Nearly all Air Force electronics are tested and repaired using automatic test systems, most of which were designed and built for specific aging weapon systems and are beset by increasing hardware and software obsolescence. The Air Force is planning to modernize these capabilities by rehosting the testing on modern, common families of test equipment. This report focuses on the economic aspect of the rehosting decision.

Methodology for Constructing a Modernization Roadmap for Air Force Automatic Test Systems

Lionel A. Galway, Rachel Rue, James M. Masters, Ben D. Van Roo, Manuel J. Carrillo, Amy L. Maletic, John G. Drew

ResearchPublished May 24, 2012

Nearly all Air Force electronics are tested and repaired using automatic test systems, each of which consists of a set of automated test equipment and a suite of software designed to test and facilitate repair of specific units. Most of these testers were designed and built for specific weapon systems, many of which are aging. These test systems are beset by increasing hardware and software obsolescence, which is compounded by the number and variety of legacy tester types. Moreover, current Department of Defense policy is to use families of common test systems. The Air Force is thus planning to modernize its component repair capabilities accordingly. This report focuses on the economic aspect of the rehosting decision, i.e., which component repairs should be rehosted to use resources most efficiently while maintaining repair capabilities. The authors developed a methodology for formulating rehosting decisions for each legacy tester for each associated unit under test. They found rewriting software to run on the new systems to be the major cost driver. In some situations, an incremental rehosting strategy may be justified. In other cases, an entire workload may need to be rehosted because so few testers of a particular type are available. Finally, the long-term benefits of modern, common testing equipment make a strong case for making common families be the foundation of automatic test system acquisition for future platforms.

Key Takeaways

The Major Rehosting Cost Driver Is Rewriting the Software for Each Unit Under Test to Run on Its New Test System

  • The current cost estimate is $300,000 to 1 million, depending on the level of complexity.
  • Good candidates for rehosting should thus have very high and increasing maintenance costs and obsolescence issues and should handle relatively few units.

In Some Situations, the Transition May Need to Be Incremental

  • Rehosting a small number of units may substantially reduce the total annual workload for a particular tester type (the idled systems may be used as spares or a source of compatible components).
  • The need for significant software modifications to support sustainment engineering for a legacy tester may provide an opportunity for transition. In such cases, the software costs are essentially sunk, and rehosting the units on a modern tester may well be cost-effective over its life cycle.

Recommendation

  • The long-term benefits of modernized and common testing equipment make a strong case for making common families be the foundation of ATS acquisition on future platforms. The methodology can be used to calculate a roadmap for rehosting the workloads for current platforms that will be phased out or reduced in the near term (10-20 years).

Topics

Document Details

  • Copyright: RAND Corporation
  • Availability: Web Only
  • Year: 2012
  • Pages: 72
  • Document Number: TR-1147-AF

Citation

Chicago Manual of Style

Galway, Lionel A., Rachel Rue, James M. Masters, Ben D. Van Roo, Manuel J. Carrillo, Amy L. Maletic, and John G. Drew, Methodology for Constructing a Modernization Roadmap for Air Force Automatic Test Systems. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2012. https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR1147.html.
BibTeX RIS

Research conducted by

The research described in this report was sponsored by the United States Air Force and conducted by RAND Project AIR FORCE.

This publication is part of the RAND technical report series. RAND technical reports, products of RAND from 2003 to 2011, presented research findings on a topic limited in scope or intended for a narrow audience; discussions of the methodology employed in research; literature reviews, survey instruments, modeling exercises, guidelines for practitioners and research professionals, and supporting documentation; and preliminary findings. All RAND technical reports were subject to rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.