• Improved search capabilities, including 

archive search 

• Subscription preferences 

• Focused articles on program 

successes, career development paths 

and more 

• People pages highlighting professional 

accomplishments 

We are always evolving and trying to make 

technology today a valuable resource for 

you. Whenever you have an idea, comment 

or question, just go to the Interact section 

of the online edition, or email us at techtodayeditor@raytheon.com. 

Your involvement 

helps us shape the online publication of 

our increasingly popular magazine. 

Raytheon’s Joint Systems, 

Software and Processing 

Systems Engineering 

Symposium 

CALL FOR PAPERS – 

April 5–7, 2005 

Sheraton Ferncroft 

Danvers, Massachusetts 

The Joint Raytheon Systems, Software, & 

Processing Systems Engineering Symposium, 

sponsored by the Raytheon Systems, 

Software and Processing Systems 

Engineering Technology Networks and the 

Raytheon Systems, Software and Digital 

Electronics Engineering Councils, will focus 

on increased collaboration on current developments, 

capabilities and future directions 

between the Systems, Software, & 

Processing Systems Engineering disciplines. 


http://home.ray.com/rayeng/technetworks/ 

tab6/seswps2005/call.html 

Copyright © 2004 Raytheon Company. All rights reserved.

2004 Issue 3 - Raytheon

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?